An interesting observation – politicalbetting.com

Fishing said:

Leon said:

Jonathan said:

If a paradigm has shifted, it’s the fall of the free trade pro business conservative centre right replaced by the nationalist, protectionist “fuck business” populist right.

Yes, I think that's correct

Britain has enjoyed or endured spectacular levels of immigration in the last 10-20 years. We are constantly assured this contributes to growth. Yet, as @Sandpit shows, the reality is that GDP per capita has not grown at all even as our population has exploded by many millions, putting pressure on everything - from sewage systems to landscapes, from education to health. Meanwhile our cities crumble and we have very real and unpleasant social problems stemming from the migration

Now we are told "another 5 million must come in the next ten years". Why? What the fuck? We don't want any more. Polls show that voters - by almost 2 to 1 - would rather have LESS immigration EVEN IF IT COMES AT THE EXPENSE OF GROWTH

https://x.com/GideonSkinner/status/1884199390463799730/photo/1

No one buys the "growth" shit any more, and even if they do, they are past caring

I think that's true. There are exceptions for very highly motivated or wealthy individuals, but generally per capita growth does not generally come from opening the floodgates to unskilled or semi-skilled immigration - it comes from low taxes, low but efficient government spending and light but effective regulation.

In short the exact opposite of the route we've been following for more than twenty years.

Yes. And the public has finally woken up to this reality. Hence the paradigm shift

Mortimer said:

pigeon said:

Mortimer said:

pigeon said:

Leon said:

pigeon said:

numbertwelve said:

Are Labour in a good position in the polls? No. Are they “on course for re-election”? Far too early to say.

Yes what they have going for them is a divided opposition but they are at the mercy of what happens to that opposition. A long road to travel on that front before we start thinking of the next GE. Conversely, there’s still plenty of time for them to start improving.

At this stage it's hard to see past another Labour -led Government. Crudely put, the more likely a Trumpian breakthrough in poor people places looks, the greater the stampede towards Ed Davey in rich people places.

You can't assemble a right-wing majority in the Commons if you've got the large bulk of the city vote, Scotland and half of Southern England running away from you screaming.

An awful lot of southern England wants net zero immigration. As that is where the immigration pressures are highest, and where they will only worsen

People on here don’t seem to understand that the entire paradigm has shifted

There's a generalised sense that immigration is totally out of control, because it is, but it's not about to win the populist right an election because other considerations will come ahead of it. Rich people places don't, by and large, want cultural conservatism, and they don't want a fresh round of isolationism and angry arguments with the EU either. Nor does "coming here, taking all our jobs" type rhetoric wash in regions with low unemployment and skills shortages in key areas: research on immigration shows that opposition quickly softens as soon as you ask if people want more nurses letting in, for example. And whilst it is true that people, generally, loathe development - which is an inevitable consequence of too many other flipping people - NIMBY battles are fought locally. You're not going to vote for a change of Government to get rid of unwanted Barratt Boxes, you're just going to scream in the hope that they get dumped in the way of someone else's countryside view instead.

The next election, whenever it comes, will be decided based on 1. voters' wallets, followed by 2. public services, mainly health. If Labour is making tangible improvements in these areas by 2028, it wins easily. If things are still a complete mess, on the other hand, then what? Is either flavour of the Right going to be able to offer anything other than the same old tired formula of dismantling the state to fund tax giveaways, and blaming immigrants/Europe for stuff that goes wrong? There's precious little sign of it, and that approach won't win anything remotely close to the necessary number of seats.

If the centre right can tie reducing the state in to a reforming narrative, the election is theirs for the taking.

Most people I know voted for Starmer. They're furious already....!

As always, the word "if" does a lot of heavy lifting there. The Opposition has an heroic task on its hands convincing anybody that shrinking the size of the state and cutting taxes accordingly is consistent with voters being able to get a GP appointment when they need it or have their child educated in a school that isn't falling down around them. There are good reasons why the item that caused the most screaming in the budget was the WFA rather than the NI hike, even though the latter was the biggest mistake.

The country is rotting. Repairing and rebuilding it is going to cost a lot of money, and that can't all be magically put right without public sector investment, which means tax. The Right has no good response to this.

I'm not convinced by this argument. The response is that the process state is in fact the problem.

More and more frequently I hear those in the middle class deciding upon funding their own private healthcare, bemoaning the tax on private education etc.

The state's inability doesn't come from shortage of funds, but from a poverty of expectation, and what seems like a boundless desire to stifle innovation and progress with regulation and overcaution.

Innovation is important but will only get you so far. You can't stick a demented bed blocker languishing in a stuffed to the gunwales hospital in a virtual care home bed, you need an actual care home bed with actual staff. A lot of problems can only be solved with investment, pretending otherwise is wishful thinking.

Mortimer said:

pigeon said:

Mortimer said:

pigeon said:

Leon said:

pigeon said:

numbertwelve said:

Are Labour in a good position in the polls? No. Are they “on course for re-election”? Far too early to say.

Yes what they have going for them is a divided opposition but they are at the mercy of what happens to that opposition. A long road to travel on that front before we start thinking of the next GE. Conversely, there’s still plenty of time for them to start improving.

At this stage it's hard to see past another Labour -led Government. Crudely put, the more likely a Trumpian breakthrough in poor people places looks, the greater the stampede towards Ed Davey in rich people places.

You can't assemble a right-wing majority in the Commons if you've got the large bulk of the city vote, Scotland and half of Southern England running away from you screaming.

An awful lot of southern England wants net zero immigration. As that is where the immigration pressures are highest, and where they will only worsen

People on here don’t seem to understand that the entire paradigm has shifted

There's a generalised sense that immigration is totally out of control, because it is, but it's not about to win the populist right an election because other considerations will come ahead of it. Rich people places don't, by and large, want cultural conservatism, and they don't want a fresh round of isolationism and angry arguments with the EU either. Nor does "coming here, taking all our jobs" type rhetoric wash in regions with low unemployment and skills shortages in key areas: research on immigration shows that opposition quickly softens as soon as you ask if people want more nurses letting in, for example. And whilst it is true that people, generally, loathe development - which is an inevitable consequence of too many other flipping people - NIMBY battles are fought locally. You're not going to vote for a change of Government to get rid of unwanted Barratt Boxes, you're just going to scream in the hope that they get dumped in the way of someone else's countryside view instead.

The next election, whenever it comes, will be decided based on 1. voters' wallets, followed by 2. public services, mainly health. If Labour is making tangible improvements in these areas by 2028, it wins easily. If things are still a complete mess, on the other hand, then what? Is either flavour of the Right going to be able to offer anything other than the same old tired formula of dismantling the state to fund tax giveaways, and blaming immigrants/Europe for stuff that goes wrong? There's precious little sign of it, and that approach won't win anything remotely close to the necessary number of seats.

If the centre right can tie reducing the state in to a reforming narrative, the election is theirs for the taking.

Most people I know voted for Starmer. They're furious already....!

As always, the word "if" does a lot of heavy lifting there. The Opposition has an heroic task on its hands convincing anybody that shrinking the size of the state and cutting taxes accordingly is consistent with voters being able to get a GP appointment when they need it or have their child educated in a school that isn't falling down around them. There are good reasons why the item that caused the most screaming in the budget was the WFA rather than the NI hike, even though the latter was the biggest mistake.

The country is rotting. Repairing and rebuilding it is going to cost a lot of money, and that can't all be magically put right without public sector investment, which means tax. The Right has no good response to this.

I'm not convinced by this argument. The response is that the process state is in fact the problem.

More and more frequently I hear those in the middle class deciding upon funding their own private healthcare, bemoaning the tax on private education etc.

The state's inability doesn't come from shortage of funds, but from a poverty of expectation, and what seems like a boundless desire to stifle innovation and progress with regulation and overcaution.

I don’t think the government is short of revenue.

Sean_F said:

pigeon said:

numbertwelve said:

Are Labour in a good position in the polls? No. Are they “on course for re-election”? Far too early to say.

Yes what they have going for them is a divided opposition but they are at the mercy of what happens to that opposition. A long road to travel on that front before we start thinking of the next GE. Conversely, there’s still plenty of time for them to start improving.

At this stage it's hard to see past another Labour -led Government. Crudely put, the more likely a Trumpian breakthrough in poor people places looks, the greater the stampede towards Ed Davey in rich people places.

You can't assemble a right-wing majority in the Commons if you've got the large bulk of the city vote, Scotland and half of Southern England running away from you screaming.

That sounds a lot like “I don’t want it to happen, so it won’t happen”, which was the basis of much commentary on the US elections.

The fact that the Tories lost seats to the Lib Dem’s like Horsham and Chichester, which they have held for 100+ years suggests there is ever so slightly more to it.

Leon said:

Fishing said:

Leon said:

Jonathan said:

If a paradigm has shifted, it’s the fall of the free trade pro business conservative centre right replaced by the nationalist, protectionist “fuck business” populist right.

Yes, I think that's correct

Britain has enjoyed or endured spectacular levels of immigration in the last 10-20 years. We are constantly assured this contributes to growth. Yet, as @Sandpit shows, the reality is that GDP per capita has not grown at all even as our population has exploded by many millions, putting pressure on everything - from sewage systems to landscapes, from education to health. Meanwhile our cities crumble and we have very real and unpleasant social problems stemming from the migration

Now we are told "another 5 million must come in the next ten years". Why? What the fuck? We don't want any more. Polls show that voters - by almost 2 to 1 - would rather have LESS immigration EVEN IF IT COMES AT THE EXPENSE OF GROWTH

https://x.com/GideonSkinner/status/1884199390463799730/photo/1

No one buys the "growth" shit any more, and even if they do, they are past caring

I think that's true. There are exceptions for very highly motivated or wealthy individuals, but generally per capita growth does not generally come from opening the floodgates to unskilled or semi-skilled immigration - it comes from low taxes, low but efficient government spending and light but effective regulation.

In short the exact opposite of the route we've been following for more than twenty years.

Yes. And the public has finally woken up to this reality. Hence the paradigm shift

If the key to growth is more immigration, growth should have been stellar, over the past 20 years.

Jonathan said:

Sean_F said:

pigeon said:

numbertwelve said:

Are Labour in a good position in the polls? No. Are they “on course for re-election”? Far too early to say.

Yes what they have going for them is a divided opposition but they are at the mercy of what happens to that opposition. A long road to travel on that front before we start thinking of the next GE. Conversely, there’s still plenty of time for them to start improving.

At this stage it's hard to see past another Labour -led Government. Crudely put, the more likely a Trumpian breakthrough in poor people places looks, the greater the stampede towards Ed Davey in rich people places.

You can't assemble a right-wing majority in the Commons if you've got the large bulk of the city vote, Scotland and half of Southern England running away from you screaming.

That sounds a lot like “I don’t want it to happen, so it won’t happen”, which was the basis of much commentary on the US elections.

The fact that the Tories lost seats to the Lib Dem’s like Horsham and Chichester, which they have held for 100+ years suggests there is ever so slightly more to it.

The last government shafted everyone who was not a well off pensioner who favoured mass immigration. It’s a surprise they held 121 seats.

Jonathan said:

Sean_F said:

Jonathan said:

Sean_F said:

pigeon said:

numbertwelve said:

Are Labour in a good position in the polls? No. Are they “on course for re-election”? Far too early to say.

Yes what they have going for them is a divided opposition but they are at the mercy of what happens to that opposition. A long road to travel on that front before we start thinking of the next GE. Conversely, there’s still plenty of time for them to start improving.

At this stage it's hard to see past another Labour -led Government. Crudely put, the more likely a Trumpian breakthrough in poor people places looks, the greater the stampede towards Ed Davey in rich people places.

You can't assemble a right-wing majority in the Commons if you've got the large bulk of the city vote, Scotland and half of Southern England running away from you screaming.

That sounds a lot like “I don’t want it to happen, so it won’t happen”, which was the basis of much commentary on the US elections.

The fact that the Tories lost seats to the Lib Dem’s like Horsham and Chichester, which they have held for 100+ years suggests there is ever so slightly more to it.

The last government shafted everyone who was not a well off pensioner who favoured mass immigration. It’s a surprise they held 121 seats.

Who did they vote for instead?

Anyone who was best placed to kick the government, or else stayed at home.

Chesilbeach said:

Sean_F said:

pigeon said:

numbertwelve said:

Are Labour in a good position in the polls? No. Are they “on course for re-election”? Far too early to say.

Yes what they have going for them is a divided opposition but they are at the mercy of what happens to that opposition. A long road to travel on that front before we start thinking of the next GE. Conversely, there’s still plenty of time for them to start improving.

At this stage it's hard to see past another Labour -led Government. Crudely put, the more likely a Trumpian breakthrough in poor people places looks, the greater the stampede towards Ed Davey in rich people places.

You can't assemble a right-wing majority in the Commons if you've got the large bulk of the city vote, Scotland and half of Southern England running away from you screaming.

That sounds a lot like “I don’t want it to happen, so it won’t happen”, which was the basis of much commentary on the US elections.

Not so sure about southern england. They will be hit with taxes the next few years and if you look at a map of mass immigration the SE outside London is becoming increasingly diverse. If you really want to avoid immigration now you have to go the SW or the Lake District.

Greetings Tovarisch.

These migrants that don’t go to the SW or the Lake District - who are the people who serve me food when I visit? Aliens from Zarb?

agingjb2 said:

competition

??

Use of pronouns banned?
What effect do the people responsible for the measure feel will be of benefit to the wider population?
Brevity and clarity?

American democracy is disintegrating.

One small example, should we really now believe air safety investigations? Another - will anyone really care about the ~5,000 transgender military personnel set to lose their jobs?

Tariffs announced overnight are set to cost the average American household roughly $2,000 per annum.

Is it Saturday by any chance?

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

Fishing said:

Leon said:

Jonathan said:

If a paradigm has shifted, it’s the fall of the free trade pro business conservative centre right replaced by the nationalist, protectionist “fuck business” populist right.

Yes, I think that's correct

Britain has enjoyed or endured spectacular levels of immigration in the last 10-20 years. We are constantly assured this contributes to growth. Yet, as @Sandpit shows, the reality is that GDP per capita has not grown at all even as our population has exploded by many millions, putting pressure on everything - from sewage systems to landscapes, from education to health. Meanwhile our cities crumble and we have very real and unpleasant social problems stemming from the migration

Now we are told "another 5 million must come in the next ten years". Why? What the fuck? We don't want any more. Polls show that voters - by almost 2 to 1 - would rather have LESS immigration EVEN IF IT COMES AT THE EXPENSE OF GROWTH

https://x.com/GideonSkinner/status/1884199390463799730/photo/1

No one buys the "growth" shit any more, and even if they do, they are past caring

I think that's true. There are exceptions for very highly motivated or wealthy individuals, but generally per capita growth does not generally come from opening the floodgates to unskilled or semi-skilled immigration - it comes from low taxes, low but efficient government spending and light but effective regulation.

In short the exact opposite of the route we've been following for more than twenty years.

Yes. And the public has finally woken up to this reality. Hence the paradigm shift

Here's a good thought experiment - imagine a scenario where we get a Reform/Tory government next time out and they get serious about immigration, not only do we pause inwards migration from people with income under £50-60k we also pause visa renewals and revoke visas for immigrants who earn under £35k. This results in net emigration of 300-400k per year as low wage workers and their dependents are forced to leave the country. It will result in overall growth falling due to falling aggregate demand from those 400k leaving but per capita GDP will rise as there's 400k fewer low and no wage people in the country.

We may have headlines showing the country in recession or zero growth but people will feel better off because within a few years of such action there will be a couple of million fewer people relying on the state for welfare for their dependents (education for many kids, NHS care for families, in some insane cases housing benefits) while removing net negative tax contributions from them.

In a falling or stagnating economy, we can achieve pretty strong net growth in per capita GDP if the government halts low wage immigration and revokes visa status for low wage migrants already in the country. It is within our power to fix this and send these people home unless they have a significant contribution to the tax base of the country which we know only starts at about £45k.

This sounds lovely in principle, but there are good reasons why it is very problematic for politicians in practice:

1. The already stretched and inadequate social care sector relies on imported low wage labour. You want the disabled and our vast and growing numbers of decrepit elderly looking after properly, absent those staff? You have to jack wages up enough to tempt supermarket workers and the like to move out of minimum wage roles and retrain. That's going to be very expensive.
2. The same goes double for the Health Service. £45K is below the starting wage for a doctor, let alone a nurse. If we stop importing anyone other than high wage earners who's going to give all that care?
3. You end immigration, the dependency ratio of the population deteriorates even more rapidly, and that makes the need to do really unpopular things like stripping the gold plate off the state pension and taxing assets, including houses, properly even more pressing. Our economic prospects would be considerably better if retirement provision were less generous and wealthy pensioners were properly rinsed to pay for their own upkeep, but selling a future in which current retirees get smaller pensions and land value tax bills, whilst future ones are told they must work to 75 to get their state handout, is a challenging sell.

Population growth is, ultimately, a Ponzi scheme, and anyone who tells you otherwise is lying. They're also lying if they tell you it will be painless to put a stop to - and the longer the country waits to do it, the more painful it will become. It's small wonder that nobody has dared to try, and it'll be fascinating to see what happens if they ever do.

Chesilbeach said:

Good video on our situation. Its dire.

https://vm.tiktok.com/ZGdDQA5uq/

Aye, being in a situation where here am, gone pm types pop up with guff like that is pretty dire. Very unflattering for PB’s self regard.

Gardenwalker said:

American democracy is disintegrating.

One small example, should we really now believe air safety investigations? Another - will anyone really care about the ~5,000 transgender military personnel set to lose their jobs?

Tariffs announced overnight are set to cost the average American household roughly $2,000 per annum.

Supporters of the German Democratic Republic felt the same way about the wall coming down.

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

Fishing said:

Leon said:

Jonathan said:

If a paradigm has shifted, it’s the fall of the free trade pro business conservative centre right replaced by the nationalist, protectionist “fuck business” populist right.

Yes, I think that's correct

Britain has enjoyed or endured spectacular levels of immigration in the last 10-20 years. We are constantly assured this contributes to growth. Yet, as @Sandpit shows, the reality is that GDP per capita has not grown at all even as our population has exploded by many millions, putting pressure on everything - from sewage systems to landscapes, from education to health. Meanwhile our cities crumble and we have very real and unpleasant social problems stemming from the migration

Now we are told "another 5 million must come in the next ten years". Why? What the fuck? We don't want any more. Polls show that voters - by almost 2 to 1 - would rather have LESS immigration EVEN IF IT COMES AT THE EXPENSE OF GROWTH

https://x.com/GideonSkinner/status/1884199390463799730/photo/1

No one buys the "growth" shit any more, and even if they do, they are past caring

I think that's true. There are exceptions for very highly motivated or wealthy individuals, but generally per capita growth does not generally come from opening the floodgates to unskilled or semi-skilled immigration - it comes from low taxes, low but efficient government spending and light but effective regulation.

In short the exact opposite of the route we've been following for more than twenty years.

Yes. And the public has finally woken up to this reality. Hence the paradigm shift

Here's a good thought experiment - imagine a scenario where we get a Reform/Tory government next time out and they get serious about immigration, not only do we pause inwards migration from people with income under £50-60k we also pause visa renewals and revoke visas for immigrants who earn under £35k. This results in net emigration of 300-400k per year as low wage workers and their dependents are forced to leave the country. It will result in overall growth falling due to falling aggregate demand from those 400k leaving but per capita GDP will rise as there's 400k fewer low and no wage people in the country.

We may have headlines showing the country in recession or zero growth but people will feel better off because within a few years of such action there will be a couple of million fewer people relying on the state for welfare for their dependents (education for many kids, NHS care for families, in some insane cases housing benefits) while removing net negative tax contributions from them.

In a falling or stagnating economy, we can achieve pretty strong net growth in per capita GDP if the government halts low wage immigration and revokes visa status for low wage migrants already in the country. It is within our power to fix this and send these people home unless they have a significant contribution to the tax base of the country which we know only starts at about £45k.

From the BBC this week:

'We don't just teach - we clothe the kids, feed them and brush their teeth'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr7e09471lyo

A report on a school in Boston, Lincolnshire.

St Nicholas is in one of the most deprived parts of Lincolnshire. There are high levels of migration - 71 children moved in and out of the school during the last academic year - and for nearly 70% of the children, English is not their first language.

Mrs Booth has already taken a call this morning about three vulnerable children who are missing - they've not been to school for weeks and all have tuberculosis, an infectious lung disease which can be serious if not treated.

"We think the family are in Europe," says Mrs Booth. "We're fairly sure they were fleeing from debt."

A textbook example of how immigration has made a place poorer.

Sandpit said:

Ooh, is it Saturday morning? 😆

"Ban on all use of pronouns in government communications"

*Banned* is going to find *banned" difficult to talk about colleagues if *banned* is not allowed to use pronouns any more.

CJohn said:

Indeed, Le Pen is favourite to be the next President.

Worth adding that the Front National - as it then was - began making inroads several decades ago amongst WWC former Socialist and Communist voters.

This is one of main reasons why the French socialist party is now a shadow of its former self. The same could happen here to Labour.

I posted a few days ago that in Scotland at least, the net movement was from Labour to Reform. However I think we told I was naive.

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

Fishing said:

Leon said:

Jonathan said:

If a paradigm has shifted, it’s the fall of the free trade pro business conservative centre right replaced by the nationalist, protectionist “fuck business” populist right.

Yes, I think that's correct

Britain has enjoyed or endured spectacular levels of immigration in the last 10-20 years. We are constantly assured this contributes to growth. Yet, as @Sandpit shows, the reality is that GDP per capita has not grown at all even as our population has exploded by many millions, putting pressure on everything - from sewage systems to landscapes, from education to health. Meanwhile our cities crumble and we have very real and unpleasant social problems stemming from the migration

Now we are told "another 5 million must come in the next ten years". Why? What the fuck? We don't want any more. Polls show that voters - by almost 2 to 1 - would rather have LESS immigration EVEN IF IT COMES AT THE EXPENSE OF GROWTH

https://x.com/GideonSkinner/status/1884199390463799730/photo/1

No one buys the "growth" shit any more, and even if they do, they are past caring

I think that's true. There are exceptions for very highly motivated or wealthy individuals, but generally per capita growth does not generally come from opening the floodgates to unskilled or semi-skilled immigration - it comes from low taxes, low but efficient government spending and light but effective regulation.

In short the exact opposite of the route we've been following for more than twenty years.

Yes. And the public has finally woken up to this reality. Hence the paradigm shift

Here's a good thought experiment - imagine a scenario where we get a Reform/Tory government next time out and they get serious about immigration, not only do we pause inwards migration from people with income under £50-60k we also pause visa renewals and revoke visas for immigrants who earn under £35k. This results in net emigration of 300-400k per year as low wage workers and their dependents are forced to leave the country. It will result in overall growth falling due to falling aggregate demand from those 400k leaving but per capita GDP will rise as there's 400k fewer low and no wage people in the country.

We may have headlines showing the country in recession or zero growth but people will feel better off because within a few years of such action there will be a couple of million fewer people relying on the state for welfare for their dependents (education for many kids, NHS care for families, in some insane cases housing benefits) while removing net negative tax contributions from them.

In a falling or stagnating economy, we can achieve pretty strong net growth in per capita GDP if the government halts low wage immigration and revokes visa status for low wage migrants already in the country. It is within our power to fix this and send these people home unless they have a significant contribution to the tax base of the country which we know only starts at about £45k.

That's entirely true, but it would be enormously disruptive and the market wage for shelf stackers and social care workers would rocket. The NHS in particular would come under huge funding pressure, particularly as it already suffers from Baumol's cost disease. And if you thought the reaction to employer NICs was bad....

But we would finally fix our unusually bad problem with (relative) in-work poverty. PB doesn't like relative measures, but it's really important here for making work at the bottom of the labour market pay for a half decent lifestyle, with median wages the price setter for stuff like eating out.

So it would need to be brought in very gradually. In the long term, it must be accompanied with something that makes having children very attractive - income tax break allowances, council tax exemptions, stamp duty abolished etc. Otherwise the dependency ratio - which isn't too bad with current immigration levels - would spiral out of control.

On Friday morning, the staffers at a half dozen U.S.-funded medical facilities in Sudan who care for severely malnourished children had a choice to make: Defy President Donald Trump’s order to immediately stop their operations or let up to 100 babies and toddlers die.

They chose the children.

In spite of the order, they will keep their facilities open for as long as they can, according to three people with direct knowledge of the situation. The people requested anonymity for fear that the administration might target their group for reprisals. Trump’s order also meant they would stop receiving new, previously approved funds to cover salaries, IV bags and other supplies. They said it’s a matter of days, not weeks, before they run out.

American-funded aid organizations around the globe, charged with providing lifesaving care for the most desperate and vulnerable populations imaginable, have for days been forced to completely halt their operations, turn away patients and lay off staff following a series of sudden stop-work demands from the Trump administration. Despite an announcement earlier this week ostensibly allowing lifesaving operations to continue, those earlier orders have not been rescinded.

https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-state-department-usaid-humanitarian-aid-freeze-ukraine-gaza-sudan

As far as Leon's claim that Reform now seems like a "serious" alternative:

this is ambiguous.

Yes, they are serious, insofar as a wasted vote argument can no longer be used against them.

But, intellectually, they are not serious at all. There is no thinking going on at all as to HOW they will improve UK's desperate dependence on immigration. Nor enough self-critical capacity to realise Brexit worsened the immigration situation.

Leon said:

another_richard said:

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

Fishing said:

Leon said:

Jonathan said:

If a paradigm has shifted, it’s the fall of the free trade pro business conservative centre right replaced by the nationalist, protectionist “fuck business” populist right.

Yes, I think that's correct

Britain has enjoyed or endured spectacular levels of immigration in the last 10-20 years. We are constantly assured this contributes to growth. Yet, as @Sandpit shows, the reality is that GDP per capita has not grown at all even as our population has exploded by many millions, putting pressure on everything - from sewage systems to landscapes, from education to health. Meanwhile our cities crumble and we have very real and unpleasant social problems stemming from the migration

Now we are told "another 5 million must come in the next ten years". Why? What the fuck? We don't want any more. Polls show that voters - by almost 2 to 1 - would rather have LESS immigration EVEN IF IT COMES AT THE EXPENSE OF GROWTH

https://x.com/GideonSkinner/status/1884199390463799730/photo/1

No one buys the "growth" shit any more, and even if they do, they are past caring

I think that's true. There are exceptions for very highly motivated or wealthy individuals, but generally per capita growth does not generally come from opening the floodgates to unskilled or semi-skilled immigration - it comes from low taxes, low but efficient government spending and light but effective regulation.

In short the exact opposite of the route we've been following for more than twenty years.

Yes. And the public has finally woken up to this reality. Hence the paradigm shift

Here's a good thought experiment - imagine a scenario where we get a Reform/Tory government next time out and they get serious about immigration, not only do we pause inwards migration from people with income under £50-60k we also pause visa renewals and revoke visas for immigrants who earn under £35k. This results in net emigration of 300-400k per year as low wage workers and their dependents are forced to leave the country. It will result in overall growth falling due to falling aggregate demand from those 400k leaving but per capita GDP will rise as there's 400k fewer low and no wage people in the country.

We may have headlines showing the country in recession or zero growth but people will feel better off because within a few years of such action there will be a couple of million fewer people relying on the state for welfare for their dependents (education for many kids, NHS care for families, in some insane cases housing benefits) while removing net negative tax contributions from them.

In a falling or stagnating economy, we can achieve pretty strong net growth in per capita GDP if the government halts low wage immigration and revokes visa status for low wage migrants already in the country. It is within our power to fix this and send these people home unless they have a significant contribution to the tax base of the country which we know only starts at about £45k.

Yes

And I sense we are about to see this experiment playing out in mainland Europe. Remigration

Do you still support unrestricted immigration from the EU ?

If so where do you think much of that remigration will head to ?

I no longer support unrestricted immigration from anywhere. I think we need effective net zero migration, and it WILL be painful, but that's what we need

Indeed we almost certainly need to go further and do what @MaxPB suggests, revoke visas, no indefinite right to remain, send people home, and so forth

And are you prepared to forego your agreeable (and yes, paying lots of tax) globetrotting lifestyle to spend your last few working years caring for people even older than you in Newent?

Or is the pain for other people?

StillWaters said:

Leon said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Leon said:

The more interesting question for me is: what happened in about November 2024 to send Reform surging? Because their rise has been slow but relentless since

Badenoch became Tory leader.

Well spotted

That must be it? I cannot think of anything else

I think that’s unfair. Complaints that she hasn’t turned around an epoch making defeat in 3 months is unreasonable.

That has happened is that Labour has disappointed, but people are not willing to give the Tories a chance yet. The Lib Dems and Greens have their niche but no wider relevance.

So we have seen a move of soft Labour to WNV and Reform. It’s not particularly Kemi’s fault.

This, many times over. The header references a 3 point Labour lead, but:
67% of people said they would not consider voting Labour, compared to 62% said they would not vote Conservative.
29% (who didn't select Con) said they would consider voting for them, but only 24% (who didn't select Lab) said they would consider voting for them. Reform figures were not as good as Con.

Kemi is doing better than Starmer in leader polls. Cons are more trusted on economy.

Confidence in economy, Kemi wins hands down against Starmer and Farage.

People are not willing yet to hand Conservatives their vote, but according to the poll detail, it's clear that they are still in the race.

Eabhal said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

Fishing said:

Leon said:

Jonathan said:

If a paradigm has shifted, it’s the fall of the free trade pro business conservative centre right replaced by the nationalist, protectionist “fuck business” populist right.

Yes, I think that's correct

Britain has enjoyed or endured spectacular levels of immigration in the last 10-20 years. We are constantly assured this contributes to growth. Yet, as @Sandpit shows, the reality is that GDP per capita has not grown at all even as our population has exploded by many millions, putting pressure on everything - from sewage systems to landscapes, from education to health. Meanwhile our cities crumble and we have very real and unpleasant social problems stemming from the migration

Now we are told "another 5 million must come in the next ten years". Why? What the fuck? We don't want any more. Polls show that voters - by almost 2 to 1 - would rather have LESS immigration EVEN IF IT COMES AT THE EXPENSE OF GROWTH

https://x.com/GideonSkinner/status/1884199390463799730/photo/1

No one buys the "growth" shit any more, and even if they do, they are past caring

I think that's true. There are exceptions for very highly motivated or wealthy individuals, but generally per capita growth does not generally come from opening the floodgates to unskilled or semi-skilled immigration - it comes from low taxes, low but efficient government spending and light but effective regulation.

In short the exact opposite of the route we've been following for more than twenty years.

Yes. And the public has finally woken up to this reality. Hence the paradigm shift

Here's a good thought experiment - imagine a scenario where we get a Reform/Tory government next time out and they get serious about immigration, not only do we pause inwards migration from people with income under £50-60k we also pause visa renewals and revoke visas for immigrants who earn under £35k. This results in net emigration of 300-400k per year as low wage workers and their dependents are forced to leave the country. It will result in overall growth falling due to falling aggregate demand from those 400k leaving but per capita GDP will rise as there's 400k fewer low and no wage people in the country.

We may have headlines showing the country in recession or zero growth but people will feel better off because within a few years of such action there will be a couple of million fewer people relying on the state for welfare for their dependents (education for many kids, NHS care for families, in some insane cases housing benefits) while removing net negative tax contributions from them.

In a falling or stagnating economy, we can achieve pretty strong net growth in per capita GDP if the government halts low wage immigration and revokes visa status for low wage migrants already in the country. It is within our power to fix this and send these people home unless they have a significant contribution to the tax base of the country which we know only starts at about £45k.

That's entirely true, but it would be enormously disruptive and the market wage for shelf stackers and social care workers would rocket. The NHS in particular would come under huge funding pressure, particularly as it already suffers from Baumol's cost disease. And if you thought the reaction to employer NICs was bad....

But we would finally fix our unusually bad problem with (relative) in-work poverty. PB doesn't like relative measures, but it's really important here for making work at the bottom of the labour market pay for a half decent lifestyle, with median wages the price setter for stuff like eating out.

So it would need to be brought in very gradually. In the long term, it must be accompanied with something that makes having children very attractive - income tax break allowances, council tax exemptions, stamp duty abolished etc. Otherwise the dependency ratio - which isn't too bad with current immigration levels - would spiral out of control.

Increased child benefit and married couples tax allowance too

Leon said:

another_richard said:

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

Fishing said:

Leon said:

Jonathan said:

If a paradigm has shifted, it’s the fall of the free trade pro business conservative centre right replaced by the nationalist, protectionist “fuck business” populist right.

Yes, I think that's correct

Britain has enjoyed or endured spectacular levels of immigration in the last 10-20 years. We are constantly assured this contributes to growth. Yet, as @Sandpit shows, the reality is that GDP per capita has not grown at all even as our population has exploded by many millions, putting pressure on everything - from sewage systems to landscapes, from education to health. Meanwhile our cities crumble and we have very real and unpleasant social problems stemming from the migration

Now we are told "another 5 million must come in the next ten years". Why? What the fuck? We don't want any more. Polls show that voters - by almost 2 to 1 - would rather have LESS immigration EVEN IF IT COMES AT THE EXPENSE OF GROWTH

https://x.com/GideonSkinner/status/1884199390463799730/photo/1

No one buys the "growth" shit any more, and even if they do, they are past caring

I think that's true. There are exceptions for very highly motivated or wealthy individuals, but generally per capita growth does not generally come from opening the floodgates to unskilled or semi-skilled immigration - it comes from low taxes, low but efficient government spending and light but effective regulation.

In short the exact opposite of the route we've been following for more than twenty years.

Yes. And the public has finally woken up to this reality. Hence the paradigm shift

Here's a good thought experiment - imagine a scenario where we get a Reform/Tory government next time out and they get serious about immigration, not only do we pause inwards migration from people with income under £50-60k we also pause visa renewals and revoke visas for immigrants who earn under £35k. This results in net emigration of 300-400k per year as low wage workers and their dependents are forced to leave the country. It will result in overall growth falling due to falling aggregate demand from those 400k leaving but per capita GDP will rise as there's 400k fewer low and no wage people in the country.

We may have headlines showing the country in recession or zero growth but people will feel better off because within a few years of such action there will be a couple of million fewer people relying on the state for welfare for their dependents (education for many kids, NHS care for families, in some insane cases housing benefits) while removing net negative tax contributions from them.

In a falling or stagnating economy, we can achieve pretty strong net growth in per capita GDP if the government halts low wage immigration and revokes visa status for low wage migrants already in the country. It is within our power to fix this and send these people home unless they have a significant contribution to the tax base of the country which we know only starts at about £45k.

Yes

And I sense we are about to see this experiment playing out in mainland Europe. Remigration

Do you still support unrestricted immigration from the EU ?

If so where do you think much of that remigration will head to ?

I no longer support unrestricted immigration from anywhere. I think we need effective net zero migration, and it WILL be painful, but that's what we need

Indeed we almost certainly need to go further and do what @MaxPB suggests, revoke visas, no indefinite right to remain, send people home, and so forth

So you've given up all your happy clappy crap of allowing under 30s to have unrestricted immigration from the EU ?

To view keyboard shortcuts, press question mark
View keyboard shortcuts
Post

Good morning!

Chesilbeach said:

Any comment foxy.

RFK JR: Listen, I know people, including members of my family, who've had a much worse time getting off of SSRIs than they did, than people have getting off heroin

https://x.com/Acyn/status/1884665539357995450

Biological variation.

Eabhal said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

Fishing said:

Leon said:

Jonathan said:

If a paradigm has shifted, it’s the fall of the free trade pro business conservative centre right replaced by the nationalist, protectionist “fuck business” populist right.

Yes, I think that's correct

Britain has enjoyed or endured spectacular levels of immigration in the last 10-20 years. We are constantly assured this contributes to growth. Yet, as @Sandpit shows, the reality is that GDP per capita has not grown at all even as our population has exploded by many millions, putting pressure on everything - from sewage systems to landscapes, from education to health. Meanwhile our cities crumble and we have very real and unpleasant social problems stemming from the migration

Now we are told "another 5 million must come in the next ten years". Why? What the fuck? We don't want any more. Polls show that voters - by almost 2 to 1 - would rather have LESS immigration EVEN IF IT COMES AT THE EXPENSE OF GROWTH

https://x.com/GideonSkinner/status/1884199390463799730/photo/1

No one buys the "growth" shit any more, and even if they do, they are past caring

I think that's true. There are exceptions for very highly motivated or wealthy individuals, but generally per capita growth does not generally come from opening the floodgates to unskilled or semi-skilled immigration - it comes from low taxes, low but efficient government spending and light but effective regulation.

In short the exact opposite of the route we've been following for more than twenty years.

Yes. And the public has finally woken up to this reality. Hence the paradigm shift

Here's a good thought experiment - imagine a scenario where we get a Reform/Tory government next time out and they get serious about immigration, not only do we pause inwards migration from people with income under £50-60k we also pause visa renewals and revoke visas for immigrants who earn under £35k. This results in net emigration of 300-400k per year as low wage workers and their dependents are forced to leave the country. It will result in overall growth falling due to falling aggregate demand from those 400k leaving but per capita GDP will rise as there's 400k fewer low and no wage people in the country.

We may have headlines showing the country in recession or zero growth but people will feel better off because within a few years of such action there will be a couple of million fewer people relying on the state for welfare for their dependents (education for many kids, NHS care for families, in some insane cases housing benefits) while removing net negative tax contributions from them.

In a falling or stagnating economy, we can achieve pretty strong net growth in per capita GDP if the government halts low wage immigration and revokes visa status for low wage migrants already in the country. It is within our power to fix this and send these people home unless they have a significant contribution to the tax base of the country which we know only starts at about £45k.

That's entirely true, but it would be enormously disruptive and the market wage for shelf stackers and social care workers would rocket. The NHS in particular would come under huge funding pressure, particularly as it already suffers from Baumol's cost disease. And if you thought the reaction to employer NICs was bad....

But we would finally fix our unusually bad problem with (relative) in-work poverty. PB doesn't like relative measures, but it's really important here for making work at the bottom of the labour market pay for a half decent lifestyle, with median wages the price setter for stuff like eating out.

So it would need to be brought in very gradually. In the long term, it must be accompanied with something that makes having children very attractive - income tax break allowances, council tax exemptions, stamp duty abolished etc. Otherwise the dependency ratio - which isn't too bad with current immigration levels - would spiral out of control.

It would be a wealth shift from the old to the young and from property owners to workers.

I think some such wealth transfers are necessary for a stable society.

How much is up for debate.

I apologise for the mental image about to afflict you, nonetheless I have belatedly realised that one of life’s greatest yet simplest pleasures is: sitting on the balcony in your pants on a warm Saturday evening

In February

CJohn said:

Indeed, Le Pen is favourite to be the next President.

Worth adding that the Front National - as it then was - began making inroads several decades ago amongst WWC former Socialist and Communist voters.

This is one of main reasons why the French socialist party is now a shadow of its former self. The same could happen here to Labour.

It has revived a bit as part of Melenchon's leftist block.

I would make Philippe, Macron's centre right former PM, narrow favourite to beat Melenchon and Le Pen though

Gardenwalker said:

Reform doesn’t even have a Treasury spokesman.
They are essentially a cult.

Reform are a presidential campaign in a parliamentary system.

Sandpit said:

pigeon said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

Fishing said:

Leon said:

Jonathan said:

If a paradigm has shifted, it’s the fall of the free trade pro business conservative centre right replaced by the nationalist, protectionist “fuck business” populist right.

Yes, I think that's correct

Britain has enjoyed or endured spectacular levels of immigration in the last 10-20 years. We are constantly assured this contributes to growth. Yet, as @Sandpit shows, the reality is that GDP per capita has not grown at all even as our population has exploded by many millions, putting pressure on everything - from sewage systems to landscapes, from education to health. Meanwhile our cities crumble and we have very real and unpleasant social problems stemming from the migration

Now we are told "another 5 million must come in the next ten years". Why? What the fuck? We don't want any more. Polls show that voters - by almost 2 to 1 - would rather have LESS immigration EVEN IF IT COMES AT THE EXPENSE OF GROWTH

https://x.com/GideonSkinner/status/1884199390463799730/photo/1

No one buys the "growth" shit any more, and even if they do, they are past caring

I think that's true. There are exceptions for very highly motivated or wealthy individuals, but generally per capita growth does not generally come from opening the floodgates to unskilled or semi-skilled immigration - it comes from low taxes, low but efficient government spending and light but effective regulation.

In short the exact opposite of the route we've been following for more than twenty years.

Yes. And the public has finally woken up to this reality. Hence the paradigm shift

Here's a good thought experiment - imagine a scenario where we get a Reform/Tory government next time out and they get serious about immigration, not only do we pause inwards migration from people with income under £50-60k we also pause visa renewals and revoke visas for immigrants who earn under £35k. This results in net emigration of 300-400k per year as low wage workers and their dependents are forced to leave the country. It will result in overall growth falling due to falling aggregate demand from those 400k leaving but per capita GDP will rise as there's 400k fewer low and no wage people in the country.

We may have headlines showing the country in recession or zero growth but people will feel better off because within a few years of such action there will be a couple of million fewer people relying on the state for welfare for their dependents (education for many kids, NHS care for families, in some insane cases housing benefits) while removing net negative tax contributions from them.

In a falling or stagnating economy, we can achieve pretty strong net growth in per capita GDP if the government halts low wage immigration and revokes visa status for low wage migrants already in the country. It is within our power to fix this and send these people home unless they have a significant contribution to the tax base of the country which we know only starts at about £45k.

This sounds lovely in principle, but there are good reasons why it is very problematic for politicians in practice:

1. The already stretched and inadequate social care sector relies on imported low wage labour. You want the disabled and our vast and growing numbers of decrepit elderly looking after properly, absent those staff? You have to jack wages up enough to tempt supermarket workers and the like to move out of minimum wage roles and retrain. That's going to be very expensive.
2. The same goes double for the Health Service. £45K is below the starting wage for a doctor, let alone a nurse. If we stop importing anyone other than high wage earners who's going to give all that care?
3. You end immigration, the dependency ratio of the population deteriorates even more rapidly, and that makes the need to do really unpopular things like stripping the gold plate off the state pension and taxing assets, including houses, properly even more pressing. Our economic prospects would be considerably better if retirement provision were less generous and wealthy pensioners were properly rinsed to pay for their own upkeep, but selling a future in which current retirees get smaller pensions and land value tax bills, whilst future ones are told they must work to 75 to get their state handout, is a challenging sell.

Population growth is, ultimately, a Ponzi scheme, and anyone who tells you otherwise is lying. They're also lying if they tell you it will be painless to put a stop to - and the longer the country waits to do it, the more painful it will become. It's small wonder that nobody has dared to try, and it'll be fascinating to see what happens if they ever do.

The are ways to avoid it becoming a Ponzi scheme. Two in particular spring to mind.

1. Short-term renewable visas that confer no right to remain on expiry.

2. BUILD MILLIONS MORE F*****G HOUSES!!!

Visa systems are all well and good for seasonal agricultural workers and blokes labouring on big construction projects. For desperately needed permanent staff, in a variety of sectors such as housebuilding as well as health and social care, not so much.

Solving the immigration problem is doable, but it requires more time, money and painful adjustment than the electorate is, perhaps, willing to tolerate. We need more automation of low wage tasks, for people in those tasks to be restrained to fill all those gaps in other sectors AND, critically, for them to be paid better, for wealthy people and especially wealthy retirees to contribute more to pay the costs of remodeling the economy, and for our entire model of retirement to change so that the cliff edge is replaced by a continuation of part time work into people's seventies. There also needs to be a drive to get people fitter and healthier, which I'm afraid will entail nannying interventions to both enable and cajole people into adopting healthier diets.

Fundamentally, the country is old, fat and knackered, and it's getting worse by the year. Mass immigration is a sticking plaster solution to underlying structural decay. Putting things to rights will not be quick or easy.

another_richard said:

Leon said:

another_richard said:

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

Fishing said:

Leon said:

Jonathan said:

If a paradigm has shifted, it’s the fall of the free trade pro business conservative centre right replaced by the nationalist, protectionist “fuck business” populist right.

Yes, I think that's correct

Britain has enjoyed or endured spectacular levels of immigration in the last 10-20 years. We are constantly assured this contributes to growth. Yet, as @Sandpit shows, the reality is that GDP per capita has not grown at all even as our population has exploded by many millions, putting pressure on everything - from sewage systems to landscapes, from education to health. Meanwhile our cities crumble and we have very real and unpleasant social problems stemming from the migration

Now we are told "another 5 million must come in the next ten years". Why? What the fuck? We don't want any more. Polls show that voters - by almost 2 to 1 - would rather have LESS immigration EVEN IF IT COMES AT THE EXPENSE OF GROWTH

https://x.com/GideonSkinner/status/1884199390463799730/photo/1

No one buys the "growth" shit any more, and even if they do, they are past caring

I think that's true. There are exceptions for very highly motivated or wealthy individuals, but generally per capita growth does not generally come from opening the floodgates to unskilled or semi-skilled immigration - it comes from low taxes, low but efficient government spending and light but effective regulation.

In short the exact opposite of the route we've been following for more than twenty years.

Yes. And the public has finally woken up to this reality. Hence the paradigm shift

Here's a good thought experiment - imagine a scenario where we get a Reform/Tory government next time out and they get serious about immigration, not only do we pause inwards migration from people with income under £50-60k we also pause visa renewals and revoke visas for immigrants who earn under £35k. This results in net emigration of 300-400k per year as low wage workers and their dependents are forced to leave the country. It will result in overall growth falling due to falling aggregate demand from those 400k leaving but per capita GDP will rise as there's 400k fewer low and no wage people in the country.

We may have headlines showing the country in recession or zero growth but people will feel better off because within a few years of such action there will be a couple of million fewer people relying on the state for welfare for their dependents (education for many kids, NHS care for families, in some insane cases housing benefits) while removing net negative tax contributions from them.

In a falling or stagnating economy, we can achieve pretty strong net growth in per capita GDP if the government halts low wage immigration and revokes visa status for low wage migrants already in the country. It is within our power to fix this and send these people home unless they have a significant contribution to the tax base of the country which we know only starts at about £45k.

Yes

And I sense we are about to see this experiment playing out in mainland Europe. Remigration

Do you still support unrestricted immigration from the EU ?

If so where do you think much of that remigration will head to ?

I no longer support unrestricted immigration from anywhere. I think we need effective net zero migration, and it WILL be painful, but that's what we need

Indeed we almost certainly need to go further and do what @MaxPB suggests, revoke visas, no indefinite right to remain, send people home, and so forth

So you've given up all your happy clappy crap of allowing under 30s to have unrestricted immigration from the EU ?

That’s a different question. I would allow 2 or 3 year youth mobility visas - yes. That’s not unrestricted immigration

We have versions of them with several countries already

Leon said:

I apologise for the mental image about to afflict you, nonetheless I have belatedly realised that one of life’s greatest yet simplest pleasures is: sitting on the balcony in your pants on a warm Saturday evening

In February

Well I am sitting outside on my terrace in sunshine on a Saturday morning in the Lake District. Rather more elegantly dressed.

I am about to start a new book.

Reading outside: one of life's greatest pleasures.

Chesilbeach said:

Good video on our situation. Its dire.

https://vm.tiktok.com/ZGdDQA5uq/

Well, tell Mr Bareback to withdraw then.