Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

A prelude to the next general election? – politicalbetting.com

24567

Comments

  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 5,023
    algarkirk said:

    Sean_F said:

    algarkirk said:

    Tres said:

    (2/5)

    Reform UK says it can’t fix problems quickly whilst also attacking Labour for not fixing problems quickly.

    Reform, in a nutshell.

    They won't stand four years of this until an election.
    course it will - 'always someone else's fault'
    I may be wrong, but I think the one thing Reform's voters won't accept from Reform is a load of excuses and blame shifting. This is not USA. Reform's support is transactional, not religious.
    Blame can be shifted (it worked for the SNP up till 2024, and has worked for Welsh Labour, hitherto), up till the point that Reform win an overall majority.
    I shall wait and see. Reform's voters are of the impatient sort, who have limited understanding of process and law. I think they will actually expect more than is within Reform's actual powers rather than less. Eg they will expect Reform Kent CC to stop Kent bound boats and to stick any arrivals in tents somewhere off South Georgia, and they will expect it this week.

    Remember the Brexit voters who assumed that we would leave the EU for all purposes immediately upon the vote.
    Yes, they trusted David Cameron to do what he said he would do.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 13,957

    a

    Eabhal said:

    algarkirk said:

    From the MP for Pendle and Clitheroe:

    https://x.com/Jonathan_Hinder/status/1919310898247643422

    “Can you hear that familiar sound?

    The engines of the liberal establishment are revving up to explain why Reform’s success is definitely not down to the one thing we know it definitely is: immigration.”

    My piece on what’s staring us in the face👇

    The significance of both Tory and, as here, Labour MPs talking Reform's language and advocvating their cause should not be overlooked.

    A centrist realignment is on the way, with the aim of shooting Reform's fox. Soon everyone will sound like 1950s Labour. Lab and Con have a common interest in shooting the fox before Reform's hounds catch up with them.
    Which is stupid, in another way.

    Do something. Do something that might work and be aligned with progressive principles.

    For example, go after demand. My idea to financialise going after the users/abusers of illegal migrant labour. The migrants themselves get a reward (paid for out of the assets of those exploiting them) and indefinite leave to remain.

    Make the rich criminals pay. Help the poor migrants. As an added bonus, this might work. Plus you get lots of headlines in the Mail - “House of head of slave gang in Holland Park seized”.
    I think the real deterrent would be fines on a strict liability basis. At the moment it's based on whether you knew they were illegal.

    Even better, apply it to those who use such services. Would certainly make me think twice before getting the car washed, ordering food, getting a haircut or jumping in an Uber. It would stimulate an awful lot of racial bias, and screw a lot of legitimate small businesses, but I think it's probably worth it at this stage.
    My plan

    1) 100k fine per instance of illegal employment/selling visas/etc
    2) liability via proceeds of crime legislation - a network of companies won’t save you.
    3) liability for sub-contractors - looking at you, Deliveroo.
    4) 50% of the fine goes to the reporter of the crime
    5) They get indefinite leave to remain.
    Many voters are unhappy about the number of asylum seekers. Most asylum seekers are not in illegal employment. This does very little to assuage their concerns. Other voters are unhappy about the total amount of immigration. Visa overstayers working illegally, people coming over on small boats and not seeking asylum and then working illegally and people here on dodgy visa schemes are a minority of immigrants. Again, this does little to assuage those concerns.

    I'm not saying you plan is a bad idea, but I don't think it's addressing what Reform UK voters are concerned about.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,954

    From the MP for Pendle and Clitheroe:

    https://x.com/Jonathan_Hinder/status/1919310898247643422

    “Can you hear that familiar sound?

    The engines of the liberal establishment are revving up to explain why Reform’s success is definitely not down to the one thing we know it definitely is: immigration.”

    My piece on what’s staring us in the face👇

    I don't know about the "liberal establishment" but I'm under no such illusions about Reform. They're a single issue party and the issue is indeed immigration.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 23,533
    Leon said:

    (2/5)

    Reform UK says it can’t fix problems quickly whilst also attacking Labour for not fixing problems quickly.

    Reform, in a nutshell.

    They won't stand four years of this until an election.
    Reform are saying “we can’t fix big things until you elect us into power in Westminster”. Which is perfectly true, the obvious strategy for them, and could easily put Farage in Number 10
    I've long said we should abolish local Councils, local elections and restore the power held by Councils to the public. This past week has reinforced that.

    Ah but what about bins? Do you want to call Whitehall about your bins?

    A few years ago I ran a business where I paid £7 a week to get a big commercial-sized bin emptied every week. I got to choose if I wanted weekly or fortnightly collections.

    Abolish Council Tax and I'd be more than happy to pay a private firm £7 a week to get a small wheelie bin emptied once a week, or £7 a fortnight to get it emptied fortnightly, instead of paying ~£150 a month to get those bins emptied fortnightly.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 13,957
    Eabhal said:

    a

    Eabhal said:

    algarkirk said:

    From the MP for Pendle and Clitheroe:

    https://x.com/Jonathan_Hinder/status/1919310898247643422

    “Can you hear that familiar sound?

    The engines of the liberal establishment are revving up to explain why Reform’s success is definitely not down to the one thing we know it definitely is: immigration.”

    My piece on what’s staring us in the face👇

    The significance of both Tory and, as here, Labour MPs talking Reform's language and advocvating their cause should not be overlooked.

    A centrist realignment is on the way, with the aim of shooting Reform's fox. Soon everyone will sound like 1950s Labour. Lab and Con have a common interest in shooting the fox before Reform's hounds catch up with them.
    Which is stupid, in another way.

    Do something. Do something that might work and be aligned with progressive principles.

    For example, go after demand. My idea to financialise going after the users/abusers of illegal migrant labour. The migrants themselves get a reward (paid for out of the assets of those exploiting them) and indefinite leave to remain.

    Make the rich criminals pay. Help the poor migrants. As an added bonus, this might work. Plus you get lots of headlines in the Mail - “House of head of slave gang in Holland Park seized”.
    I think the real deterrent would be fines on a strict liability basis. At the moment it's based on whether you knew they were illegal.

    Even better, apply it to those who use such services. Would certainly make me think twice before getting the car washed, ordering food, getting a haircut or jumping in an Uber. It would stimulate an awful lot of racial bias, and screw a lot of legitimate small businesses, but I think it's probably worth it at this stage.
    My plan

    1) 100k fine per instance of illegal employment/selling visas/etc
    2) liability via proceeds of crime legislation - a network of companies won’t save you.
    3) liability for sub-contractors - looking at you, Deliveroo.
    4) 50% of the fine goes to the reporter of the crime
    5) They get indefinite leave to remain.
    Yep. The debate around this is a good example of cognitive dissonance - it's all about asylum rules, even though the assumption is that all of the migrants are economic migrants. The only way to stop small boats (without murdering people in the channel) is to neutralise demand for cheap illegal labour.
    I don't know that the evidence supports that. Lots of people on small boats have valid asylum claims, so neutralising the demand for cheap illegal labour won't dissuade them. Those who have their claims denied, do they come over on the expectation/hope their claims will be successful? Or do they come over to do illegal labour? Government figures say few boat people disappear into the black economy; nearly all of them just make an asylum claim as soon as possible.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 65,116
    kinabalu said:

    From the MP for Pendle and Clitheroe:

    https://x.com/Jonathan_Hinder/status/1919310898247643422

    “Can you hear that familiar sound?

    The engines of the liberal establishment are revving up to explain why Reform’s success is definitely not down to the one thing we know it definitely is: immigration.”

    My piece on what’s staring us in the face👇

    I don't know about the "liberal establishment" but I'm under no such illusions about Reform. They're a single issue party and the issue is indeed immigration.
    Good morning

    Not anymore apparently

    Reform UK has launched a campaign against net zero developments in rural areas, dealing a significant blow to Ed Miliband. Deputy leader Richard Tice announced that the party will use its newfound control over ten councils to obstruct renewable projects at every turn. The MP for Boston and Skegness plans to pen letters to potential developers involved in Lincolnshire projects following Reform's landmark victories in the local elections on Friday

    He said: "I'm now going to write again to them, saying now that we've won these elections, you need to be under no illusion. This is war. We will wage war against you people and your terrible ideas. If you think that you're going to do this in the county of Lincolnshire, you are going to regret it."

    He added: "You're going to waste your money. It's going to be very painful financially, so you might as well take your money and your daft ideas elsewhere.

    "Whether it's planning blockages, whether it's judicial reviews, whether it's lawsuits, whether it's health and safety notices, we will use every available legal measure to an extreme way in order to frustrate these people."

    Mr Tice insisted that any new cables in Lincolnshire should be placed underground or "around the Wash offshore", which he claimed would be "the smarter, quicker thing to do".

    He also told the outlet of a meeting with senior figures in the National Grid, informing them about the party's plans if it wins the next general election.

    In February, Reform outlined its energy policy, which proposed taxes on the renewables sector and new legislation to prevent new pylons from being built.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 13,957

    Roger said:

    If only there was a voting system that leads to the eventual the winner having had to gain the preference of a majority of the voters....

    A conclave then
    Pope-picking starts Wednesday.

    To validly elect a new Pope, a two-thirds majority of the electors present is required.

    If the total number of electors is not evenly divisible by three, an additional vote is necessary.

    If voting begins on the afternoon of the first day, there will be only one ballot. On subsequent days, two ballots are held in the morning and two in the afternoon.

    After the votes are counted, all ballots are burned. If the ballot was inconclusive, a chimney positioned over the Sistine Chapel emits black smoke. If a Pope is elected, white smoke will billow out of the chimney.

    If the electors fail to reach an agreement on a candidate after three days of inconclusive voting, a break of up to one day is allowed for prayer, free discussion among voters, and a brief spiritual exhortation by the Cardinal Proto-Deacon (Cardinal Dominique Mamberti).

    https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2025-04/conclave-elect-new-pope-cardinals-beginning-date-may-2025.html
    So, more like AV than FPTP!
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 10,281

    Eabhal said:

    a

    Eabhal said:

    algarkirk said:

    From the MP for Pendle and Clitheroe:

    https://x.com/Jonathan_Hinder/status/1919310898247643422

    “Can you hear that familiar sound?

    The engines of the liberal establishment are revving up to explain why Reform’s success is definitely not down to the one thing we know it definitely is: immigration.”

    My piece on what’s staring us in the face👇

    The significance of both Tory and, as here, Labour MPs talking Reform's language and advocvating their cause should not be overlooked.

    A centrist realignment is on the way, with the aim of shooting Reform's fox. Soon everyone will sound like 1950s Labour. Lab and Con have a common interest in shooting the fox before Reform's hounds catch up with them.
    Which is stupid, in another way.

    Do something. Do something that might work and be aligned with progressive principles.

    For example, go after demand. My idea to financialise going after the users/abusers of illegal migrant labour. The migrants themselves get a reward (paid for out of the assets of those exploiting them) and indefinite leave to remain.

    Make the rich criminals pay. Help the poor migrants. As an added bonus, this might work. Plus you get lots of headlines in the Mail - “House of head of slave gang in Holland Park seized”.
    I think the real deterrent would be fines on a strict liability basis. At the moment it's based on whether you knew they were illegal.

    Even better, apply it to those who use such services. Would certainly make me think twice before getting the car washed, ordering food, getting a haircut or jumping in an Uber. It would stimulate an awful lot of racial bias, and screw a lot of legitimate small businesses, but I think it's probably worth it at this stage.
    My plan

    1) 100k fine per instance of illegal employment/selling visas/etc
    2) liability via proceeds of crime legislation - a network of companies won’t save you.
    3) liability for sub-contractors - looking at you, Deliveroo.
    4) 50% of the fine goes to the reporter of the crime
    5) They get indefinite leave to remain.
    Yep. The debate around this is a good example of cognitive dissonance - it's all about asylum rules, even though the assumption is that all of the migrants are economic migrants. The only way to stop small boats (without murdering people in the channel) is to neutralise demand for cheap illegal labour.
    I don't know that the evidence supports that. Lots of people on small boats have valid asylum claims, so neutralising the demand for cheap illegal labour won't dissuade them. Those who have their claims denied, do they come over on the expectation/hope their claims will be successful? Or do they come over to do illegal labour? Government figures say few boat people disappear into the black economy; nearly all of them just make an asylum claim as soon as possible.
    Fair enough. I guess it would be a good way for Labour to look like they are doing something though.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 54,401
    edited 10:47AM

    a

    Eabhal said:

    algarkirk said:

    From the MP for Pendle and Clitheroe:

    https://x.com/Jonathan_Hinder/status/1919310898247643422

    “Can you hear that familiar sound?

    The engines of the liberal establishment are revving up to explain why Reform’s success is definitely not down to the one thing we know it definitely is: immigration.”

    My piece on what’s staring us in the face👇

    The significance of both Tory and, as here, Labour MPs talking Reform's language and advocvating their cause should not be overlooked.

    A centrist realignment is on the way, with the aim of shooting Reform's fox. Soon everyone will sound like 1950s Labour. Lab and Con have a common interest in shooting the fox before Reform's hounds catch up with them.
    Which is stupid, in another way.

    Do something. Do something that might work and be aligned with progressive principles.

    For example, go after demand. My idea to financialise going after the users/abusers of illegal migrant labour. The migrants themselves get a reward (paid for out of the assets of those exploiting them) and indefinite leave to remain.

    Make the rich criminals pay. Help the poor migrants. As an added bonus, this might work. Plus you get lots of headlines in the Mail - “House of head of slave gang in Holland Park seized”.
    I think the real deterrent would be fines on a strict liability basis. At the moment it's based on whether you knew they were illegal.

    Even better, apply it to those who use such services. Would certainly make me think twice before getting the car washed, ordering food, getting a haircut or jumping in an Uber. It would stimulate an awful lot of racial bias, and screw a lot of legitimate small businesses, but I think it's probably worth it at this stage.
    My plan

    1) 100k fine per instance of illegal employment/selling visas/etc
    2) liability via proceeds of crime legislation - a network of companies won’t save you.
    3) liability for sub-contractors - looking at you, Deliveroo.
    4) 50% of the fine goes to the reporter of the crime
    5) They get indefinite leave to remain.
    So under your plan, anyone reporting every single Deliveroo rider will get indefinite leave to remain and at least £50,000 cash provided at least one rider is here illegally. You'll have them breeding pythons next.

    The only problem might be persuading Rachel to employ enough civil servants to check all these mostly spurious reports.
    They get half the fine after the conviction *and* it’s recovered. Similarly the indefinite leave to remain

    The bit I’m not saying out loud is this.

    The legislation won’t be retroactive (U.K. law etc). Within hours of it being announced (months until it becomes law), everyone employing illegal labour will be running to shutdown operations.

    Every illegal worker will have a huge incentive to bring charges against their employers.

    There won’t be many cases brought because this kind of crime will collapse.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 10,281

    Leon said:

    (2/5)

    Reform UK says it can’t fix problems quickly whilst also attacking Labour for not fixing problems quickly.

    Reform, in a nutshell.

    They won't stand four years of this until an election.
    Reform are saying “we can’t fix big things until you elect us into power in Westminster”. Which is perfectly true, the obvious strategy for them, and could easily put Farage in Number 10
    I've long said we should abolish local Councils, local elections and restore the power held by Councils to the public. This past week has reinforced that.

    Ah but what about bins? Do you want to call Whitehall about your bins?

    A few years ago I ran a business where I paid £7 a week to get a big commercial-sized bin emptied every week. I got to choose if I wanted weekly or fortnightly collections.

    Abolish Council Tax and I'd be more than happy to pay a private firm £7 a week to get a small wheelie bin emptied once a week, or £7 a fortnight to get it emptied fortnightly, instead of paying ~£150 a month to get those bins emptied fortnightly.
    Half the people on my street wouldn't bother paying for their bins to get collected, and massive diseconomies of scale would make it incredibly expensive for those who did - you'd have several different companies coming at different times of the week, with different bin sizes etc etc .

    Bins are a natural monopoly and should be a public service as a result.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,286
    FF43 said:

    algarkirk said:

    FF43 said:

    FPTP as a nonsense voting system, not only a bit undemocratic voting system

    Not quite. Yes, you get anomalies like this one, but attention should be focussed on the overall results of the system. On the whole FPTP is a system everyone understands and is the same for everyone; over time - we are currently in an unusual state of transition - the system will return to there being two broadly centrist camps with the common ground of all being the post WWII social democratic settlement - the bit that spends all the money both nationally and locally as Reform are about to find out.

    Currently there is a fight for one ofthe centrist camps. The Lab/LD
    camp is clear. Reform is in the
    other camp, with Tories split as to
    whether they are in the same camp
    as Reform or not. Once that is
    settled, either by splitting,
    integration, absorption or
    extinction of Tory and/or Reform
    we'll go back to normal.
    People in serious democratic
    countries, almost all using PR,
    understand their voting systems
    too, so I don't think that's a good
    argument for FPTP. The argument,
    such as it was, for FPTP, was that it
    delivered a usefully clear result
    even it was only somewhat in line with how people voted. But that
    assertion doesn't hold any more.
    Yes with PR you would see a centre
    right Conservative, centre left
    Labour, Liberal party and Reform
    and the Greens all getting over 50
    seats on the latest polls and some form of deal between Labour and
    the LDs and Greens or Reform and
    the Tories for power.

    Whereas under FPTP Reform could win a majority on barely 30% and the Greens get barely any seats at all on around 10% and on their local election voteshare of 15% the Tories be near wiped out
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 23,533

    Eabhal said:

    a

    Eabhal said:

    algarkirk said:

    From the MP for Pendle and Clitheroe:

    https://x.com/Jonathan_Hinder/status/1919310898247643422

    “Can you hear that familiar sound?

    The engines of the liberal establishment are revving up to explain why Reform’s success is definitely not down to the one thing we know it definitely is: immigration.”

    My piece on what’s staring us in the face👇

    The significance of both Tory and, as here, Labour MPs talking Reform's language and advocvating their cause should not be overlooked.

    A centrist realignment is on the way, with the aim of shooting Reform's fox. Soon everyone will sound like 1950s Labour. Lab and Con have a common interest in shooting the fox before Reform's hounds catch up with them.
    Which is stupid, in another way.

    Do something. Do something that might work and be aligned with progressive principles.

    For example, go after demand. My idea to financialise going after the users/abusers of illegal migrant labour. The migrants themselves get a reward (paid for out of the assets of those exploiting them) and indefinite leave to remain.

    Make the rich criminals pay. Help the poor migrants. As an added bonus, this might work. Plus you get lots of headlines in the Mail - “House of head of slave gang in Holland Park seized”.
    I think the real deterrent would be fines on a strict liability basis. At the moment it's based on whether you knew they were illegal.

    Even better, apply it to those who use such services. Would certainly make me think twice before getting the car washed, ordering food, getting a haircut or jumping in an Uber. It would stimulate an awful lot of racial bias, and screw a lot of legitimate small businesses, but I think it's probably worth it at this stage.
    My plan

    1) 100k fine per instance of illegal employment/selling visas/etc
    2) liability via proceeds of crime legislation - a network of companies won’t save you.
    3) liability for sub-contractors - looking at you, Deliveroo.
    4) 50% of the fine goes to the reporter of the crime
    5) They get indefinite leave to remain.
    Yep. The debate around this is a good example of cognitive dissonance - it's all about asylum rules, even though the assumption is that all of the migrants are economic migrants. The only way to stop small boats (without murdering people in the channel) is to neutralise demand for cheap illegal labour.
    I don't know that the evidence supports that. Lots of people on small boats have valid asylum claims, so neutralising the demand for cheap illegal labour won't dissuade them. Those who have their claims denied, do they come over on the expectation/hope their claims will be successful? Or do they come over to do illegal labour? Government figures say few boat people disappear into the black economy; nearly all of them just make an asylum claim as soon as possible.
    If you want to stop the boats, then the way to do so is to say that anyone who travelled by boat can not stay in the UK even if they have a legitimate claim.

    That's how the Australian version of the Rwanda scheme works. Any boat travellers are picked up and immediately turned around and sent elsewhere. If they have a legitimate claim, they're welcome to stay at that elsewhere, they're not permitted back. Which means people don't bother to make the journey, which means people don't drown making that journey.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 13,957

    Leon said:

    (2/5)

    Reform UK says it can’t fix problems quickly whilst also attacking Labour for not fixing problems quickly.

    Reform, in a nutshell.

    They won't stand four years of this until an election.
    Reform are saying “we can’t fix big things until you elect us into power in Westminster”. Which is perfectly true, the obvious strategy for them, and could easily put Farage in Number 10
    I've long said we should abolish local Councils, local elections and restore the power held by Councils to the public. This past week has reinforced that.

    Ah but what about bins? Do you want to call Whitehall about your bins?

    A few years ago I ran a business where I paid £7 a week to get a big commercial-sized bin emptied every week. I got to choose if I wanted weekly or fortnightly collections.

    Abolish Council Tax and I'd be more than happy to pay a private firm £7 a week to get a small wheelie bin emptied once a week, or £7 a fortnight to get it emptied fortnightly, instead of paying ~£150 a month to get those bins emptied fortnightly.
    How very libertarian. I recommend "A Libertarian Walks Into a Bear: The Utopian Plot to Liberate an American Town (And Some Bears)" by Matthew Hongoltz-Hetling for a picture of where that leads.

    You are not, of course, paying ~£150 a month to get those bins emptied fortnightly. You are paying for schools, for social care, for parks, etc.

    But let's say you organise your bin collection. Great. Your neighbour goes for someone else. Two doors down finds another company. Now you've got bin lorries blocking the street three days a week. Meanwhile, the neighbour on the other side doesn't organise anything or forgets to pay their bill and the rubbish is piling up in their garden, gifting you with its aroma and rats. Some things are better organised collectively.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 23,533
    edited 10:50AM
    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    (2/5)

    Reform UK says it can’t fix problems quickly whilst also attacking Labour for not fixing problems quickly.

    Reform, in a nutshell.

    They won't stand four years of this until an election.
    Reform are saying “we can’t fix big things until you elect us into power in Westminster”. Which is perfectly true, the obvious strategy for them, and could easily put Farage in Number 10
    I've long said we should abolish local Councils, local elections and restore the power held by Councils to the public. This past week has reinforced that.

    Ah but what about bins? Do you want to call Whitehall about your bins?

    A few years ago I ran a business where I paid £7 a week to get a big commercial-sized bin emptied every week. I got to choose if I wanted weekly or fortnightly collections.

    Abolish Council Tax and I'd be more than happy to pay a private firm £7 a week to get a small wheelie bin emptied once a week, or £7 a fortnight to get it emptied fortnightly, instead of paying ~£150 a month to get those bins emptied fortnightly.
    Half the people on my street wouldn't bother paying for their bins to get collected, and massive diseconomies of scale would make it incredibly expensive for those who did - you'd have several different companies coming at different times of the week, with different bin sizes etc etc .

    Bins are a natural monopoly and should be a public service as a result.
    They're not remotely a natural monopoly and commercial vehicles go up and down the streets every day to that effect.

    Without costing hundreds of pounds a month to utilise.

    As for if firms want to offer different sizes - good! Choice is a good thing.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 54,401
    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    a

    Eabhal said:

    algarkirk said:

    From the MP for Pendle and Clitheroe:

    https://x.com/Jonathan_Hinder/status/1919310898247643422

    “Can you hear that familiar sound?

    The engines of the liberal establishment are revving up to explain why Reform’s success is definitely not down to the one thing we know it definitely is: immigration.”

    My piece on what’s staring us in the face👇

    The significance of both Tory and, as here, Labour MPs talking Reform's language and advocvating their cause should not be overlooked.

    A centrist realignment is on the way, with the aim of shooting Reform's fox. Soon everyone will sound like 1950s Labour. Lab and Con have a common interest in shooting the fox before Reform's hounds catch up with them.
    Which is stupid, in another way.

    Do something. Do something that might work and be aligned with progressive principles.

    For example, go after demand. My idea to financialise going after the users/abusers of illegal migrant labour. The migrants themselves get a reward (paid for out of the assets of those exploiting them) and indefinite leave to remain.

    Make the rich criminals pay. Help the poor migrants. As an added bonus, this might work. Plus you get lots of headlines in the Mail - “House of head of slave gang in Holland Park seized”.
    I think the real deterrent would be fines on a strict liability basis. At the moment it's based on whether you knew they were illegal.

    Even better, apply it to those who use such services. Would certainly make me think twice before getting the car washed, ordering food, getting a haircut or jumping in an Uber. It would stimulate an awful lot of racial bias, and screw a lot of legitimate small businesses, but I think it's probably worth it at this stage.
    My plan

    1) 100k fine per instance of illegal employment/selling visas/etc
    2) liability via proceeds of crime legislation - a network of companies won’t save you.
    3) liability for sub-contractors - looking at you, Deliveroo.
    4) 50% of the fine goes to the reporter of the crime
    5) They get indefinite leave to remain.
    Yep. The debate around this is a good example of cognitive dissonance - it's all about asylum rules, even though the assumption is that all of the migrants are economic migrants. The only way to stop small boats (without murdering people in the channel) is to neutralise demand for cheap illegal labour.
    I don't know that the evidence supports that. Lots of people on small boats have valid asylum claims, so neutralising the demand for cheap illegal labour won't dissuade them. Those who have their claims denied, do they come over on the expectation/hope their claims will be successful? Or do they come over to do illegal labour? Government figures say few boat people disappear into the black economy; nearly all of them just make an asylum claim as soon as possible.
    Fair enough. I guess it would be a good way for Labour to look like they are doing something though.
    There’s a reason they are so keen on claiming asylum in the U.K.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 10,281

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    (2/5)

    Reform UK says it can’t fix problems quickly whilst also attacking Labour for not fixing problems quickly.

    Reform, in a nutshell.

    They won't stand four years of this until an election.
    Reform are saying “we can’t fix big things until you elect us into power in Westminster”. Which is perfectly true, the obvious strategy for them, and could easily put Farage in Number 10
    I've long said we should abolish local Councils, local elections and restore the power held by Councils to the public. This past week has reinforced that.

    Ah but what about bins? Do you want to call Whitehall about your bins?

    A few years ago I ran a business where I paid £7 a week to get a big commercial-sized bin emptied every week. I got to choose if I wanted weekly or fortnightly collections.

    Abolish Council Tax and I'd be more than happy to pay a private firm £7 a week to get a small wheelie bin emptied once a week, or £7 a fortnight to get it emptied fortnightly, instead of paying ~£150 a month to get those bins emptied fortnightly.
    Half the people on my street wouldn't bother paying for their bins to get collected, and massive diseconomies of scale would make it incredibly expensive for those who did - you'd have several different companies coming at different times of the week, with different bin sizes etc etc .

    Bins are a natural monopoly and should be a public service as a result.
    They're not remotely a natural monopoly and commercial vehicles go up and down the streets every day to that effect.

    Without costing hundreds of pounds a month to utilise.

    As for if firms want to offer different sizes - good! Choice is a good thing.
    Of course it is. It's literally the textbook example.
  • eekeek Posts: 29,889

    Eabhal said:

    a

    Eabhal said:

    algarkirk said:

    From the MP for Pendle and Clitheroe:

    https://x.com/Jonathan_Hinder/status/1919310898247643422

    “Can you hear that familiar sound?

    The engines of the liberal establishment are revving up to explain why Reform’s success is definitely not down to the one thing we know it definitely is: immigration.”

    My piece on what’s staring us in the face👇

    The significance of both Tory and, as here, Labour MPs talking Reform's language and advocvating their cause should not be overlooked.

    A centrist realignment is on the way, with the aim of shooting Reform's fox. Soon everyone will sound like 1950s Labour. Lab and Con have a common interest in shooting the fox before Reform's hounds catch up with them.
    Which is stupid, in another way.

    Do something. Do something that might work and be aligned with progressive principles.

    For example, go after demand. My idea to financialise going after the users/abusers of illegal migrant labour. The migrants themselves get a reward (paid for out of the assets of those exploiting them) and indefinite leave to remain.

    Make the rich criminals pay. Help the poor migrants. As an added bonus, this might work. Plus you get lots of headlines in the Mail - “House of head of slave gang in Holland Park seized”.
    I think the real deterrent would be fines on a strict liability basis. At the moment it's based on whether you knew they were illegal.

    Even better, apply it to those who use such services. Would certainly make me think twice before getting the car washed, ordering food, getting a haircut or jumping in an Uber. It would stimulate an awful lot of racial bias, and screw a lot of legitimate small businesses, but I think it's probably worth it at this stage.
    My plan

    1) 100k fine per instance of illegal employment/selling visas/etc
    2) liability via proceeds of crime legislation - a network of companies won’t save you.
    3) liability for sub-contractors - looking at you, Deliveroo.
    4) 50% of the fine goes to the reporter of the crime
    5) They get indefinite leave to remain.
    Yep. The debate around this is a good example of cognitive dissonance - it's all about asylum rules, even though the assumption is that all of the migrants are economic migrants. The only way to stop small boats (without murdering people in the channel) is to neutralise demand for cheap illegal labour.
    I don't know that the evidence supports that. Lots of people on small boats have valid asylum claims, so neutralising the demand for cheap illegal labour won't dissuade them. Those who have their claims denied, do they come over on the expectation/hope their claims will be successful? Or do they come over to do illegal labour? Government figures say few boat people disappear into the black economy; nearly all of them just make an asylum claim as soon as possible.
    Claiming asylum doesn't seem to stop them working if https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/05/04/illegal-migrants-britain-easy-money-deliveroo-jobs/ is true...
  • TimSTimS Posts: 15,115
    edited 10:52AM

    Roger said:

    If only there was a voting system that leads to the eventual the winner having had to gain the preference of a majority of the voters....

    A conclave then
    Pope-picking starts Wednesday.

    To validly elect a new Pope, a two-thirds majority of the electors present is required.

    If the total number of electors is not evenly divisible by three, an additional vote is necessary.

    If voting begins on the afternoon of the first day, there will be only one ballot. On subsequent days, two ballots are held in the morning and two in the afternoon.

    After the votes are counted, all ballots are burned. If the ballot was inconclusive, a chimney positioned over the Sistine Chapel emits black smoke. If a Pope is elected, white smoke will billow out of the chimney.

    If the electors fail to reach an agreement on a candidate after three days of inconclusive voting, a break of up to one day is allowed for prayer, free discussion among voters, and a brief spiritual exhortation by the Cardinal Proto-Deacon (Cardinal Dominique Mamberti).

    https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2025-04/conclave-elect-new-pope-cardinals-beginning-date-may-2025.html
    So, more like AV than FPTP!
    More like Tory leadership elections. Maybe the cardinals should whittle it down to 2 pope candidates then put the final vote to the entire world Catholic communion.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 10,281

    Eabhal said:

    a

    Eabhal said:

    algarkirk said:

    From the MP for Pendle and Clitheroe:

    https://x.com/Jonathan_Hinder/status/1919310898247643422

    “Can you hear that familiar sound?

    The engines of the liberal establishment are revving up to explain why Reform’s success is definitely not down to the one thing we know it definitely is: immigration.”

    My piece on what’s staring us in the face👇

    The significance of both Tory and, as here, Labour MPs talking Reform's language and advocvating their cause should not be overlooked.

    A centrist realignment is on the way, with the aim of shooting Reform's fox. Soon everyone will sound like 1950s Labour. Lab and Con have a common interest in shooting the fox before Reform's hounds catch up with them.
    Which is stupid, in another way.

    Do something. Do something that might work and be aligned with progressive principles.

    For example, go after demand. My idea to financialise going after the users/abusers of illegal migrant labour. The migrants themselves get a reward (paid for out of the assets of those exploiting them) and indefinite leave to remain.

    Make the rich criminals pay. Help the poor migrants. As an added bonus, this might work. Plus you get lots of headlines in the Mail - “House of head of slave gang in Holland Park seized”.
    I think the real deterrent would be fines on a strict liability basis. At the moment it's based on whether you knew they were illegal.

    Even better, apply it to those who use such services. Would certainly make me think twice before getting the car washed, ordering food, getting a haircut or jumping in an Uber. It would stimulate an awful lot of racial bias, and screw a lot of legitimate small businesses, but I think it's probably worth it at this stage.
    My plan

    1) 100k fine per instance of illegal employment/selling visas/etc
    2) liability via proceeds of crime legislation - a network of companies won’t save you.
    3) liability for sub-contractors - looking at you, Deliveroo.
    4) 50% of the fine goes to the reporter of the crime
    5) They get indefinite leave to remain.
    Yep. The debate around this is a good example of cognitive dissonance - it's all about asylum rules, even though the assumption is that all of the migrants are economic migrants. The only way to stop small boats (without murdering people in the channel) is to neutralise demand for cheap illegal labour.
    I don't know that the evidence supports that. Lots of people on small boats have valid asylum claims, so neutralising the demand for cheap illegal labour won't dissuade them. Those who have their claims denied, do they come over on the expectation/hope their claims will be successful? Or do they come over to do illegal labour? Government figures say few boat people disappear into the black economy; nearly all of them just make an asylum claim as soon as possible.
    If you want to stop the boats, then the way to do so is to say that anyone who travelled by boat can not stay in the UK even if they have a legitimate claim.

    That's how the Australian version of the Rwanda scheme works. Any boat travellers are picked up and immediately turned around and sent elsewhere. If they have a legitimate claim, they're welcome to stay at that elsewhere, they're not permitted back. Which means people don't bother to make the journey, which means people don't drown making that journey.
    The government needs to find a legal fudge to make this stick.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 65,116
    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    (2/5)

    Reform UK says it can’t fix problems quickly whilst also attacking Labour for not fixing problems quickly.

    Reform, in a nutshell.

    They won't stand four years of this until an election.
    Reform are saying “we can’t fix big things until you elect us into power in Westminster”. Which is perfectly true, the obvious strategy for them, and could easily put Farage in Number 10
    I've long said we should abolish local Councils, local elections and restore the power held by Councils to the public. This past week has reinforced that.

    Ah but what about bins? Do you want to call Whitehall about your bins?

    A few years ago I ran a business where I paid £7 a week to get a big commercial-sized bin emptied every week. I got to choose if I wanted weekly or fortnightly collections.

    Abolish Council Tax and I'd be more than happy to pay a private firm £7 a week to get a small wheelie bin emptied once a week, or £7 a fortnight to get it emptied fortnightly, instead of paying ~£150 a month to get those bins emptied fortnightly.
    Half the people on my street wouldn't bother paying for their bins to get collected, and massive diseconomies of scale would make it incredibly expensive for those who did - you'd have several different companies coming at different times of the week, with different bin sizes etc etc .

    Bins are a natural monopoly and should be a public service as a result.
    We pay our local recycling centre £62 pa to call and collect 2 garden waste bins once a fortnight
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 10,281
    edited 10:53AM

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    (2/5)

    Reform UK says it can’t fix problems quickly whilst also attacking Labour for not fixing problems quickly.

    Reform, in a nutshell.

    They won't stand four years of this until an election.
    Reform are saying “we can’t fix big things until you elect us into power in Westminster”. Which is perfectly true, the obvious strategy for them, and could easily put Farage in Number 10
    I've long said we should abolish local Councils, local elections and restore the power held by Councils to the public. This past week has reinforced that.

    Ah but what about bins? Do you want to call Whitehall about your bins?

    A few years ago I ran a business where I paid £7 a week to get a big commercial-sized bin emptied every week. I got to choose if I wanted weekly or fortnightly collections.

    Abolish Council Tax and I'd be more than happy to pay a private firm £7 a week to get a small wheelie bin emptied once a week, or £7 a fortnight to get it emptied fortnightly, instead of paying ~£150 a month to get those bins emptied fortnightly.
    Half the people on my street wouldn't bother paying for their bins to get collected, and massive diseconomies of scale would make it incredibly expensive for those who did - you'd have several different companies coming at different times of the week, with different bin sizes etc etc .

    Bins are a natural monopoly and should be a public service as a result.
    We pay our local recycling centre £62 pa to call and collect 2 garden waste bins once a fortnight
    How many local recycling centres do you have? (I presume it's a private business).
  • eekeek Posts: 29,889

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    (2/5)

    Reform UK says it can’t fix problems quickly whilst also attacking Labour for not fixing problems quickly.

    Reform, in a nutshell.

    They won't stand four years of this until an election.
    Reform are saying “we can’t fix big things until you elect us into power in Westminster”. Which is perfectly true, the obvious strategy for them, and could easily put Farage in Number 10
    I've long said we should abolish local Councils, local elections and restore the power held by Councils to the public. This past week has reinforced that.

    Ah but what about bins? Do you want to call Whitehall about your bins?

    A few years ago I ran a business where I paid £7 a week to get a big commercial-sized bin emptied every week. I got to choose if I wanted weekly or fortnightly collections.

    Abolish Council Tax and I'd be more than happy to pay a private firm £7 a week to get a small wheelie bin emptied once a week, or £7 a fortnight to get it emptied fortnightly, instead of paying ~£150 a month to get those bins emptied fortnightly.
    Half the people on my street wouldn't bother paying for their bins to get collected, and massive diseconomies of scale would make it incredibly expensive for those who did - you'd have several different companies coming at different times of the week, with different bin sizes etc etc .

    Bins are a natural monopoly and should be a public service as a result.
    We pay our local recycling centre £62 pa to call and collect 2 garden waste bins once a fortnight
    Garden waste is optional - you don't need it if you don't have a garden nor if you compost the lot..
  • eekeek Posts: 29,889

    Eabhal said:

    a

    Eabhal said:

    algarkirk said:

    From the MP for Pendle and Clitheroe:

    https://x.com/Jonathan_Hinder/status/1919310898247643422

    “Can you hear that familiar sound?

    The engines of the liberal establishment are revving up to explain why Reform’s success is definitely not down to the one thing we know it definitely is: immigration.”

    My piece on what’s staring us in the face👇

    The significance of both Tory and, as here, Labour MPs talking Reform's language and advocvating their cause should not be overlooked.

    A centrist realignment is on the way, with the aim of shooting Reform's fox. Soon everyone will sound like 1950s Labour. Lab and Con have a common interest in shooting the fox before Reform's hounds catch up with them.
    Which is stupid, in another way.

    Do something. Do something that might work and be aligned with progressive principles.

    For example, go after demand. My idea to financialise going after the users/abusers of illegal migrant labour. The migrants themselves get a reward (paid for out of the assets of those exploiting them) and indefinite leave to remain.

    Make the rich criminals pay. Help the poor migrants. As an added bonus, this might work. Plus you get lots of headlines in the Mail - “House of head of slave gang in Holland Park seized”.
    I think the real deterrent would be fines on a strict liability basis. At the moment it's based on whether you knew they were illegal.

    Even better, apply it to those who use such services. Would certainly make me think twice before getting the car washed, ordering food, getting a haircut or jumping in an Uber. It would stimulate an awful lot of racial bias, and screw a lot of legitimate small businesses, but I think it's probably worth it at this stage.
    My plan

    1) 100k fine per instance of illegal employment/selling visas/etc
    2) liability via proceeds of crime legislation - a network of companies won’t save you.
    3) liability for sub-contractors - looking at you, Deliveroo.
    4) 50% of the fine goes to the reporter of the crime
    5) They get indefinite leave to remain.
    Yep. The debate around this is a good example of cognitive dissonance - it's all about asylum rules, even though the assumption is that all of the migrants are economic migrants. The only way to stop small boats (without murdering people in the channel) is to neutralise demand for cheap illegal labour.
    I don't know that the evidence supports that. Lots of people on small boats have valid asylum claims, so neutralising the demand for cheap illegal labour won't dissuade them. Those who have their claims denied, do they come over on the expectation/hope their claims will be successful? Or do they come over to do illegal labour? Government figures say few boat people disappear into the black economy; nearly all of them just make an asylum claim as soon as possible.
    If you want to stop the boats, then the way to do so is to say that anyone who travelled by boat can not stay in the UK even if they have a legitimate claim.

    That's how the Australian version of the Rwanda scheme works. Any boat travellers are picked up and immediately turned around and sent elsewhere. If they have a legitimate claim, they're welcome to stay at that elsewhere, they're not permitted back. Which means people don't bother to make the journey, which means people don't drown making that journey.
    That only really works if you have international waters between country 1 and 2 as Australia has.

    The english channel doesn't exactly have anything which isn't either French coastal waters or English coastal waters.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 26,900

    Leon said:

    (2/5)

    Reform UK says it can’t fix problems quickly whilst also attacking Labour for not fixing problems quickly.

    Reform, in a nutshell.

    They won't stand four years of this until an election.
    Reform are saying “we can’t fix big things until you elect us into power in Westminster”. Which is perfectly true, the obvious strategy for them, and could easily put Farage in Number 10
    I've long said we should abolish local Councils, local elections and restore the power held by Councils to the public. This past week has reinforced that.

    Ah but what about bins? Do you want to call Whitehall about your bins?

    A few years ago I ran a business where I paid £7 a week to get a big commercial-sized bin emptied every week. I got to choose if I wanted weekly or fortnightly collections.

    Abolish Council Tax and I'd be more than happy to pay a private firm £7 a week to get a small wheelie bin emptied once a week, or £7 a fortnight to get it emptied fortnightly, instead of paying ~£150 a month to get those bins emptied fortnightly.
    Your £150 a month also pays for the education system, and all the other services.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 15,115

    Eabhal said:

    a

    Eabhal said:

    algarkirk said:

    From the MP for Pendle and Clitheroe:

    https://x.com/Jonathan_Hinder/status/1919310898247643422

    “Can you hear that familiar sound?

    The engines of the liberal establishment are revving up to explain why Reform’s success is definitely not down to the one thing we know it definitely is: immigration.”

    My piece on what’s staring us in the face👇

    The significance of both Tory and, as here, Labour MPs talking Reform's language and advocvating their cause should not be overlooked.

    A centrist realignment is on the way, with the aim of shooting Reform's fox. Soon everyone will sound like 1950s Labour. Lab and Con have a common interest in shooting the fox before Reform's hounds catch up with them.
    Which is stupid, in another way.

    Do something. Do something that might work and be aligned with progressive principles.

    For example, go after demand. My idea to financialise going after the users/abusers of illegal migrant labour. The migrants themselves get a reward (paid for out of the assets of those exploiting them) and indefinite leave to remain.

    Make the rich criminals pay. Help the poor migrants. As an added bonus, this might work. Plus you get lots of headlines in the Mail - “House of head of slave gang in Holland Park seized”.
    I think the real deterrent would be fines on a strict liability basis. At the moment it's based on whether you knew they were illegal.

    Even better, apply it to those who use such services. Would certainly make me think twice before getting the car washed, ordering food, getting a haircut or jumping in an Uber. It would stimulate an awful lot of racial bias, and screw a lot of legitimate small businesses, but I think it's probably worth it at this stage.
    My plan

    1) 100k fine per instance of illegal employment/selling visas/etc
    2) liability via proceeds of crime legislation - a network of companies won’t save you.
    3) liability for sub-contractors - looking at you, Deliveroo.
    4) 50% of the fine goes to the reporter of the crime
    5) They get indefinite leave to remain.
    Yep. The debate around this is a good example of cognitive dissonance - it's all about asylum rules, even though the assumption is that all of the migrants are economic migrants. The only way to stop small boats (without murdering people in the channel) is to neutralise demand for cheap illegal labour.
    I don't know that the evidence supports that. Lots of people on small boats have valid asylum claims, so neutralising the demand for cheap illegal labour won't dissuade them. Those who have their claims denied, do they come over on the expectation/hope their claims will be successful? Or do they come over to do illegal labour? Government figures say few boat people disappear into the black economy; nearly all of them just make an asylum claim as soon as possible.
    If you want to stop the boats, then the way to do so is to say that anyone who travelled by boat can not stay in the UK even if they have a legitimate claim.

    That's how the Australian version of the Rwanda scheme works. Any boat travellers are picked up and immediately turned around and sent elsewhere. If they have a legitimate claim, they're welcome to stay at that elsewhere, they're not permitted back. Which means people don't bother to make the journey, which means people don't drown making that journey.
    That is only remotely fair if there are other practical means to claim asylum. It is virtually impossible to do so at British consulates and embassies abroad, and equally virtually impossible to get a tourist visa to come here from the typical source countries in order to claim on arrival at the airport.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 23,533

    Leon said:

    (2/5)

    Reform UK says it can’t fix problems quickly whilst also attacking Labour for not fixing problems quickly.

    Reform, in a nutshell.

    They won't stand four years of this until an election.
    Reform are saying “we can’t fix big things until you elect us into power in Westminster”. Which is perfectly true, the obvious strategy for them, and could easily put Farage in Number 10
    I've long said we should abolish local Councils, local elections and restore the power held by Councils to the public. This past week has reinforced that.

    Ah but what about bins? Do you want to call Whitehall about your bins?

    A few years ago I ran a business where I paid £7 a week to get a big commercial-sized bin emptied every week. I got to choose if I wanted weekly or fortnightly collections.

    Abolish Council Tax and I'd be more than happy to pay a private firm £7 a week to get a small wheelie bin emptied once a week, or £7 a fortnight to get it emptied fortnightly, instead of paying ~£150 a month to get those bins emptied fortnightly.
    How very libertarian. I recommend "A Libertarian Walks Into a Bear: The Utopian Plot to Liberate an American Town (And Some Bears)" by Matthew Hongoltz-Hetling for a picture of where that leads.

    You are not, of course, paying ~£150 a month to get those bins emptied fortnightly. You are paying for schools, for social care, for parks, etc.

    But let's say you organise your bin collection. Great. Your neighbour goes for someone else. Two doors down finds another company. Now you've got bin lorries blocking the street three days a week. Meanwhile, the neighbour on the other side doesn't organise anything or forgets to pay their bill and the rubbish is piling up in their garden, gifting you with its aroma and rats. Some things are better organised collectively.
    Firms go up and down roads all the time, no big deal. So what if 3 different lorries come once a week for 5 minutes a week? Better that than paying for local busybodies to interfere.

    Schools and social care are paid for on a national level too and the laws for it are all set on a national level. Again, abolish the Council from intervening. We already have schools mostly in academies, what do we need Local Authorities for? Have a fee that goes with a pupil, more if they're SEND/PP, and then let the school worry about its budget and cut out the local authorities.

    Ditto with social care, charge people for their care or run it through the Department of Health and Social Care. Its all legally determined nationally anyway, so why do local authorities need to exist?
  • eekeek Posts: 29,889
    edited 10:57AM
    MattW said:

    Leon said:

    (2/5)

    Reform UK says it can’t fix problems quickly whilst also attacking Labour for not fixing problems quickly.

    Reform, in a nutshell.

    They won't stand four years of this until an election.
    Reform are saying “we can’t fix big things until you elect us into power in Westminster”. Which is perfectly true, the obvious strategy for them, and could easily put Farage in Number 10
    I've long said we should abolish local Councils, local elections and restore the power held by Councils to the public. This past week has reinforced that.

    Ah but what about bins? Do you want to call Whitehall about your bins?

    A few years ago I ran a business where I paid £7 a week to get a big commercial-sized bin emptied every week. I got to choose if I wanted weekly or fortnightly collections.

    Abolish Council Tax and I'd be more than happy to pay a private firm £7 a week to get a small wheelie bin emptied once a week, or £7 a fortnight to get it emptied fortnightly, instead of paying ~£150 a month to get those bins emptied fortnightly.
    Your £150 a month also pays for the education system, and all the other services.
    Your £150 pays for social care - education is nowadays thanks to academies directly funded from the Department of Education. Previously it was from the Department of Education paying the council who then split the money out.

    This is half the problem with local government everything thinks that because they do xyz the local tax payers pay for it and that wasn't / isn't actually the case in many cases.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 9,836
    glw said:

    US tariffs of 100% on foreign film production will destroy the British film industry where over 80% of spending is foreign producers and most of that from the US.

    Imagine working in an industry where overnight Donald Trump can destroy your business, and do so for some ridiculous reason of national security.

    Right now the US is a bigger threat to UK wellbeing than bloody Russia.

    In practice how do you charge a tariff on a movie? Do you require the cinema to collect it? Or how do you track importing of a digital file?

  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 54,401

    Leon said:

    (2/5)

    Reform UK says it can’t fix problems quickly whilst also attacking Labour for not fixing problems quickly.

    Reform, in a nutshell.

    They won't stand four years of this until an election.
    Reform are saying “we can’t fix big things until you elect us into power in Westminster”. Which is perfectly true, the obvious strategy for them, and could easily put Farage in Number 10
    I've long said we should abolish local Councils, local elections and restore the power held by Councils to the public. This past week has reinforced that.

    Ah but what about bins? Do you want to call Whitehall about your bins?

    A few years ago I ran a business where I paid £7 a week to get a big commercial-sized bin emptied every week. I got to choose if I wanted weekly or fortnightly collections.

    Abolish Council Tax and I'd be more than happy to pay a private firm £7 a week to get a small wheelie bin emptied once a week, or £7 a fortnight to get it emptied fortnightly, instead of paying ~£150 a month to get those bins emptied fortnightly.
    How very libertarian. I recommend "A Libertarian Walks Into a Bear: The Utopian Plot to Liberate an American Town (And Some Bears)" by Matthew Hongoltz-Hetling for a picture of where that leads.

    You are not, of course, paying ~£150 a month to get those bins emptied fortnightly. You are paying for schools, for social care, for parks, etc.

    But let's say you organise your bin collection. Great. Your neighbour goes for someone else. Two doors down finds another company. Now you've got bin lorries blocking the street three days a week. Meanwhile, the neighbour on the other side doesn't organise anything or forgets to pay their bill and the rubbish is piling up in their garden, gifting you with its aroma and rats. Some things are better organised collectively.
    In a number of councils (including mine), bin collection is once every two weeks. And they are “consulting” on once every three weeks. Charges for the “the dump” have gone up again.

    They are very puzzled by the amount of fly tipping. And have viciously cracked down on the scum who leave small boxes of books etc on their garden wall for people to take away for free.

    But the problem persists. One councillor was very upset to discover that richer residents are paying for rubbish removal.

    Strange, eh?
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 23,533
    eek said:

    Eabhal said:

    a

    Eabhal said:

    algarkirk said:

    From the MP for Pendle and Clitheroe:

    https://x.com/Jonathan_Hinder/status/1919310898247643422

    “Can you hear that familiar sound?

    The engines of the liberal establishment are revving up to explain why Reform’s success is definitely not down to the one thing we know it definitely is: immigration.”

    My piece on what’s staring us in the face👇

    The significance of both Tory and, as here, Labour MPs talking Reform's language and advocvating their cause should not be overlooked.

    A centrist realignment is on the way, with the aim of shooting Reform's fox. Soon everyone will sound like 1950s Labour. Lab and Con have a common interest in shooting the fox before Reform's hounds catch up with them.
    Which is stupid, in another way.

    Do something. Do something that might work and be aligned with progressive principles.

    For example, go after demand. My idea to financialise going after the users/abusers of illegal migrant labour. The migrants themselves get a reward (paid for out of the assets of those exploiting them) and indefinite leave to remain.

    Make the rich criminals pay. Help the poor migrants. As an added bonus, this might work. Plus you get lots of headlines in the Mail - “House of head of slave gang in Holland Park seized”.
    I think the real deterrent would be fines on a strict liability basis. At the moment it's based on whether you knew they were illegal.

    Even better, apply it to those who use such services. Would certainly make me think twice before getting the car washed, ordering food, getting a haircut or jumping in an Uber. It would stimulate an awful lot of racial bias, and screw a lot of legitimate small businesses, but I think it's probably worth it at this stage.
    My plan

    1) 100k fine per instance of illegal employment/selling visas/etc
    2) liability via proceeds of crime legislation - a network of companies won’t save you.
    3) liability for sub-contractors - looking at you, Deliveroo.
    4) 50% of the fine goes to the reporter of the crime
    5) They get indefinite leave to remain.
    Yep. The debate around this is a good example of cognitive dissonance - it's all about asylum rules, even though the assumption is that all of the migrants are economic migrants. The only way to stop small boats (without murdering people in the channel) is to neutralise demand for cheap illegal labour.
    I don't know that the evidence supports that. Lots of people on small boats have valid asylum claims, so neutralising the demand for cheap illegal labour won't dissuade them. Those who have their claims denied, do they come over on the expectation/hope their claims will be successful? Or do they come over to do illegal labour? Government figures say few boat people disappear into the black economy; nearly all of them just make an asylum claim as soon as possible.
    If you want to stop the boats, then the way to do so is to say that anyone who travelled by boat can not stay in the UK even if they have a legitimate claim.

    That's how the Australian version of the Rwanda scheme works. Any boat travellers are picked up and immediately turned around and sent elsewhere. If they have a legitimate claim, they're welcome to stay at that elsewhere, they're not permitted back. Which means people don't bother to make the journey, which means people don't drown making that journey.
    That only really works if you have international waters between country 1 and 2 as Australia has.

    The english channel doesn't exactly have anything which isn't either French coastal waters or English coastal waters.
    Or if you have a third party to take them to and are willing to do so.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 65,116
    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    (2/5)

    Reform UK says it can’t fix problems quickly whilst also attacking Labour for not fixing problems quickly.

    Reform, in a nutshell.

    They won't stand four years of this until an election.
    Reform are saying “we can’t fix big things until you elect us into power in Westminster”. Which is perfectly true, the obvious strategy for them, and could easily put Farage in Number 10
    I've long said we should abolish local Councils, local elections and restore the power held by Councils to the public. This past week has reinforced that.

    Ah but what about bins? Do you want to call Whitehall about your bins?

    A few years ago I ran a business where I paid £7 a week to get a big commercial-sized bin emptied every week. I got to choose if I wanted weekly or fortnightly collections.

    Abolish Council Tax and I'd be more than happy to pay a private firm £7 a week to get a small wheelie bin emptied once a week, or £7 a fortnight to get it emptied fortnightly, instead of paying ~£150 a month to get those bins emptied fortnightly.
    Half the people on my street wouldn't bother paying for their bins to get collected, and massive diseconomies of scale would make it incredibly expensive for those who did - you'd have several different companies coming at different times of the week, with different bin sizes etc etc .

    Bins are a natural monopoly and should be a public service as a result.
    We pay our local recycling centre £62 pa to call and collect 2 garden waste bins once a fortnight
    How many local recycling centres do you have? (I presume it's a private business).
    One locally run on behalf of the council (Conwy) by Brysons

    There is another 15 miles away

    I can take our garden waste to the recycling centre for free
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 65,116
    eek said:

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    (2/5)

    Reform UK says it can’t fix problems quickly whilst also attacking Labour for not fixing problems quickly.

    Reform, in a nutshell.

    They won't stand four years of this until an election.
    Reform are saying “we can’t fix big things until you elect us into power in Westminster”. Which is perfectly true, the obvious strategy for them, and could easily put Farage in Number 10
    I've long said we should abolish local Councils, local elections and restore the power held by Councils to the public. This past week has reinforced that.

    Ah but what about bins? Do you want to call Whitehall about your bins?

    A few years ago I ran a business where I paid £7 a week to get a big commercial-sized bin emptied every week. I got to choose if I wanted weekly or fortnightly collections.

    Abolish Council Tax and I'd be more than happy to pay a private firm £7 a week to get a small wheelie bin emptied once a week, or £7 a fortnight to get it emptied fortnightly, instead of paying ~£150 a month to get those bins emptied fortnightly.
    Half the people on my street wouldn't bother paying for their bins to get collected, and massive diseconomies of scale would make it incredibly expensive for those who did - you'd have several different companies coming at different times of the week, with different bin sizes etc etc .

    Bins are a natural monopoly and should be a public service as a result.
    We pay our local recycling centre £62 pa to call and collect 2 garden waste bins once a fortnight
    Garden waste is optional - you don't need it if you don't have a garden nor if you compost the lot..
    There are a lot of gardens in our area and many do pay the extra for one or two garden waste bins
  • eekeek Posts: 29,889

    glw said:

    US tariffs of 100% on foreign film production will destroy the British film industry where over 80% of spending is foreign producers and most of that from the US.

    Imagine working in an industry where overnight Donald Trump can destroy your business, and do so for some ridiculous reason of national security.

    Right now the US is a bigger threat to UK wellbeing than bloody Russia.

    In practice how do you charge a tariff on a movie? Do you require the cinema to collect it? Or how do you track importing of a digital file?

    Also what makes a movie American? the production location, the stars?
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 13,957

    Eabhal said:

    a

    Eabhal said:

    algarkirk said:

    From the MP for Pendle and Clitheroe:

    https://x.com/Jonathan_Hinder/status/1919310898247643422

    “Can you hear that familiar sound?

    The engines of the liberal establishment are revving up to explain why Reform’s success is definitely not down to the one thing we know it definitely is: immigration.”

    My piece on what’s staring us in the face👇

    The significance of both Tory and, as here, Labour MPs talking Reform's language and advocvating their cause should not be overlooked.

    A centrist realignment is on the way, with the aim of shooting Reform's fox. Soon everyone will sound like 1950s Labour. Lab and Con have a common interest in shooting the fox before Reform's hounds catch up with them.
    Which is stupid, in another way.

    Do something. Do something that might work and be aligned with progressive principles.

    For example, go after demand. My idea to financialise going after the users/abusers of illegal migrant labour. The migrants themselves get a reward (paid for out of the assets of those exploiting them) and indefinite leave to remain.

    Make the rich criminals pay. Help the poor migrants. As an added bonus, this might work. Plus you get lots of headlines in the Mail - “House of head of slave gang in Holland Park seized”.
    I think the real deterrent would be fines on a strict liability basis. At the moment it's based on whether you knew they were illegal.

    Even better, apply it to those who use such services. Would certainly make me think twice before getting the car washed, ordering food, getting a haircut or jumping in an Uber. It would stimulate an awful lot of racial bias, and screw a lot of legitimate small businesses, but I think it's probably worth it at this stage.
    My plan

    1) 100k fine per instance of illegal employment/selling visas/etc
    2) liability via proceeds of crime legislation - a network of companies won’t save you.
    3) liability for sub-contractors - looking at you, Deliveroo.
    4) 50% of the fine goes to the reporter of the crime
    5) They get indefinite leave to remain.
    Yep. The debate around this is a good example of cognitive dissonance - it's all about asylum rules, even though the assumption is that all of the migrants are economic migrants. The only way to stop small boats (without murdering people in the channel) is to neutralise demand for cheap illegal labour.
    I don't know that the evidence supports that. Lots of people on small boats have valid asylum claims, so neutralising the demand for cheap illegal labour won't dissuade them. Those who have their claims denied, do they come over on the expectation/hope their claims will be successful? Or do they come over to do illegal labour? Government figures say few boat people disappear into the black economy; nearly all of them just make an asylum claim as soon as possible.
    If you want to stop the boats, then the way to do so is to say that anyone who travelled by boat can not stay in the UK even if they have a legitimate claim.

    That's how the Australian version of the Rwanda scheme works. Any boat travellers are picked up and immediately turned around and sent elsewhere. If they have a legitimate claim, they're welcome to stay at that elsewhere, they're not permitted back. Which means people don't bother to make the journey, which means people don't drown making that journey.
    The sea crossings to Australia are much longer than to the UK; Australia had more outlying islands they could dump people on; and the total numbers were lower.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 9,836
    FF43 said:

    algarkirk said:

    FF43 said:

    FPTP as a nonsense voting system, not only a bit undemocratic voting system

    Not quite. Yes, you get anomalies like this one, but attention should be focussed on the overall results of the system. On the whole FPTP is a system everyone understands and is the same for everyone; over time - we are currently in an unusual state of transition - the system will return to there being two broadly centrist camps with the common ground of all being the post WWII social democratic settlement - the bit that spends all the money both nationally and locally as Reform are about to find out.

    Currently there is a fight for one of the centrist camps. The Lab/LD camp is clear. Reform is in the other camp, with Tories split as to whether they are in the same camp as Reform or not. Once that is settled, either by splitting, integration, absorption or extinction of Tory and/or Reform we'll go back to normal.
    People in serious democratic countries, almost all using PR, understand their voting systems too, so I don't think that's a good argument for FPTP. The argument, such as it was, for FPTP, was that it delivered a usefully clear result even it was only somewhat in line with how people voted.
    But that assertion doesn't hold any more.
    We are electing a local representative, nothing to do with national percentage shares like PR.

    FPTP is simple. Everyone votes. The candidate with the most votes is appointed.

  • LeonLeon Posts: 60,174
    eek said:

    Eabhal said:

    a

    Eabhal said:

    algarkirk said:

    From the MP for Pendle and Clitheroe:

    https://x.com/Jonathan_Hinder/status/1919310898247643422

    “Can you hear that familiar sound?

    The engines of the liberal establishment are revving up to explain why Reform’s success is definitely not down to the one thing we know it definitely is: immigration.”

    My piece on what’s staring us in the face👇

    The significance of both Tory and, as here, Labour MPs talking Reform's language and advocvating their cause should not be overlooked.

    A centrist realignment is on the way, with the aim of shooting Reform's fox. Soon everyone will sound like 1950s Labour. Lab and Con have a common interest in shooting the fox before Reform's hounds catch up with them.
    Which is stupid, in another way.

    Do something. Do something that might work and be aligned with progressive principles.

    For example, go after demand. My idea to financialise going after the users/abusers of illegal migrant labour. The migrants themselves get a reward (paid for out of the assets of those exploiting them) and indefinite leave to remain.

    Make the rich criminals pay. Help the poor migrants. As an added bonus, this might work. Plus you get lots of headlines in the Mail - “House of head of slave gang in Holland Park seized”.
    I think the real deterrent would be fines on a strict liability basis. At the moment it's based on whether you knew they were illegal.

    Even better, apply it to those who use such services. Would certainly make me think twice before getting the car washed, ordering food, getting a haircut or jumping in an Uber. It would stimulate an awful lot of racial bias, and screw a lot of legitimate small businesses, but I think it's probably worth it at this stage.
    My plan

    1) 100k fine per instance of illegal employment/selling visas/etc
    2) liability via proceeds of crime legislation - a network of companies won’t save you.
    3) liability for sub-contractors - looking at you, Deliveroo.
    4) 50% of the fine goes to the reporter of the crime
    5) They get indefinite leave to remain.
    Yep. The debate around this is a good example of cognitive dissonance - it's all about asylum rules, even though the assumption is that all of the migrants are economic migrants. The only way to stop small boats (without murdering people in the channel) is to neutralise demand for cheap illegal labour.
    I don't know that the evidence supports that. Lots of people on small boats have valid asylum claims, so neutralising the demand for cheap illegal labour won't dissuade them. Those who have their claims denied, do they come over on the expectation/hope their claims will be successful? Or do they come over to do illegal labour? Government figures say few boat people disappear into the black economy; nearly all of them just make an asylum claim as soon as possible.
    If you want to stop the boats, then the way to do so is to say that anyone who travelled by boat can not stay in the UK even if they have a legitimate claim.

    That's how the Australian version of the Rwanda scheme works. Any boat travellers are picked up and immediately turned around and sent elsewhere. If they have a legitimate claim, they're welcome to stay at that elsewhere, they're not permitted back. Which means people don't bother to make the journey, which means people don't drown making that journey.
    That only really works if you have international waters between country 1 and 2 as Australia has.

    The english channel doesn't exactly have anything which isn't either French coastal waters or English coastal waters.
    TimS said:

    Eabhal said:

    a

    Eabhal said:

    algarkirk said:

    From the MP for Pendle and Clitheroe:

    https://x.com/Jonathan_Hinder/status/1919310898247643422

    “Can you hear that familiar sound?

    The engines of the liberal establishment are revving up to explain why Reform’s success is definitely not down to the one thing we know it definitely is: immigration.”

    My piece on what’s staring us in the face👇

    The significance of both Tory and, as here, Labour MPs talking Reform's language and advocvating their cause should not be overlooked.

    A centrist realignment is on the way, with the aim of shooting Reform's fox. Soon everyone will sound like 1950s Labour. Lab and Con have a common interest in shooting the fox before Reform's hounds catch up with them.
    Which is stupid, in another way.

    Do something. Do something that might work and be aligned with progressive principles.

    For example, go after demand. My idea to financialise going after the users/abusers of illegal migrant labour. The migrants themselves get a reward (paid for out of the assets of those exploiting them) and indefinite leave to remain.

    Make the rich criminals pay. Help the poor migrants. As an added bonus, this might work. Plus you get lots of headlines in the Mail - “House of head of slave gang in Holland Park seized”.
    I think the real deterrent would be fines on a strict liability basis. At the moment it's based on whether you knew they were illegal.

    Even better, apply it to those who use such services. Would certainly make me think twice before getting the car washed, ordering food, getting a haircut or jumping in an Uber. It would stimulate an awful lot of racial bias, and screw a lot of legitimate small businesses, but I think it's probably worth it at this stage.
    My plan

    1) 100k fine per instance of illegal employment/selling visas/etc
    2) liability via proceeds of crime legislation - a network of companies won’t save you.
    3) liability for sub-contractors - looking at you, Deliveroo.
    4) 50% of the fine goes to the reporter of the crime
    5) They get indefinite leave to remain.
    Yep. The debate around this is a good example of cognitive dissonance - it's all about asylum rules, even though the assumption is that all of the migrants are economic migrants. The only way to stop small boats (without murdering people in the channel) is to neutralise demand for cheap illegal labour.
    I don't know that the evidence supports that. Lots of people on small boats have valid asylum claims, so neutralising the demand for cheap illegal labour won't dissuade them. Those who have their claims denied, do they come over on the expectation/hope their claims will be successful? Or do they come over to do illegal labour? Government figures say few boat people disappear into the black economy; nearly all of them just make an asylum claim as soon as possible.
    If you want to stop the boats, then the way to do so is to say that anyone who travelled by boat can not stay in the UK even if they have a legitimate claim.

    That's how the Australian version of the Rwanda scheme works. Any boat travellers are picked up and immediately turned around and sent elsewhere. If they have a legitimate claim, they're welcome to stay at that elsewhere, they're not permitted back. Which means people don't bother to make the journey, which means people don't drown making that journey.
    That is only remotely fair if there are other practical means to claim asylum. It is virtually impossible to do so at British consulates and embassies abroad, and equally virtually impossible to get a tourist visa to come here from the typical source countries in order to claim on arrival at the airport.
    End the right to asylum. Job done
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 10,281

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    (2/5)

    Reform UK says it can’t fix problems quickly whilst also attacking Labour for not fixing problems quickly.

    Reform, in a nutshell.

    They won't stand four years of this until an election.
    Reform are saying “we can’t fix big things until you elect us into power in Westminster”. Which is perfectly true, the obvious strategy for them, and could easily put Farage in Number 10
    I've long said we should abolish local Councils, local elections and restore the power held by Councils to the public. This past week has reinforced that.

    Ah but what about bins? Do you want to call Whitehall about your bins?

    A few years ago I ran a business where I paid £7 a week to get a big commercial-sized bin emptied every week. I got to choose if I wanted weekly or fortnightly collections.

    Abolish Council Tax and I'd be more than happy to pay a private firm £7 a week to get a small wheelie bin emptied once a week, or £7 a fortnight to get it emptied fortnightly, instead of paying ~£150 a month to get those bins emptied fortnightly.
    Half the people on my street wouldn't bother paying for their bins to get collected, and massive diseconomies of scale would make it incredibly expensive for those who did - you'd have several different companies coming at different times of the week, with different bin sizes etc etc .

    Bins are a natural monopoly and should be a public service as a result.
    We pay our local recycling centre £62 pa to call and collect 2 garden waste bins once a fortnight
    How many local recycling centres do you have? (I presume it's a private business).
    One locally run on behalf of the council (Conwy) by Brysons

    There is another 15 miles away

    I can take our garden waste to the recycling centre for free
    So, a monopoly.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 23,533
    eek said:

    MattW said:

    Leon said:

    (2/5)

    Reform UK says it can’t fix problems quickly whilst also attacking Labour for not fixing problems quickly.

    Reform, in a nutshell.

    They won't stand four years of this until an election.
    Reform are saying “we can’t fix big things until you elect us into power in Westminster”. Which is perfectly true, the obvious strategy for them, and could easily put Farage in Number 10
    I've long said we should abolish local Councils, local elections and restore the power held by Councils to the public. This past week has reinforced that.

    Ah but what about bins? Do you want to call Whitehall about your bins?

    A few years ago I ran a business where I paid £7 a week to get a big commercial-sized bin emptied every week. I got to choose if I wanted weekly or fortnightly collections.

    Abolish Council Tax and I'd be more than happy to pay a private firm £7 a week to get a small wheelie bin emptied once a week, or £7 a fortnight to get it emptied fortnightly, instead of paying ~£150 a month to get those bins emptied fortnightly.
    Your £150 a month also pays for the education system, and all the other services.
    Your £150 pays for social care - education is nowadays thanks to academies directly funded from the Department of Education. Previously it was from the Department of Education paying the council who then split the money out.

    This is half the problem with local government everything thinks that because they do xyz the local tax payers pay for it and that wasn't / isn't actually the case in many cases.
    Exactly. Although I believe the local authorities do have a role still to play with Education for SEND purposes, and universally everyone I know in Education says that SEND provision is the worst bit of the state to deal with too (besides maybe OFSTED).

    Cut out the authorities for SEND just as PP etc already exists. Especially since its already determined to national standards and national laws anyway.

    And why the heck do we need local authorities for social care? Again its determined to national standards and national laws, and we have a Department of ... Social Care at a Cabinet Level. Its not as if local Councillors are determining the laws for Social Care, Parliament is.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 9,836

    Roger said:

    If only there was a voting system that leads to the eventual the winner having had to gain the preference of a majority of the voters....

    A conclave then
    Pope-picking starts Wednesday.

    To validly elect a new Pope, a two-thirds majority of the electors present is required.

    If the total number of electors is not evenly divisible by three, an additional vote is necessary.

    If voting begins on the afternoon of the first day, there will be only one ballot. On subsequent days, two ballots are held in the morning and two in the afternoon.

    After the votes are counted, all ballots are burned. If the ballot was inconclusive, a chimney positioned over the Sistine Chapel emits black smoke. If a Pope is elected, white smoke will billow out of the chimney.

    If the electors fail to reach an agreement on a candidate after three days of inconclusive voting, a break of up to one day is allowed for prayer, free discussion among voters, and a brief spiritual exhortation by the Cardinal Proto-Deacon (Cardinal Dominique Mamberti).

    https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2025-04/conclave-elect-new-pope-cardinals-beginning-date-may-2025.html
    They used to burn the ballot papers with straw for white smoke and with pitch for black. These days they use smoke grenades.

    Somehow a little disappointing
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,286

    eek said:

    FF43 said:

    FPTP as a nonsense voting system, not only a bit undemocratic voting system

    I have a system to replace it.

    1) It is FPTP & every single form of AV. It is perfectly proportional
    2) Fraud is impossible
    3) Vote counting is instant
    4) Voting is transparent.
    The problem with one man one vote is there is a lot of us who want to be the man with the single vote..
    The position is taken by King Charles. Normalising him using his power to sack the PM would have a lot of political benefits.
    The King can only remove a PM who has lost the confidence of most MPs and replace them with a PM who has the support of most of Parliament
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 4,963

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    (2/5)

    Reform UK says it can’t fix problems quickly whilst also attacking Labour for not fixing problems quickly.

    Reform, in a nutshell.

    They won't stand four years of this until an election.
    Reform are saying “we can’t fix big things until you elect us into power in Westminster”. Which is perfectly true, the obvious strategy for them, and could easily put Farage in Number 10
    I've long said we should abolish local Councils, local elections and restore the power held by Councils to the public. This past week has reinforced that.

    Ah but what about bins? Do you want to call Whitehall about your bins?

    A few years ago I ran a business where I paid £7 a week to get a big commercial-sized bin emptied every week. I got to choose if I wanted weekly or fortnightly collections.

    Abolish Council Tax and I'd be more than happy to pay a private firm £7 a week to get a small wheelie bin emptied once a week, or £7 a fortnight to get it emptied fortnightly, instead of paying ~£150 a month to get those bins emptied fortnightly.
    Half the people on my street wouldn't bother paying for their bins to get collected, and massive diseconomies of scale would make it incredibly expensive for those who did - you'd have several different companies coming at different times of the week, with different bin sizes etc etc .

    Bins are a natural monopoly and should be a public service as a result.
    They're not remotely a natural monopoly and commercial vehicles go up and down the streets every day to that effect.

    Without costing hundreds of pounds a month to utilise.

    As for if firms want to offer different sizes - good! Choice is a good thing.
    Charging for waste disposal leads to fly tipping, which the authorities seem powerless to stop.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 73,664

    Roger said:

    If only there was a voting system that leads to the eventual the winner having had to gain the preference of a majority of the voters....

    A conclave then
    Pope-picking starts Wednesday.

    To validly elect a new Pope, a two-thirds majority of the electors present is required.

    If the total number of electors is not evenly divisible by three, an additional vote is necessary.

    If voting begins on the afternoon of the first day, there will be only one ballot. On subsequent days, two ballots are held in the morning and two in the afternoon.

    After the votes are counted, all ballots are burned. If the ballot was inconclusive, a chimney positioned over the Sistine Chapel emits black smoke. If a Pope is elected, white smoke will billow out of the chimney.

    If the electors fail to reach an agreement on a candidate after three days of inconclusive voting, a break of up to one day is allowed for prayer, free discussion among voters, and a brief spiritual exhortation by the Cardinal Proto-Deacon (Cardinal Dominique Mamberti).

    https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2025-04/conclave-elect-new-pope-cardinals-beginning-date-may-2025.html
    They used to burn the ballot papers with straw for white smoke and with pitch for black. These days they use smoke grenades.

    Somehow a little disappointing
    The old pope going out with a bang.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 55,028

    Eabhal said:

    a

    Eabhal said:

    algarkirk said:

    From the MP for Pendle and Clitheroe:

    https://x.com/Jonathan_Hinder/status/1919310898247643422

    “Can you hear that familiar sound?

    The engines of the liberal establishment are revving up to explain why Reform’s success is definitely not down to the one thing we know it definitely is: immigration.”

    My piece on what’s staring us in the face👇

    The significance of both Tory and, as here, Labour MPs talking Reform's language and advocvating their cause should not be overlooked.

    A centrist realignment is on the way, with the aim of shooting Reform's fox. Soon everyone will sound like 1950s Labour. Lab and Con have a common interest in shooting the fox before Reform's hounds catch up with them.
    Which is stupid, in another way.

    Do something. Do something that might work and be aligned with progressive principles.

    For example, go after demand. My idea to financialise going after the users/abusers of illegal migrant labour. The migrants themselves get a reward (paid for out of the assets of those exploiting them) and indefinite leave to remain.

    Make the rich criminals pay. Help the poor migrants. As an added bonus, this might work. Plus you get lots of headlines in the Mail - “House of head of slave gang in Holland Park seized”.
    I think the real deterrent would be fines on a strict liability basis. At the moment it's based on whether you knew they were illegal.

    Even better, apply it to those who use such services. Would certainly make me think twice before getting the car washed, ordering food, getting a haircut or jumping in an Uber. It would stimulate an awful lot of racial bias, and screw a lot of legitimate small businesses, but I think it's probably worth it at this stage.
    My plan

    1) 100k fine per instance of illegal employment/selling visas/etc
    2) liability via proceeds of crime legislation - a network of companies won’t save you.
    3) liability for sub-contractors - looking at you, Deliveroo.
    4) 50% of the fine goes to the reporter of the crime
    5) They get indefinite leave to remain.
    Yep. The debate around this is a good example of cognitive dissonance - it's all about asylum rules, even though the assumption is that all of the migrants are economic migrants. The only way to stop small boats (without murdering people in the channel) is to neutralise demand for cheap illegal labour.
    I don't know that the evidence supports that. Lots of people on small boats have valid asylum claims, so neutralising the demand for cheap illegal labour won't dissuade them. Those who have their claims denied, do they come over on the expectation/hope their claims will be successful? Or do they come over to do illegal labour? Government figures say few boat people disappear into the black economy; nearly all of them just make an asylum claim as soon as possible.
    If you want to stop the boats, then the way to do so is to say that anyone who travelled by boat can not stay in the UK even if they have a legitimate claim.

    That's how the Australian version of the Rwanda scheme works. Any boat travellers are picked up and immediately turned around and sent elsewhere. If they have a legitimate claim, they're welcome to stay at that elsewhere, they're not permitted back. Which means people don't bother to make the journey, which means people don't drown making that journey.
    The sea crossings to Australia are much longer than to the UK; Australia had more outlying islands they could dump people on; and the total numbers were lower.
    The UK consists of nearly 200 inhabited islands. We could establish a Summerisle-style community for them.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 23,533

    Eabhal said:

    a

    Eabhal said:

    algarkirk said:

    From the MP for Pendle and Clitheroe:

    https://x.com/Jonathan_Hinder/status/1919310898247643422

    “Can you hear that familiar sound?

    The engines of the liberal establishment are revving up to explain why Reform’s success is definitely not down to the one thing we know it definitely is: immigration.”

    My piece on what’s staring us in the face👇

    The significance of both Tory and, as here, Labour MPs talking Reform's language and advocvating their cause should not be overlooked.

    A centrist realignment is on the way, with the aim of shooting Reform's fox. Soon everyone will sound like 1950s Labour. Lab and Con have a common interest in shooting the fox before Reform's hounds catch up with them.
    Which is stupid, in another way.

    Do something. Do something that might work and be aligned with progressive principles.

    For example, go after demand. My idea to financialise going after the users/abusers of illegal migrant labour. The migrants themselves get a reward (paid for out of the assets of those exploiting them) and indefinite leave to remain.

    Make the rich criminals pay. Help the poor migrants. As an added bonus, this might work. Plus you get lots of headlines in the Mail - “House of head of slave gang in Holland Park seized”.
    I think the real deterrent would be fines on a strict liability basis. At the moment it's based on whether you knew they were illegal.

    Even better, apply it to those who use such services. Would certainly make me think twice before getting the car washed, ordering food, getting a haircut or jumping in an Uber. It would stimulate an awful lot of racial bias, and screw a lot of legitimate small businesses, but I think it's probably worth it at this stage.
    My plan

    1) 100k fine per instance of illegal employment/selling visas/etc
    2) liability via proceeds of crime legislation - a network of companies won’t save you.
    3) liability for sub-contractors - looking at you, Deliveroo.
    4) 50% of the fine goes to the reporter of the crime
    5) They get indefinite leave to remain.
    Yep. The debate around this is a good example of cognitive dissonance - it's all about asylum rules, even though the assumption is that all of the migrants are economic migrants. The only way to stop small boats (without murdering people in the channel) is to neutralise demand for cheap illegal labour.
    I don't know that the evidence supports that. Lots of people on small boats have valid asylum claims, so neutralising the demand for cheap illegal labour won't dissuade them. Those who have their claims denied, do they come over on the expectation/hope their claims will be successful? Or do they come over to do illegal labour? Government figures say few boat people disappear into the black economy; nearly all of them just make an asylum claim as soon as possible.
    If you want to stop the boats, then the way to do so is to say that anyone who travelled by boat can not stay in the UK even if they have a legitimate claim.

    That's how the Australian version of the Rwanda scheme works. Any boat travellers are picked up and immediately turned around and sent elsewhere. If they have a legitimate claim, they're welcome to stay at that elsewhere, they're not permitted back. Which means people don't bother to make the journey, which means people don't drown making that journey.
    The sea crossings to Australia are much longer than to the UK; Australia had more outlying islands they could dump people on; and the total numbers were lower.
    They're not going to an Australian island, they got a third party state to agree to take them - and they keep them, even if the claim is legitimate.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 65,116
    edited 11:07AM
    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    (2/5)

    Reform UK says it can’t fix problems quickly whilst also attacking Labour for not fixing problems quickly.

    Reform, in a nutshell.

    They won't stand four years of this until an election.
    Reform are saying “we can’t fix big things until you elect us into power in Westminster”. Which is perfectly true, the obvious strategy for them, and could easily put Farage in Number 10
    I've long said we should abolish local Councils, local elections and restore the power held by Councils to the public. This past week has reinforced that.

    Ah but what about bins? Do you want to call Whitehall about your bins?

    A few years ago I ran a business where I paid £7 a week to get a big commercial-sized bin emptied every week. I got to choose if I wanted weekly or fortnightly collections.

    Abolish Council Tax and I'd be more than happy to pay a private firm £7 a week to get a small wheelie bin emptied once a week, or £7 a fortnight to get it emptied fortnightly, instead of paying ~£150 a month to get those bins emptied fortnightly.
    Half the people on my street wouldn't bother paying for their bins to get collected, and massive diseconomies of scale would make it incredibly expensive for those who did - you'd have several different companies coming at different times of the week, with different bin sizes etc etc .

    Bins are a natural monopoly and should be a public service as a result.
    We pay our local recycling centre £62 pa to call and collect 2 garden waste bins once a fortnight
    How many local recycling centres do you have? (I presume it's a private business).
    One locally run on behalf of the council (Conwy) by Brysons

    There is another 15 miles away

    I can take our garden waste to the recycling centre for free
    So, a monopoly.
    Our Council are excellent at recycling but you have to accept the following

    Once weekly collection of food waste, cardboard, and plastic and glass, and paper

    Fortnightly collection of garden waste and clothing

    Monthly collection of the bin
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 23,533

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    (2/5)

    Reform UK says it can’t fix problems quickly whilst also attacking Labour for not fixing problems quickly.

    Reform, in a nutshell.

    They won't stand four years of this until an election.
    Reform are saying “we can’t fix big things until you elect us into power in Westminster”. Which is perfectly true, the obvious strategy for them, and could easily put Farage in Number 10
    I've long said we should abolish local Councils, local elections and restore the power held by Councils to the public. This past week has reinforced that.

    Ah but what about bins? Do you want to call Whitehall about your bins?

    A few years ago I ran a business where I paid £7 a week to get a big commercial-sized bin emptied every week. I got to choose if I wanted weekly or fortnightly collections.

    Abolish Council Tax and I'd be more than happy to pay a private firm £7 a week to get a small wheelie bin emptied once a week, or £7 a fortnight to get it emptied fortnightly, instead of paying ~£150 a month to get those bins emptied fortnightly.
    Half the people on my street wouldn't bother paying for their bins to get collected, and massive diseconomies of scale would make it incredibly expensive for those who did - you'd have several different companies coming at different times of the week, with different bin sizes etc etc .

    Bins are a natural monopoly and should be a public service as a result.
    They're not remotely a natural monopoly and commercial vehicles go up and down the streets every day to that effect.

    Without costing hundreds of pounds a month to utilise.

    As for if firms want to offer different sizes - good! Choice is a good thing.
    Charging for waste disposal leads to fly tipping, which the authorities seem powerless to stop.
    Bins only being emptied once a fortnight or month with no option for more regular collections leads to fly tipping.

    Give people a choice of £7 a week/fortnight or £150 a month for fortnightly collections and I think you might find more than just myself wants the former.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,286

    Leon said:

    (2/5)

    Reform UK says it can’t fix problems quickly whilst also attacking Labour for not fixing problems quickly.

    Reform, in a nutshell.

    They won't stand four years of this until an election.
    Reform are saying “we can’t fix big things until you elect us into power in Westminster”. Which is perfectly true, the obvious strategy for them, and could easily put Farage in Number 10
    I've long said we should abolish local Councils, local elections and restore the power held by Councils to the public. This past week has reinforced that.

    Ah but what about bins? Do you want to call Whitehall about your bins?

    A few years ago I ran a business where I paid £7 a week to get a big commercial-sized bin emptied every week. I got to choose if I wanted weekly or fortnightly collections.

    Abolish Council Tax and I'd be more than happy to pay a private firm £7 a week to get a small wheelie bin emptied once a week, or £7 a fortnight to get it emptied fortnightly, instead of paying ~£150 a month to get those bins emptied fortnightly.
    How very libertarian. I recommend "A Libertarian Walks Into a Bear: The Utopian Plot to Liberate an American Town (And Some Bears)" by Matthew Hongoltz-Hetling for a picture of where that leads.

    You are not, of course, paying ~£150 a month to get those bins emptied fortnightly. You are paying for schools, for social care, for parks, etc.

    But let's say you organise your bin collection. Great. Your neighbour goes for someone else. Two doors down finds another company. Now you've got bin lorries blocking the street three days a week. Meanwhile, the neighbour on the other side doesn't organise anything or forgets to pay their bill and the rubbish is piling up in their garden, gifting you with its aroma and rats. Some things are better organised collectively.
    Firms go up and down roads all the time, no big deal. So what if 3 different lorries come once a week for 5 minutes a week? Better that than paying for local busybodies to interfere.

    Schools and social care are paid for on a national level too and the laws for it are all set on a national level. Again, abolish the Council from intervening. We already have schools mostly in academies, what do we need Local Authorities for? Have a fee that goes with a pupil, more if they're SEND/PP, and then let the school worry about its budget and cut out the local authorities.

    Ditto with social care, charge people for their care or run it through the Department of Health and Social Care. Its all legally determined nationally anyway, so why do local authorities need to exist?
    Highways, rubbish collection, heritage and museums, the environment, planning and development and creation of Local Plans.

    If they didn't do education every school would have to be an academy and if they didn't do social care that would just see higher national insurance or income tax to fund it even if local council tax
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,616

    Roger said:

    If only there was a voting system that leads to the eventual the winner having had to gain the preference of a majority of the voters....

    A conclave then
    Pope-picking starts Wednesday.

    To validly elect a new Pope, a two-thirds majority of the electors present is required.

    If the total number of electors is not evenly divisible by three, an additional vote is necessary.

    If voting begins on the afternoon of the first day, there will be only one ballot. On subsequent days, two ballots are held in the morning and two in the afternoon.

    After the votes are counted, all ballots are burned. If the ballot was inconclusive, a chimney positioned over the Sistine Chapel emits black smoke. If a Pope is elected, white smoke will billow out of the chimney.

    If the electors fail to reach an agreement on a candidate after three days of inconclusive voting, a break of up to one day is allowed for prayer, free discussion among voters, and a brief spiritual exhortation by the Cardinal Proto-Deacon (Cardinal Dominique Mamberti).

    https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2025-04/conclave-elect-new-pope-cardinals-beginning-date-may-2025.html
    They used to burn the ballot papers with straw for white smoke and with pitch for black. These days they use smoke grenades.

    Somehow a little disappointing
    I was so affected by The Sun taking the piss before GE2005 that I now half-expect red smoke.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 55,028

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    (2/5)

    Reform UK says it can’t fix problems quickly whilst also attacking Labour for not fixing problems quickly.

    Reform, in a nutshell.

    They won't stand four years of this until an election.
    Reform are saying “we can’t fix big things until you elect us into power in Westminster”. Which is perfectly true, the obvious strategy for them, and could easily put Farage in Number 10
    I've long said we should abolish local Councils, local elections and restore the power held by Councils to the public. This past week has reinforced that.

    Ah but what about bins? Do you want to call Whitehall about your bins?

    A few years ago I ran a business where I paid £7 a week to get a big commercial-sized bin emptied every week. I got to choose if I wanted weekly or fortnightly collections.

    Abolish Council Tax and I'd be more than happy to pay a private firm £7 a week to get a small wheelie bin emptied once a week, or £7 a fortnight to get it emptied fortnightly, instead of paying ~£150 a month to get those bins emptied fortnightly.
    Half the people on my street wouldn't bother paying for their bins to get collected, and massive diseconomies of scale would make it incredibly expensive for those who did - you'd have several different companies coming at different times of the week, with different bin sizes etc etc .

    Bins are a natural monopoly and should be a public service as a result.
    They're not remotely a natural monopoly and commercial vehicles go up and down the streets every day to that effect.

    Without costing hundreds of pounds a month to utilise.

    As for if firms want to offer different sizes - good! Choice is a good thing.
    Charging for waste disposal leads to fly tipping, which the authorities seem powerless to stop.
    Bins only being emptied once a fortnight or month with no option for more regular collections leads to fly tipping.

    Give people a choice of £7 a week/fortnight or £150 a month for fortnightly collections and I think you might find more than just myself wants the former.
    What's your solution for people who won't pay at all?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,616
    The BBC really has gone downhill.

    One of the commentators "astonished" to learn the Royal Marines are wearing pith helmets of the Wolseley pattern, from a retired major-general.

    Give me strength.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 30,011
    TimS said:

    Roger said:

    If only there was a voting system that leads to the eventual the winner having had to gain the preference of a majority of the voters....

    A conclave then
    Pope-picking starts Wednesday.

    To validly elect a new Pope, a two-thirds majority of the electors present is required.

    If the total number of electors is not evenly divisible by three, an additional vote is necessary.

    If voting begins on the afternoon of the first day, there will be only one ballot. On subsequent days, two ballots are held in the morning and two in the afternoon.

    After the votes are counted, all ballots are burned. If the ballot was inconclusive, a chimney positioned over the Sistine Chapel emits black smoke. If a Pope is elected, white smoke will billow out of the chimney.

    If the electors fail to reach an agreement on a candidate after three days of inconclusive voting, a break of up to one day is allowed for prayer, free discussion among voters, and a brief spiritual exhortation by the Cardinal Proto-Deacon (Cardinal Dominique Mamberti).

    https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2025-04/conclave-elect-new-pope-cardinals-beginning-date-may-2025.html
    So, more like AV than FPTP!
    More like Tory leadership elections. Maybe the cardinals should whittle it down to 2 pope candidates then put the final vote to the entire world Catholic communion.
    Would you be able to take communion and believe in transubstantiation temporarily in order to get a vote?
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 23,533

    Roger said:

    If only there was a voting system that leads to the eventual the winner having had to gain the preference of a majority of the voters....

    A conclave then
    Pope-picking starts Wednesday.

    To validly elect a new Pope, a two-thirds majority of the electors present is required.

    If the total number of electors is not evenly divisible by three, an additional vote is necessary.

    If voting begins on the afternoon of the first day, there will be only one ballot. On subsequent days, two ballots are held in the morning and two in the afternoon.

    After the votes are counted, all ballots are burned. If the ballot was inconclusive, a chimney positioned over the Sistine Chapel emits black smoke. If a Pope is elected, white smoke will billow out of the chimney.

    If the electors fail to reach an agreement on a candidate after three days of inconclusive voting, a break of up to one day is allowed for prayer, free discussion among voters, and a brief spiritual exhortation by the Cardinal Proto-Deacon (Cardinal Dominique Mamberti).

    https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2025-04/conclave-elect-new-pope-cardinals-beginning-date-may-2025.html
    They used to burn the ballot papers with straw for white smoke and with pitch for black. These days they use smoke grenades.

    Somehow a little disappointing
    Or its dumb American kids messing around.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5QdsBJh1L0
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 13,957

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    a

    Eabhal said:

    algarkirk said:

    From the MP for Pendle and Clitheroe:

    https://x.com/Jonathan_Hinder/status/1919310898247643422

    “Can you hear that familiar sound?

    The engines of the liberal establishment are revving up to explain why Reform’s success is definitely not down to the one thing we know it definitely is: immigration.”

    My piece on what’s staring us in the face👇

    The significance of both Tory and, as here, Labour MPs talking Reform's language and advocvating their cause should not be overlooked.

    A centrist realignment is on the way, with the aim of shooting Reform's fox. Soon everyone will sound like 1950s Labour. Lab and Con have a common interest in shooting the fox before Reform's hounds catch up with them.
    Which is stupid, in another way.

    Do something. Do something that might work and be aligned with progressive principles.

    For example, go after demand. My idea to financialise going after the users/abusers of illegal migrant labour. The migrants themselves get a reward (paid for out of the assets of those exploiting them) and indefinite leave to remain.

    Make the rich criminals pay. Help the poor migrants. As an added bonus, this might work. Plus you get lots of headlines in the Mail - “House of head of slave gang in Holland Park seized”.
    I think the real deterrent would be fines on a strict liability basis. At the moment it's based on whether you knew they were illegal.

    Even better, apply it to those who use such services. Would certainly make me think twice before getting the car washed, ordering food, getting a haircut or jumping in an Uber. It would stimulate an awful lot of racial bias, and screw a lot of legitimate small businesses, but I think it's probably worth it at this stage.
    My plan

    1) 100k fine per instance of illegal employment/selling visas/etc
    2) liability via proceeds of crime legislation - a network of companies won’t save you.
    3) liability for sub-contractors - looking at you, Deliveroo.
    4) 50% of the fine goes to the reporter of the crime
    5) They get indefinite leave to remain.
    Yep. The debate around this is a good example of cognitive dissonance - it's all about asylum rules, even though the assumption is that all of the migrants are economic migrants. The only way to stop small boats (without murdering people in the channel) is to neutralise demand for cheap illegal labour.
    I don't know that the evidence supports that. Lots of people on small boats have valid asylum claims, so neutralising the demand for cheap illegal labour won't dissuade them. Those who have their claims denied, do they come over on the expectation/hope their claims will be successful? Or do they come over to do illegal labour? Government figures say few boat people disappear into the black economy; nearly all of them just make an asylum claim as soon as possible.
    Fair enough. I guess it would be a good way for Labour to look like they are doing something though.
    There’s a reason they are so keen on claiming asylum in the U.K.
    More people claim asylum in places like France and Germany. Those who claim asylum in the UK do so for a variety of reasons. Some are attracted to the UK, some speak English better than other languages, some are seeking to join family or existing communities. A Home Office research study, https://www.embraceni.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/hors243.pdf , concluded:

    "For those respondents who were in a position to choose a destination country, several key factors shaped their decision to come to the UK. These were: whether they had relatives or friends here; their belief that the UK is a safe, tolerant and democratic country; previous links between their own country and the UK including colonialism; and their ability to speak English or desire to learn it.

    "There was very little evidence that the sample respondents had a detailed knowledge of: UK immigration or asylum procedures; entitlements to benefits in the UK; or the availability of work in the UK. There was even less evidence that the respondents had a comparative knowledge of how these phenomena varied between different European countries. Most of the respondents wished to work and support themselves during the determination of their asylum claim rather than be dependent on the state."

    However, it's a difficult area to study and the paper notes concerns about sampling bias. The paper also notes that many people go through people smugglers, and they go where the people smugglers will take them.

    A 2006 paper, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13691830600821901 , reports:

    "Received wisdom suggests that asylum-seekers come to the UK because of the generosity of the welfare state and the ease of finding work in the growing informal labour market, because the UK has no identity cards, and because of a fairly poor record on sending home unsuccessful asylum applicants. Based on interviews with 87 asylum-seekers from Afghanistan, Colombia, Kosovo and Somalia, this paper suggests that the realities of asylum-seeking are quite different. Few of the respondents arrived with much knowledge of the UK, and their knowledge was limited to general impressions of the country; they knew little about asylum policy and practice. There are five main reasons why they knew so little: many had not chosen their own destination; surprisingly few had family or friends already in the UK; in some cases they had been provided with false or misleading information; many had departed their country of origin in a rush; and most were relatively poorly educated. Why they ended up in the UK was often linked to the role of smugglers, who often chose the final destination."
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 13,957
    A study of asylum seekers in the Netherlands, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1369183X.1999.9976671 , finds similar results: "Why, for example, do so many asylum‐seekers go to the Netherlands? The authors consider the question of just how much choice the asylum‐seeker has. Next, the importance is analysed of three groups of factors in explaining the patterns of destination of asylum‐seekers: (1) ties between the country of origin and the country of asylum, (2) the characteristics of the countries of destination and, (3) events during the actual flight and journey which might influence the destination of the asylum‐seeker."
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 13,957
    eek said:

    Eabhal said:

    a

    Eabhal said:

    algarkirk said:

    From the MP for Pendle and Clitheroe:

    https://x.com/Jonathan_Hinder/status/1919310898247643422

    “Can you hear that familiar sound?

    The engines of the liberal establishment are revving up to explain why Reform’s success is definitely not down to the one thing we know it definitely is: immigration.”

    My piece on what’s staring us in the face👇

    The significance of both Tory and, as here, Labour MPs talking Reform's language and advocvating their cause should not be overlooked.

    A centrist realignment is on the way, with the aim of shooting Reform's fox. Soon everyone will sound like 1950s Labour. Lab and Con have a common interest in shooting the fox before Reform's hounds catch up with them.
    Which is stupid, in another way.

    Do something. Do something that might work and be aligned with progressive principles.

    For example, go after demand. My idea to financialise going after the users/abusers of illegal migrant labour. The migrants themselves get a reward (paid for out of the assets of those exploiting them) and indefinite leave to remain.

    Make the rich criminals pay. Help the poor migrants. As an added bonus, this might work. Plus you get lots of headlines in the Mail - “House of head of slave gang in Holland Park seized”.
    I think the real deterrent would be fines on a strict liability basis. At the moment it's based on whether you knew they were illegal.

    Even better, apply it to those who use such services. Would certainly make me think twice before getting the car washed, ordering food, getting a haircut or jumping in an Uber. It would stimulate an awful lot of racial bias, and screw a lot of legitimate small businesses, but I think it's probably worth it at this stage.
    My plan

    1) 100k fine per instance of illegal employment/selling visas/etc
    2) liability via proceeds of crime legislation - a network of companies won’t save you.
    3) liability for sub-contractors - looking at you, Deliveroo.
    4) 50% of the fine goes to the reporter of the crime
    5) They get indefinite leave to remain.
    Yep. The debate around this is a good example of cognitive dissonance - it's all about asylum rules, even though the assumption is that all of the migrants are economic migrants. The only way to stop small boats (without murdering people in the channel) is to neutralise demand for cheap illegal labour.
    I don't know that the evidence supports that. Lots of people on small boats have valid asylum claims, so neutralising the demand for cheap illegal labour won't dissuade them. Those who have their claims denied, do they come over on the expectation/hope their claims will be successful? Or do they come over to do illegal labour? Government figures say few boat people disappear into the black economy; nearly all of them just make an asylum claim as soon as possible.
    Claiming asylum doesn't seem to stop them working if https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/05/04/illegal-migrants-britain-easy-money-deliveroo-jobs/ is true...
    I can't say that I find the Telegraph to be reliable in its reporting on this topic. If you have any sources from more reliable outlets, I would be interested to read them.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 38,640

    Eabhal said:

    a

    Eabhal said:

    algarkirk said:

    From the MP for Pendle and Clitheroe:

    https://x.com/Jonathan_Hinder/status/1919310898247643422

    “Can you hear that familiar sound?

    The engines of the liberal establishment are revving up to explain why Reform’s success is definitely not down to the one thing we know it definitely is: immigration.”

    My piece on what’s staring us in the face👇

    The significance of both Tory and, as here, Labour MPs talking Reform's language and advocvating their cause should not be overlooked.

    A centrist realignment is on the way, with the aim of shooting Reform's fox. Soon everyone will sound like 1950s Labour. Lab and Con have a common interest in shooting the fox before Reform's hounds catch up with them.
    Which is stupid, in another way.

    Do something. Do something that might work and be aligned with progressive principles.

    For example, go after demand. My idea to financialise going after the users/abusers of illegal migrant labour. The migrants themselves get a reward (paid for out of the assets of those exploiting them) and indefinite leave to remain.

    Make the rich criminals pay. Help the poor migrants. As an added bonus, this might work. Plus you get lots of headlines in the Mail - “House of head of slave gang in Holland Park seized”.
    I think the real deterrent would be fines on a strict liability basis. At the moment it's based on whether you knew they were illegal.

    Even better, apply it to those who use such services. Would certainly make me think twice before getting the car washed, ordering food, getting a haircut or jumping in an Uber. It would stimulate an awful lot of racial bias, and screw a lot of legitimate small businesses, but I think it's probably worth it at this stage.
    My plan

    1) 100k fine per instance of illegal employment/selling visas/etc
    2) liability via proceeds of crime legislation - a network of companies won’t save you.
    3) liability for sub-contractors - looking at you, Deliveroo.
    4) 50% of the fine goes to the reporter of the crime
    5) They get indefinite leave to remain.
    Yep. The debate around this is a good example of cognitive dissonance - it's all about asylum rules, even though the assumption is that all of the migrants are economic migrants. The only way to stop small boats (without murdering people in the channel) is to neutralise demand for cheap illegal labour.
    I don't know that the evidence supports that. Lots of people on small boats have valid asylum claims, so neutralising the demand for cheap illegal labour won't dissuade them. Those who have their claims denied, do they come over on the expectation/hope their claims will be successful? Or do they come over to do illegal labour? Government figures say few boat people disappear into the black economy; nearly all of them just make an asylum claim as soon as possible.
    If you want to stop the boats, then the way to do so is to say that anyone who travelled by boat can not stay in the UK even if they have a legitimate claim.

    That's how the Australian version of the Rwanda scheme works. Any boat travellers are picked up and immediately turned around and sent elsewhere. If they have a legitimate claim, they're welcome to stay at that elsewhere, they're not permitted back. Which means people don't bother to make the journey, which means people don't drown making that journey.
    The sea crossings to Australia are much longer than to the UK; Australia had more outlying islands they could dump people on; and the total numbers were lower.
    The UK consists of nearly 200 inhabited islands. We could establish a Summerisle-style community for them.
    Complete with burnings, if the crops fail.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 83,805
    edited 11:21AM

    snip

    From 20 years ago, with sample of 87 and by its nature will be self selecting....
  • LeonLeon Posts: 60,174
    Just end the right to asylum. Job done
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 54,401
    a

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    a

    Eabhal said:

    algarkirk said:

    From the MP for Pendle and Clitheroe:

    https://x.com/Jonathan_Hinder/status/1919310898247643422

    “Can you hear that familiar sound?

    The engines of the liberal establishment are revving up to explain why Reform’s success is definitely not down to the one thing we know it definitely is: immigration.”

    My piece on what’s staring us in the face👇

    The significance of both Tory and, as here, Labour MPs talking Reform's language and advocvating their cause should not be overlooked.

    A centrist realignment is on the way, with the aim of shooting Reform's fox. Soon everyone will sound like 1950s Labour. Lab and Con have a common interest in shooting the fox before Reform's hounds catch up with them.
    Which is stupid, in another way.

    Do something. Do something that might work and be aligned with progressive principles.

    For example, go after demand. My idea to financialise going after the users/abusers of illegal migrant labour. The migrants themselves get a reward (paid for out of the assets of those exploiting them) and indefinite leave to remain.

    Make the rich criminals pay. Help the poor migrants. As an added bonus, this might work. Plus you get lots of headlines in the Mail - “House of head of slave gang in Holland Park seized”.
    I think the real deterrent would be fines on a strict liability basis. At the moment it's based on whether you knew they were illegal.

    Even better, apply it to those who use such services. Would certainly make me think twice before getting the car washed, ordering food, getting a haircut or jumping in an Uber. It would stimulate an awful lot of racial bias, and screw a lot of legitimate small businesses, but I think it's probably worth it at this stage.
    My plan

    1) 100k fine per instance of illegal employment/selling visas/etc
    2) liability via proceeds of crime legislation - a network of companies won’t save you.
    3) liability for sub-contractors - looking at you, Deliveroo.
    4) 50% of the fine goes to the reporter of the crime
    5) They get indefinite leave to remain.
    Yep. The debate around this is a good example of cognitive dissonance - it's all about asylum rules, even though the assumption is that all of the migrants are economic migrants. The only way to stop small boats (without murdering people in the channel) is to neutralise demand for cheap illegal labour.
    I don't know that the evidence supports that. Lots of people on small boats have valid asylum claims, so neutralising the demand for cheap illegal labour won't dissuade them. Those who have their claims denied, do they come over on the expectation/hope their claims will be successful? Or do they come over to do illegal labour? Government figures say few boat people disappear into the black economy; nearly all of them just make an asylum claim as soon as possible.
    Fair enough. I guess it would be a good way for Labour to look like they are doing something though.
    There’s a reason they are so keen on claiming asylum in the U.K.
    More people claim asylum in places like France and Germany. Those who claim asylum in the UK do so for a variety of reasons. Some are attracted to the UK, some speak English better than other languages, some are seeking to join family or existing communities. A Home Office research study, https://www.embraceni.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/hors243.pdf , concluded:

    "For those respondents who were in a position to choose a destination country, several key factors shaped their decision to come to the UK. These were: whether they had relatives or friends here; their belief that the UK is a safe, tolerant and democratic country; previous links between their own country and the UK including colonialism; and their ability to speak English or desire to learn it.

    "There was very little evidence that the sample respondents had a detailed knowledge of: UK immigration or asylum procedures; entitlements to benefits in the UK; or the availability of work in the UK. There was even less evidence that the respondents had a comparative knowledge of how these phenomena varied between different European countries. Most of the respondents wished to work and support themselves during the determination of their asylum claim rather than be dependent on the state."

    However, it's a difficult area to study and the paper notes concerns about sampling bias. The paper also notes that many people go through people smugglers, and they go where the people smugglers will take them.

    A 2006 paper, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13691830600821901 , reports:

    "Received wisdom suggests that asylum-seekers come to the UK because of the generosity of the welfare state and the ease of finding work in the growing informal labour market, because the UK has no identity cards, and because of a fairly poor record on sending home unsuccessful asylum applicants. Based on interviews with 87 asylum-seekers from Afghanistan, Colombia, Kosovo and Somalia, this paper suggests that the realities of asylum-seeking are quite different. Few of the respondents arrived with much knowledge of the UK, and their knowledge was limited to general impressions of the country; they knew little about asylum policy and practice. There are five main reasons why they knew so little: many had not chosen their own destination; surprisingly few had family or friends already in the UK; in some cases they had been provided with false or misleading information; many had departed their country of origin in a rush; and most were relatively poorly educated. Why they ended up in the UK was often linked to the role of smugglers, who often chose the final destination."
    The smugglers get them into debt, very often, which they then have to work off.

    A business model that only works, if they can get employment.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 13,957

    Leon said:

    (2/5)

    Reform UK says it can’t fix problems quickly whilst also attacking Labour for not fixing problems quickly.

    Reform, in a nutshell.

    They won't stand four years of this until an election.
    Reform are saying “we can’t fix big things until you elect us into power in Westminster”. Which is perfectly true, the obvious strategy for them, and could easily put Farage in Number 10
    I've long said we should abolish local Councils, local elections and restore the power held by Councils to the public. This past week has reinforced that.

    Ah but what about bins? Do you want to call Whitehall about your bins?

    A few years ago I ran a business where I paid £7 a week to get a big commercial-sized bin emptied every week. I got to choose if I wanted weekly or fortnightly collections.

    Abolish Council Tax and I'd be more than happy to pay a private firm £7 a week to get a small wheelie bin emptied once a week, or £7 a fortnight to get it emptied fortnightly, instead of paying ~£150 a month to get those bins emptied fortnightly.
    How very libertarian. I recommend "A Libertarian Walks Into a Bear: The Utopian Plot to Liberate an American Town (And Some Bears)" by Matthew Hongoltz-Hetling for a picture of where that leads.

    You are not, of course, paying ~£150 a month to get those bins emptied fortnightly. You are paying for schools, for social care, for parks, etc.

    But let's say you organise your bin collection. Great. Your neighbour goes for someone else. Two doors down finds another company. Now you've got bin lorries blocking the street three days a week. Meanwhile, the neighbour on the other side doesn't organise anything or forgets to pay their bill and the rubbish is piling up in their garden, gifting you with its aroma and rats. Some things are better organised collectively.
    Firms go up and down roads all the time, no big deal. So what if 3 different lorries come once a week for 5 minutes a week? Better that than paying for local busybodies to interfere.

    Schools and social care are paid for on a national level too and the laws for it are all set on a national level. Again, abolish the Council from intervening. We already have schools mostly in academies, what do we need Local Authorities for? Have a fee that goes with a pupil, more if they're SEND/PP, and then let the school worry about its budget and cut out the local authorities.

    Ditto with social care, charge people for their care or run it through the Department of Health and Social Care. Its all legally determined nationally anyway, so why do local authorities need to exist?
    Other activities that councils do where a local say would seem a good thing include:

    Planning
    Parking, highways and transport
    Economic development
    Green spaces
    Community safety
    Voluntary sector organisations
    Libraries, sports, arts and tourism
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 83,805
    The media starting to report that the Iranians were planning on attacking a synagogue.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,616
    Leon said:

    Just end the right to asylum. Job done

    This should have happened some time ago.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,286
    Trump to hit non US made movies with a 100% tariff and reopen Alcatrez
    "Trump tariffs: US president says foreign movies to be hit with 100% levies - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjr7e2z1rxyo
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 13,957

    Eabhal said:

    a

    Eabhal said:

    algarkirk said:

    From the MP for Pendle and Clitheroe:

    https://x.com/Jonathan_Hinder/status/1919310898247643422

    “Can you hear that familiar sound?

    The engines of the liberal establishment are revving up to explain why Reform’s success is definitely not down to the one thing we know it definitely is: immigration.”

    My piece on what’s staring us in the face👇

    The significance of both Tory and, as here, Labour MPs talking Reform's language and advocvating their cause should not be overlooked.

    A centrist realignment is on the way, with the aim of shooting Reform's fox. Soon everyone will sound like 1950s Labour. Lab and Con have a common interest in shooting the fox before Reform's hounds catch up with them.
    Which is stupid, in another way.

    Do something. Do something that might work and be aligned with progressive principles.

    For example, go after demand. My idea to financialise going after the users/abusers of illegal migrant labour. The migrants themselves get a reward (paid for out of the assets of those exploiting them) and indefinite leave to remain.

    Make the rich criminals pay. Help the poor migrants. As an added bonus, this might work. Plus you get lots of headlines in the Mail - “House of head of slave gang in Holland Park seized”.
    I think the real deterrent would be fines on a strict liability basis. At the moment it's based on whether you knew they were illegal.

    Even better, apply it to those who use such services. Would certainly make me think twice before getting the car washed, ordering food, getting a haircut or jumping in an Uber. It would stimulate an awful lot of racial bias, and screw a lot of legitimate small businesses, but I think it's probably worth it at this stage.
    My plan

    1) 100k fine per instance of illegal employment/selling visas/etc
    2) liability via proceeds of crime legislation - a network of companies won’t save you.
    3) liability for sub-contractors - looking at you, Deliveroo.
    4) 50% of the fine goes to the reporter of the crime
    5) They get indefinite leave to remain.
    Yep. The debate around this is a good example of cognitive dissonance - it's all about asylum rules, even though the assumption is that all of the migrants are economic migrants. The only way to stop small boats (without murdering people in the channel) is to neutralise demand for cheap illegal labour.
    I don't know that the evidence supports that. Lots of people on small boats have valid asylum claims, so neutralising the demand for cheap illegal labour won't dissuade them. Those who have their claims denied, do they come over on the expectation/hope their claims will be successful? Or do they come over to do illegal labour? Government figures say few boat people disappear into the black economy; nearly all of them just make an asylum claim as soon as possible.
    If you want to stop the boats, then the way to do so is to say that anyone who travelled by boat can not stay in the UK even if they have a legitimate claim.

    That's how the Australian version of the Rwanda scheme works. Any boat travellers are picked up and immediately turned around and sent elsewhere. If they have a legitimate claim, they're welcome to stay at that elsewhere, they're not permitted back. Which means people don't bother to make the journey, which means people don't drown making that journey.
    The sea crossings to Australia are much longer than to the UK; Australia had more outlying islands they could dump people on; and the total numbers were lower.
    They're not going to an Australian island, they got a third party state to agree to take them - and they keep them, even if the claim is legitimate.
    They were going to Christmas Island, an Australian territory, although they have now closed the camp there.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,616
    HYUFD said:

    Trump to hit non US made movies with a 100% tariff and reopen Alcatrez
    "Trump tariffs: US president says foreign movies to be hit with 100% levies - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjr7e2z1rxyo

    Given he's reopening Alcatraz, and Sean Connery was in it, I hope we get a discount on The Rock, though.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 13,957
    edited 11:30AM

    snip

    From 20 years ago, with sample of 87 and by its nature will be self selecting....
    I referenced two other studies as well. It is a difficult area to study and I noted the issue of sampling bias. Feel free to share other research in this area. I'll take 20 year old research over vibes.

    And for these sorts of conclusions, 87 is fine as a sample size: see https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13645579.2015.1005453
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 23,533
    Planning - I would abolish this and restore power to the public to do what they want on their own land so long as it meets building codes and pollution standards.

    Highways - I pay road tax and fuel duty to the national government but we don't get much road development already. Devolve this so that all road taxes go to an independent body to run the roads - we might actually get some more of them then.

    Economic development - We might get some of this if we do the former.

    Voluntary sector - Key word should be voluntary, no need for the state to get involved. If the state is involved, its no longer voluntary.

    Libraries etc - what are these? None in my area already so what am I paying for?

    That just leaves green spaces. I'm sure we could come up with a solution without needing millions spent on local authorities to maintain the few of those that exist.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 83,805
    edited 11:33AM

    snip

    From 20 years ago, with sample of 87 and by its nature will be self selecting....
    I referenced two other studies as well. It is a difficult area to study and I noted the issue of sampling bias. Feel free to share other research in this area. I'll take 20 year old research over vibes.

    And for these sorts of conclusions, 87 is fine as a sample size: see https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13645579.2015.1005453
    The other two were 20+ years and 15 years old. And as I say they are self selecting. The world is very different place now with internet access on every bodies phone and social media.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 13,957

    a

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    a

    Eabhal said:

    algarkirk said:

    From the MP for Pendle and Clitheroe:

    https://x.com/Jonathan_Hinder/status/1919310898247643422

    “Can you hear that familiar sound?

    The engines of the liberal establishment are revving up to explain why Reform’s success is definitely not down to the one thing we know it definitely is: immigration.”

    My piece on what’s staring us in the face👇

    The significance of both Tory and, as here, Labour MPs talking Reform's language and advocvating their cause should not be overlooked.

    A centrist realignment is on the way, with the aim of shooting Reform's fox. Soon everyone will sound like 1950s Labour. Lab and Con have a common interest in shooting the fox before Reform's hounds catch up with them.
    Which is stupid, in another way.

    Do something. Do something that might work and be aligned with progressive principles.

    For example, go after demand. My idea to financialise going after the users/abusers of illegal migrant labour. The migrants themselves get a reward (paid for out of the assets of those exploiting them) and indefinite leave to remain.

    Make the rich criminals pay. Help the poor migrants. As an added bonus, this might work. Plus you get lots of headlines in the Mail - “House of head of slave gang in Holland Park seized”.
    I think the real deterrent would be fines on a strict liability basis. At the moment it's based on whether you knew they were illegal.

    Even better, apply it to those who use such services. Would certainly make me think twice before getting the car washed, ordering food, getting a haircut or jumping in an Uber. It would stimulate an awful lot of racial bias, and screw a lot of legitimate small businesses, but I think it's probably worth it at this stage.
    My plan

    1) 100k fine per instance of illegal employment/selling visas/etc
    2) liability via proceeds of crime legislation - a network of companies won’t save you.
    3) liability for sub-contractors - looking at you, Deliveroo.
    4) 50% of the fine goes to the reporter of the crime
    5) They get indefinite leave to remain.
    Yep. The debate around this is a good example of cognitive dissonance - it's all about asylum rules, even though the assumption is that all of the migrants are economic migrants. The only way to stop small boats (without murdering people in the channel) is to neutralise demand for cheap illegal labour.
    I don't know that the evidence supports that. Lots of people on small boats have valid asylum claims, so neutralising the demand for cheap illegal labour won't dissuade them. Those who have their claims denied, do they come over on the expectation/hope their claims will be successful? Or do they come over to do illegal labour? Government figures say few boat people disappear into the black economy; nearly all of them just make an asylum claim as soon as possible.
    Fair enough. I guess it would be a good way for Labour to look like they are doing something though.
    There’s a reason they are so keen on claiming asylum in the U.K.
    More people claim asylum in places like France and Germany. Those who claim asylum in the UK do so for a variety of reasons. Some are attracted to the UK, some speak English better than other languages, some are seeking to join family or existing communities. A Home Office research study, https://www.embraceni.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/hors243.pdf , concluded:

    "For those respondents who were in a position to choose a destination country, several key factors shaped their decision to come to the UK. These were: whether they had relatives or friends here; their belief that the UK is a safe, tolerant and democratic country; previous links between their own country and the UK including colonialism; and their ability to speak English or desire to learn it.

    "There was very little evidence that the sample respondents had a detailed knowledge of: UK immigration or asylum procedures; entitlements to benefits in the UK; or the availability of work in the UK. There was even less evidence that the respondents had a comparative knowledge of how these phenomena varied between different European countries. Most of the respondents wished to work and support themselves during the determination of their asylum claim rather than be dependent on the state."

    However, it's a difficult area to study and the paper notes concerns about sampling bias. The paper also notes that many people go through people smugglers, and they go where the people smugglers will take them.

    A 2006 paper, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13691830600821901 , reports:

    "Received wisdom suggests that asylum-seekers come to the UK because of the generosity of the welfare state and the ease of finding work in the growing informal labour market, because the UK has no identity cards, and because of a fairly poor record on sending home unsuccessful asylum applicants. Based on interviews with 87 asylum-seekers from Afghanistan, Colombia, Kosovo and Somalia, this paper suggests that the realities of asylum-seeking are quite different. Few of the respondents arrived with much knowledge of the UK, and their knowledge was limited to general impressions of the country; they knew little about asylum policy and practice. There are five main reasons why they knew so little: many had not chosen their own destination; surprisingly few had family or friends already in the UK; in some cases they had been provided with false or misleading information; many had departed their country of origin in a rush; and most were relatively poorly educated. Why they ended up in the UK was often linked to the role of smugglers, who often chose the final destination."
    The smugglers get them into debt, very often, which they then have to work off.

    A business model that only works, if they can get employment.
    Do you have some evidence, some data, on this?
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 23,533

    Eabhal said:

    a

    Eabhal said:

    algarkirk said:

    From the MP for Pendle and Clitheroe:

    https://x.com/Jonathan_Hinder/status/1919310898247643422

    “Can you hear that familiar sound?

    The engines of the liberal establishment are revving up to explain why Reform’s success is definitely not down to the one thing we know it definitely is: immigration.”

    My piece on what’s staring us in the face👇

    The significance of both Tory and, as here, Labour MPs talking Reform's language and advocvating their cause should not be overlooked.

    A centrist realignment is on the way, with the aim of shooting Reform's fox. Soon everyone will sound like 1950s Labour. Lab and Con have a common interest in shooting the fox before Reform's hounds catch up with them.
    Which is stupid, in another way.

    Do something. Do something that might work and be aligned with progressive principles.

    For example, go after demand. My idea to financialise going after the users/abusers of illegal migrant labour. The migrants themselves get a reward (paid for out of the assets of those exploiting them) and indefinite leave to remain.

    Make the rich criminals pay. Help the poor migrants. As an added bonus, this might work. Plus you get lots of headlines in the Mail - “House of head of slave gang in Holland Park seized”.
    I think the real deterrent would be fines on a strict liability basis. At the moment it's based on whether you knew they were illegal.

    Even better, apply it to those who use such services. Would certainly make me think twice before getting the car washed, ordering food, getting a haircut or jumping in an Uber. It would stimulate an awful lot of racial bias, and screw a lot of legitimate small businesses, but I think it's probably worth it at this stage.
    My plan

    1) 100k fine per instance of illegal employment/selling visas/etc
    2) liability via proceeds of crime legislation - a network of companies won’t save you.
    3) liability for sub-contractors - looking at you, Deliveroo.
    4) 50% of the fine goes to the reporter of the crime
    5) They get indefinite leave to remain.
    Yep. The debate around this is a good example of cognitive dissonance - it's all about asylum rules, even though the assumption is that all of the migrants are economic migrants. The only way to stop small boats (without murdering people in the channel) is to neutralise demand for cheap illegal labour.
    I don't know that the evidence supports that. Lots of people on small boats have valid asylum claims, so neutralising the demand for cheap illegal labour won't dissuade them. Those who have their claims denied, do they come over on the expectation/hope their claims will be successful? Or do they come over to do illegal labour? Government figures say few boat people disappear into the black economy; nearly all of them just make an asylum claim as soon as possible.
    If you want to stop the boats, then the way to do so is to say that anyone who travelled by boat can not stay in the UK even if they have a legitimate claim.

    That's how the Australian version of the Rwanda scheme works. Any boat travellers are picked up and immediately turned around and sent elsewhere. If they have a legitimate claim, they're welcome to stay at that elsewhere, they're not permitted back. Which means people don't bother to make the journey, which means people don't drown making that journey.
    The sea crossings to Australia are much longer than to the UK; Australia had more outlying islands they could dump people on; and the total numbers were lower.
    They're not going to an Australian island, they got a third party state to agree to take them - and they keep them, even if the claim is legitimate.
    They were going to Christmas Island, an Australian territory, although they have now closed the camp there.
    They were primarily going to Nauru and PNG, neither of which are Aussie territories. The PNG camp is closed now too, consistently taking people there no matter what means people aren't making the journey anymore so there's few people to take if you're going to take them - it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
  • eekeek Posts: 29,889

    a

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    a

    Eabhal said:

    algarkirk said:

    From the MP for Pendle and Clitheroe:

    https://x.com/Jonathan_Hinder/status/1919310898247643422

    “Can you hear that familiar sound?

    The engines of the liberal establishment are revving up to explain why Reform’s success is definitely not down to the one thing we know it definitely is: immigration.”

    My piece on what’s staring us in the face👇

    The significance of both Tory and, as here, Labour MPs talking Reform's language and advocvating their cause should not be overlooked.

    A centrist realignment is on the way, with the aim of shooting Reform's fox. Soon everyone will sound like 1950s Labour. Lab and Con have a common interest in shooting the fox before Reform's hounds catch up with them.
    Which is stupid, in another way.

    Do something. Do something that might work and be aligned with progressive principles.

    For example, go after demand. My idea to financialise going after the users/abusers of illegal migrant labour. The migrants themselves get a reward (paid for out of the assets of those exploiting them) and indefinite leave to remain.

    Make the rich criminals pay. Help the poor migrants. As an added bonus, this might work. Plus you get lots of headlines in the Mail - “House of head of slave gang in Holland Park seized”.
    I think the real deterrent would be fines on a strict liability basis. At the moment it's based on whether you knew they were illegal.

    Even better, apply it to those who use such services. Would certainly make me think twice before getting the car washed, ordering food, getting a haircut or jumping in an Uber. It would stimulate an awful lot of racial bias, and screw a lot of legitimate small businesses, but I think it's probably worth it at this stage.
    My plan

    1) 100k fine per instance of illegal employment/selling visas/etc
    2) liability via proceeds of crime legislation - a network of companies won’t save you.
    3) liability for sub-contractors - looking at you, Deliveroo.
    4) 50% of the fine goes to the reporter of the crime
    5) They get indefinite leave to remain.
    Yep. The debate around this is a good example of cognitive dissonance - it's all about asylum rules, even though the assumption is that all of the migrants are economic migrants. The only way to stop small boats (without murdering people in the channel) is to neutralise demand for cheap illegal labour.
    I don't know that the evidence supports that. Lots of people on small boats have valid asylum claims, so neutralising the demand for cheap illegal labour won't dissuade them. Those who have their claims denied, do they come over on the expectation/hope their claims will be successful? Or do they come over to do illegal labour? Government figures say few boat people disappear into the black economy; nearly all of them just make an asylum claim as soon as possible.
    Fair enough. I guess it would be a good way for Labour to look like they are doing something though.
    There’s a reason they are so keen on claiming asylum in the U.K.
    More people claim asylum in places like France and Germany. Those who claim asylum in the UK do so for a variety of reasons. Some are attracted to the UK, some speak English better than other languages, some are seeking to join family or existing communities. A Home Office research study, https://www.embraceni.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/hors243.pdf , concluded:

    "For those respondents who were in a position to choose a destination country, several key factors shaped their decision to come to the UK. These were: whether they had relatives or friends here; their belief that the UK is a safe, tolerant and democratic country; previous links between their own country and the UK including colonialism; and their ability to speak English or desire to learn it.

    "There was very little evidence that the sample respondents had a detailed knowledge of: UK immigration or asylum procedures; entitlements to benefits in the UK; or the availability of work in the UK. There was even less evidence that the respondents had a comparative knowledge of how these phenomena varied between different European countries. Most of the respondents wished to work and support themselves during the determination of their asylum claim rather than be dependent on the state."

    However, it's a difficult area to study and the paper notes concerns about sampling bias. The paper also notes that many people go through people smugglers, and they go where the people smugglers will take them.

    A 2006 paper, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13691830600821901 , reports:

    "Received wisdom suggests that asylum-seekers come to the UK because of the generosity of the welfare state and the ease of finding work in the growing informal labour market, because the UK has no identity cards, and because of a fairly poor record on sending home unsuccessful asylum applicants. Based on interviews with 87 asylum-seekers from Afghanistan, Colombia, Kosovo and Somalia, this paper suggests that the realities of asylum-seeking are quite different. Few of the respondents arrived with much knowledge of the UK, and their knowledge was limited to general impressions of the country; they knew little about asylum policy and practice. There are five main reasons why they knew so little: many had not chosen their own destination; surprisingly few had family or friends already in the UK; in some cases they had been provided with false or misleading information; many had departed their country of origin in a rush; and most were relatively poorly educated. Why they ended up in the UK was often linked to the role of smugglers, who often chose the final destination."
    The smugglers get them into debt, very often, which they then have to work off.

    A business model that only works, if they can get employment.
    Do you have some evidence, some data, on this?
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/05/04/illegal-migrants-britain-easy-money-deliveroo-jobs/
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 24,447
    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    (2/5)

    Reform UK says it can’t fix problems quickly whilst also attacking Labour for not fixing problems quickly.

    Reform, in a nutshell.

    They won't stand four years of this until an election.
    Reform are saying “we can’t fix big things until you elect us into power in Westminster”. Which is perfectly true, the obvious strategy for them, and could easily put Farage in Number 10
    I've long said we should abolish local Councils, local elections and restore the power held by Councils to the public. This past week has reinforced that.

    Ah but what about bins? Do you want to call Whitehall about your bins?

    A few years ago I ran a business where I paid £7 a week to get a big commercial-sized bin emptied every week. I got to choose if I wanted weekly or fortnightly collections.

    Abolish Council Tax and I'd be more than happy to pay a private firm £7 a week to get a small wheelie bin emptied once a week, or £7 a fortnight to get it emptied fortnightly, instead of paying ~£150 a month to get those bins emptied fortnightly.
    Half the people on my street wouldn't bother paying for their bins to get collected, and massive diseconomies of scale would make it incredibly expensive for those who did - you'd have several different companies coming at different times of the week, with different bin sizes etc etc .

    Bins are a natural monopoly and should be a public service as a result.
    Indeed. Consider a case where you pay for your bins but the neighbours don't pay for theirs. Disease and vermin are rampant.

    See also fire brigades. They used to have private insurance for putting out fires, but the problems of your neighbour's house setting alight uninsured became obvious.

  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 13,957

    Leon said:

    Just end the right to asylum. Job done

    This should have happened some time ago.
    If you read the political discourse in the 1930s, we see people saying the same things as those opposed to asylum now say. Do you think in the 1930s we should have taken in more refugees, fewer refugees or we got the number just right?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 83,805
    edited 11:35AM

    a

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    a

    Eabhal said:

    algarkirk said:

    From the MP for Pendle and Clitheroe:

    https://x.com/Jonathan_Hinder/status/1919310898247643422

    “Can you hear that familiar sound?

    The engines of the liberal establishment are revving up to explain why Reform’s success is definitely not down to the one thing we know it definitely is: immigration.”

    My piece on what’s staring us in the face👇

    The significance of both Tory and, as here, Labour MPs talking Reform's language and advocvating their cause should not be overlooked.

    A centrist realignment is on the way, with the aim of shooting Reform's fox. Soon everyone will sound like 1950s Labour. Lab and Con have a common interest in shooting the fox before Reform's hounds catch up with them.
    Which is stupid, in another way.

    Do something. Do something that might work and be aligned with progressive principles.

    For example, go after demand. My idea to financialise going after the users/abusers of illegal migrant labour. The migrants themselves get a reward (paid for out of the assets of those exploiting them) and indefinite leave to remain.

    Make the rich criminals pay. Help the poor migrants. As an added bonus, this might work. Plus you get lots of headlines in the Mail - “House of head of slave gang in Holland Park seized”.
    I think the real deterrent would be fines on a strict liability basis. At the moment it's based on whether you knew they were illegal.

    Even better, apply it to those who use such services. Would certainly make me think twice before getting the car washed, ordering food, getting a haircut or jumping in an Uber. It would stimulate an awful lot of racial bias, and screw a lot of legitimate small businesses, but I think it's probably worth it at this stage.
    My plan

    1) 100k fine per instance of illegal employment/selling visas/etc
    2) liability via proceeds of crime legislation - a network of companies won’t save you.
    3) liability for sub-contractors - looking at you, Deliveroo.
    4) 50% of the fine goes to the reporter of the crime
    5) They get indefinite leave to remain.
    Yep. The debate around this is a good example of cognitive dissonance - it's all about asylum rules, even though the assumption is that all of the migrants are economic migrants. The only way to stop small boats (without murdering people in the channel) is to neutralise demand for cheap illegal labour.
    I don't know that the evidence supports that. Lots of people on small boats have valid asylum claims, so neutralising the demand for cheap illegal labour won't dissuade them. Those who have their claims denied, do they come over on the expectation/hope their claims will be successful? Or do they come over to do illegal labour? Government figures say few boat people disappear into the black economy; nearly all of them just make an asylum claim as soon as possible.
    Fair enough. I guess it would be a good way for Labour to look like they are doing something though.
    There’s a reason they are so keen on claiming asylum in the U.K.
    More people claim asylum in places like France and Germany. Those who claim asylum in the UK do so for a variety of reasons. Some are attracted to the UK, some speak English better than other languages, some are seeking to join family or existing communities. A Home Office research study, https://www.embraceni.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/hors243.pdf , concluded:

    "For those respondents who were in a position to choose a destination country, several key factors shaped their decision to come to the UK. These were: whether they had relatives or friends here; their belief that the UK is a safe, tolerant and democratic country; previous links between their own country and the UK including colonialism; and their ability to speak English or desire to learn it.

    "There was very little evidence that the sample respondents had a detailed knowledge of: UK immigration or asylum procedures; entitlements to benefits in the UK; or the availability of work in the UK. There was even less evidence that the respondents had a comparative knowledge of how these phenomena varied between different European countries. Most of the respondents wished to work and support themselves during the determination of their asylum claim rather than be dependent on the state."

    However, it's a difficult area to study and the paper notes concerns about sampling bias. The paper also notes that many people go through people smugglers, and they go where the people smugglers will take them.

    A 2006 paper, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13691830600821901 , reports:

    "Received wisdom suggests that asylum-seekers come to the UK because of the generosity of the welfare state and the ease of finding work in the growing informal labour market, because the UK has no identity cards, and because of a fairly poor record on sending home unsuccessful asylum applicants. Based on interviews with 87 asylum-seekers from Afghanistan, Colombia, Kosovo and Somalia, this paper suggests that the realities of asylum-seeking are quite different. Few of the respondents arrived with much knowledge of the UK, and their knowledge was limited to general impressions of the country; they knew little about asylum policy and practice. There are five main reasons why they knew so little: many had not chosen their own destination; surprisingly few had family or friends already in the UK; in some cases they had been provided with false or misleading information; many had departed their country of origin in a rush; and most were relatively poorly educated. Why they ended up in the UK was often linked to the role of smugglers, who often chose the final destination."
    The smugglers get them into debt, very often, which they then have to work off.

    A business model that only works, if they can get employment.
    Do you have some evidence, some data, on this?
    This was the reasons given time and again in court cases that they were here through bonded labour, it was very common reason given particularly by Albanians.

    The government made numerous statements about this particular issue.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 26,900
    eek said:

    MattW said:

    Leon said:

    (2/5)

    Reform UK says it can’t fix problems quickly whilst also attacking Labour for not fixing problems quickly.

    Reform, in a nutshell.

    They won't stand four years of this until an election.
    Reform are saying “we can’t fix big things until you elect us into power in Westminster”. Which is perfectly true, the obvious strategy for them, and could easily put Farage in Number 10
    I've long said we should abolish local Councils, local elections and restore the power held by Councils to the public. This past week has reinforced that.

    Ah but what about bins? Do you want to call Whitehall about your bins?

    A few years ago I ran a business where I paid £7 a week to get a big commercial-sized bin emptied every week. I got to choose if I wanted weekly or fortnightly collections.

    Abolish Council Tax and I'd be more than happy to pay a private firm £7 a week to get a small wheelie bin emptied once a week, or £7 a fortnight to get it emptied fortnightly, instead of paying ~£150 a month to get those bins emptied fortnightly.
    Your £150 a month also pays for the education system, and all the other services.
    Your £150 pays for social care - education is nowadays thanks to academies directly funded from the Department of Education. Previously it was from the Department of Education paying the council who then split the money out.

    This is half the problem with local government everything thinks that because they do xyz the local tax payers pay for it and that wasn't / isn't actually the case in many cases.
    Checking on the education aspect, it is still a mixed economy - though the trend is of course away from maintained schools. I agree my initial statement was too broad brush.

    An academy school in England is a state-funded school which is directly funded by the Department for Education and independent of local authority control. The terms of the arrangements are set out in individual Academy Funding Agreements. 80% of secondary schools, 40% of primary schools and 44% of special schools are academies, as of October 2023.
    (Wiki)
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 24,447

    Eabhal said:

    a

    Eabhal said:

    algarkirk said:

    From the MP for Pendle and Clitheroe:

    https://x.com/Jonathan_Hinder/status/1919310898247643422

    “Can you hear that familiar sound?

    The engines of the liberal establishment are revving up to explain why Reform’s success is definitely not down to the one thing we know it definitely is: immigration.”

    My piece on what’s staring us in the face👇

    The significance of both Tory and, as here, Labour MPs talking Reform's language and advocvating their cause should not be overlooked.

    A centrist realignment is on the way, with the aim of shooting Reform's fox. Soon everyone will sound like 1950s Labour. Lab and Con have a common interest in shooting the fox before Reform's hounds catch up with them.
    Which is stupid, in another way.

    Do something. Do something that might work and be aligned with progressive principles.

    For example, go after demand. My idea to financialise going after the users/abusers of illegal migrant labour. The migrants themselves get a reward (paid for out of the assets of those exploiting them) and indefinite leave to remain.

    Make the rich criminals pay. Help the poor migrants. As an added bonus, this might work. Plus you get lots of headlines in the Mail - “House of head of slave gang in Holland Park seized”.
    I think the real deterrent would be fines on a strict liability basis. At the moment it's based on whether you knew they were illegal.

    Even better, apply it to those who use such services. Would certainly make me think twice before getting the car washed, ordering food, getting a haircut or jumping in an Uber. It would stimulate an awful lot of racial bias, and screw a lot of legitimate small businesses, but I think it's probably worth it at this stage.
    My plan

    1) 100k fine per instance of illegal employment/selling visas/etc
    2) liability via proceeds of crime legislation - a network of companies won’t save you.
    3) liability for sub-contractors - looking at you, Deliveroo.
    4) 50% of the fine goes to the reporter of the crime
    5) They get indefinite leave to remain.
    Yep. The debate around this is a good example of cognitive dissonance - it's all about asylum rules, even though the assumption is that all of the migrants are economic migrants. The only way to stop small boats (without murdering people in the channel) is to neutralise demand for cheap illegal labour.
    I don't know that the evidence supports that. Lots of people on small boats have valid asylum claims, so neutralising the demand for cheap illegal labour won't dissuade them. Those who have their claims denied, do they come over on the expectation/hope their claims will be successful? Or do they come over to do illegal labour? Government figures say few boat people disappear into the black economy; nearly all of them just make an asylum claim as soon as possible.
    If you want to stop the boats, then the way to do so is to say that anyone who travelled by boat can not stay in the UK even if they have a legitimate claim.

    That's how the Australian version of the Rwanda scheme works. Any boat travellers are picked up and immediately turned around and sent elsewhere. If they have a legitimate claim, they're welcome to stay at that elsewhere, they're not permitted back. Which means people don't bother to make the journey, which means people don't drown making that journey.
    The sea crossings to Australia are much longer than to the UK; Australia had more outlying islands they could dump people on; and the total numbers were lower.
    The UK consists of nearly 200 inhabited islands. We could establish a Summerisle-style community for them.
    Sumer is icumen in
    Lhude sing cuccu
    Groweþ sed
    and bloweþ med
    and springþ þe wde nu
    Sing cuccu!
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,616

    Leon said:

    Just end the right to asylum. Job done

    This should have happened some time ago.
    If you read the political discourse in the 1930s, we see people saying the same things as those opposed to asylum now say. Do you think in the 1930s we should have taken in more refugees, fewer refugees or we got the number just right?
    You'll flailing all over the place today trying to defend the universal right to asylum. And, now, you've plumped for your last refuge with Godwin.

    It's all pretty desperate, really. You know you're losing this.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 18,470

    kinabalu said:

    From the MP for Pendle and Clitheroe:

    https://x.com/Jonathan_Hinder/status/1919310898247643422

    “Can you hear that familiar sound?

    The engines of the liberal establishment are revving up to explain why Reform’s success is definitely not down to the one thing we know it definitely is: immigration.”

    My piece on what’s staring us in the face👇

    I don't know about the "liberal establishment" but I'm under no such illusions about Reform. They're a single issue party and the issue is indeed immigration.
    Good morning

    Not anymore apparently

    Reform UK has launched a campaign against net zero developments in rural areas, dealing a significant blow to Ed Miliband. Deputy leader Richard Tice announced that the party will use its newfound control over ten councils to obstruct renewable projects at every turn. The MP for Boston and Skegness plans to pen letters to potential developers involved in Lincolnshire projects following Reform's landmark victories in the local elections on Friday

    He said: "I'm now going to write again to them, saying now that we've won these elections, you need to be under no illusion. This is war. We will wage war against you people and your terrible ideas. If you think that you're going to do this in the county of Lincolnshire, you are going to regret it."

    He added: "You're going to waste your money. It's going to be very painful financially, so you might as well take your money and your daft ideas elsewhere.

    "Whether it's planning blockages, whether it's judicial reviews, whether it's lawsuits, whether it's health and safety notices, we will use every available legal measure to an extreme way in order to frustrate these people."


    Mr Tice insisted that any new cables in Lincolnshire should be placed underground or "around the Wash offshore", which he claimed would be "the smarter, quicker thing to do".

    He also told the outlet of a meeting with senior figures in the National Grid, informing them about the party's plans if it wins the next general election.

    In February, Reform outlined its energy policy, which proposed taxes on the renewables sector and new legislation to prevent new pylons from being built.
    Prediction: Lincolnshire County Council will make a lot of noise here, but will end up wasting their time and money. And no council actually has any money to spare.

    Excellent opposition politics, a martyrdom complex is great for getting voters cross, but not serious government.

    The "Reform could have filled X potholes with they money they wasted on lawyers" leaflets basically write themselves.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 73,664
    viewcode said:

    Eabhal said:

    a

    Eabhal said:

    algarkirk said:

    From the MP for Pendle and Clitheroe:

    https://x.com/Jonathan_Hinder/status/1919310898247643422

    “Can you hear that familiar sound?

    The engines of the liberal establishment are revving up to explain why Reform’s success is definitely not down to the one thing we know it definitely is: immigration.”

    My piece on what’s staring us in the face👇

    The significance of both Tory and, as here, Labour MPs talking Reform's language and advocvating their cause should not be overlooked.

    A centrist realignment is on the way, with the aim of shooting Reform's fox. Soon everyone will sound like 1950s Labour. Lab and Con have a common interest in shooting the fox before Reform's hounds catch up with them.
    Which is stupid, in another way.

    Do something. Do something that might work and be aligned with progressive principles.

    For example, go after demand. My idea to financialise going after the users/abusers of illegal migrant labour. The migrants themselves get a reward (paid for out of the assets of those exploiting them) and indefinite leave to remain.

    Make the rich criminals pay. Help the poor migrants. As an added bonus, this might work. Plus you get lots of headlines in the Mail - “House of head of slave gang in Holland Park seized”.
    I think the real deterrent would be fines on a strict liability basis. At the moment it's based on whether you knew they were illegal.

    Even better, apply it to those who use such services. Would certainly make me think twice before getting the car washed, ordering food, getting a haircut or jumping in an Uber. It would stimulate an awful lot of racial bias, and screw a lot of legitimate small businesses, but I think it's probably worth it at this stage.
    My plan

    1) 100k fine per instance of illegal employment/selling visas/etc
    2) liability via proceeds of crime legislation - a network of companies won’t save you.
    3) liability for sub-contractors - looking at you, Deliveroo.
    4) 50% of the fine goes to the reporter of the crime
    5) They get indefinite leave to remain.
    Yep. The debate around this is a good example of cognitive dissonance - it's all about asylum rules, even though the assumption is that all of the migrants are economic migrants. The only way to stop small boats (without murdering people in the channel) is to neutralise demand for cheap illegal labour.
    I don't know that the evidence supports that. Lots of people on small boats have valid asylum claims, so neutralising the demand for cheap illegal labour won't dissuade them. Those who have their claims denied, do they come over on the expectation/hope their claims will be successful? Or do they come over to do illegal labour? Government figures say few boat people disappear into the black economy; nearly all of them just make an asylum claim as soon as possible.
    If you want to stop the boats, then the way to do so is to say that anyone who travelled by boat can not stay in the UK even if they have a legitimate claim.

    That's how the Australian version of the Rwanda scheme works. Any boat travellers are picked up and immediately turned around and sent elsewhere. If they have a legitimate claim, they're welcome to stay at that elsewhere, they're not permitted back. Which means people don't bother to make the journey, which means people don't drown making that journey.
    The sea crossings to Australia are much longer than to the UK; Australia had more outlying islands they could dump people on; and the total numbers were lower.
    The UK consists of nearly 200 inhabited islands. We could establish a Summerisle-style community for them.
    Sumer is icumen in
    Lhude sing cuccu
    Groweþ sed
    and bloweþ med
    and springþ þe wde nu
    Sing cuccu!
    Howie go on about this.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 54,721
    HYUFD said:

    Trump to hit non US made movies with a 100% tariff and reopen Alcatrez
    "Trump tariffs: US president says foreign movies to be hit with 100% levies - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjr7e2z1rxyo

    The problem with this is that for most independent movies, the sales estimates for the US form a significant part of the finance by way of pre-sales.

    Wifey currently has two films that are locking down the finance ahead of shooting later this year. She has gone back to bed and pulled the covers over her head on this news.

    Sorry TSE, but it looks we are going to have to boycott US made films.

  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 54,401

    a

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    a

    Eabhal said:

    algarkirk said:

    From the MP for Pendle and Clitheroe:

    https://x.com/Jonathan_Hinder/status/1919310898247643422

    “Can you hear that familiar sound?

    The engines of the liberal establishment are revving up to explain why Reform’s success is definitely not down to the one thing we know it definitely is: immigration.”

    My piece on what’s staring us in the face👇

    The significance of both Tory and, as here, Labour MPs talking Reform's language and advocvating their cause should not be overlooked.

    A centrist realignment is on the way, with the aim of shooting Reform's fox. Soon everyone will sound like 1950s Labour. Lab and Con have a common interest in shooting the fox before Reform's hounds catch up with them.
    Which is stupid, in another way.

    Do something. Do something that might work and be aligned with progressive principles.

    For example, go after demand. My idea to financialise going after the users/abusers of illegal migrant labour. The migrants themselves get a reward (paid for out of the assets of those exploiting them) and indefinite leave to remain.

    Make the rich criminals pay. Help the poor migrants. As an added bonus, this might work. Plus you get lots of headlines in the Mail - “House of head of slave gang in Holland Park seized”.
    I think the real deterrent would be fines on a strict liability basis. At the moment it's based on whether you knew they were illegal.

    Even better, apply it to those who use such services. Would certainly make me think twice before getting the car washed, ordering food, getting a haircut or jumping in an Uber. It would stimulate an awful lot of racial bias, and screw a lot of legitimate small businesses, but I think it's probably worth it at this stage.
    My plan

    1) 100k fine per instance of illegal employment/selling visas/etc
    2) liability via proceeds of crime legislation - a network of companies won’t save you.
    3) liability for sub-contractors - looking at you, Deliveroo.
    4) 50% of the fine goes to the reporter of the crime
    5) They get indefinite leave to remain.
    Yep. The debate around this is a good example of cognitive dissonance - it's all about asylum rules, even though the assumption is that all of the migrants are economic migrants. The only way to stop small boats (without murdering people in the channel) is to neutralise demand for cheap illegal labour.
    I don't know that the evidence supports that. Lots of people on small boats have valid asylum claims, so neutralising the demand for cheap illegal labour won't dissuade them. Those who have their claims denied, do they come over on the expectation/hope their claims will be successful? Or do they come over to do illegal labour? Government figures say few boat people disappear into the black economy; nearly all of them just make an asylum claim as soon as possible.
    Fair enough. I guess it would be a good way for Labour to look like they are doing something though.
    There’s a reason they are so keen on claiming asylum in the U.K.
    More people claim asylum in places like France and Germany. Those who claim asylum in the UK do so for a variety of reasons. Some are attracted to the UK, some speak English better than other languages, some are seeking to join family or existing communities. A Home Office research study, https://www.embraceni.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/hors243.pdf , concluded:

    "For those respondents who were in a position to choose a destination country, several key factors shaped their decision to come to the UK. These were: whether they had relatives or friends here; their belief that the UK is a safe, tolerant and democratic country; previous links between their own country and the UK including colonialism; and their ability to speak English or desire to learn it.

    "There was very little evidence that the sample respondents had a detailed knowledge of: UK immigration or asylum procedures; entitlements to benefits in the UK; or the availability of work in the UK. There was even less evidence that the respondents had a comparative knowledge of how these phenomena varied between different European countries. Most of the respondents wished to work and support themselves during the determination of their asylum claim rather than be dependent on the state."

    However, it's a difficult area to study and the paper notes concerns about sampling bias. The paper also notes that many people go through people smugglers, and they go where the people smugglers will take them.

    A 2006 paper, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13691830600821901 , reports:

    "Received wisdom suggests that asylum-seekers come to the UK because of the generosity of the welfare state and the ease of finding work in the growing informal labour market, because the UK has no identity cards, and because of a fairly poor record on sending home unsuccessful asylum applicants. Based on interviews with 87 asylum-seekers from Afghanistan, Colombia, Kosovo and Somalia, this paper suggests that the realities of asylum-seeking are quite different. Few of the respondents arrived with much knowledge of the UK, and their knowledge was limited to general impressions of the country; they knew little about asylum policy and practice. There are five main reasons why they knew so little: many had not chosen their own destination; surprisingly few had family or friends already in the UK; in some cases they had been provided with false or misleading information; many had departed their country of origin in a rush; and most were relatively poorly educated. Why they ended up in the UK was often linked to the role of smugglers, who often chose the final destination."
    The smugglers get them into debt, very often, which they then have to work off.

    A business model that only works, if they can get employment.
    Do you have some evidence, some data, on this?
    This was the reasons given time and again in court cases that they were here through bonded labour, it was very common reason given particularly by Albanians.

    The government made numerous statements about this particular issue.
    https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9744/
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 13,957

    snip

    From 20 years ago, with sample of 87 and by its nature will be self selecting....
    I referenced two other studies as well. It is a difficult area to study and I noted the issue of sampling bias. Feel free to share other research in this area. I'll take 20 year old research over vibes.

    And for these sorts of conclusions, 87 is fine as a sample size: see https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13645579.2015.1005453
    The other two were 20+ years and 15 years old. And as I say they are self selecting. The world is very different place now with internet access on every bodies phone and social media.
    We had smartphones and social media 15 years ago!

    If you would like to suggest some studies, I would be happy to read them. Declan Henry's Young Refugees and Asylum Seekers, published in February, says, "The reasons why young asylum seekers come to Europe and the UK have not changed greatly over the past 20 years."

    This 2021 paper, https://academic.oup.com/jrs/article-abstract/34/2/2052/6064839 , looks interesting and relevant to @Malmesbury , but I want to go eat some lunch! "The paper examines asylum seekers’ perceptions of the prohibition to work policy through the lens of burden(s). Drawing from individual interviews with asylum seekers and key informants and group discussions, the findings show the multiple—economic, social, and emotional—burdens that the prohibition to work inflicts on asylum seekers and problematizes the static understanding of burdens to reveal the processes of ‘becoming’ a burden on others. A comparison of enforced joblessness and undocumented work highlights the benefits of being able to work, even when this is risky, and the different burdens associated with the choice to not work, and consequently experience forced unemployment, or to break the rules and work in the undocumented sector. The concept of the burden paradox highlights the inconsistencies between the UK government’s goal to minimize burdens for asylum seekers and the host society and its policy implementation that increases them for both."
  • MattWMattW Posts: 26,900
    edited 11:42AM

    kinabalu said:

    From the MP for Pendle and Clitheroe:

    https://x.com/Jonathan_Hinder/status/1919310898247643422

    “Can you hear that familiar sound?

    The engines of the liberal establishment are revving up to explain why Reform’s success is definitely not down to the one thing we know it definitely is: immigration.”

    My piece on what’s staring us in the face👇

    I don't know about the "liberal establishment" but I'm under no such illusions about Reform. They're a single issue party and the issue is indeed immigration.
    Good morning

    Not anymore apparently

    Reform UK has launched a campaign against net zero developments in rural areas, dealing a significant blow to Ed Miliband. Deputy leader Richard Tice announced that the party will use its newfound control over ten councils to obstruct renewable projects at every turn. The MP for Boston and Skegness plans to pen letters to potential developers involved in Lincolnshire projects following Reform's landmark victories in the local elections on Friday

    He said: "I'm now going to write again to them, saying now that we've won these elections, you need to be under no illusion. This is war. We will wage war against you people and your terrible ideas. If you think that you're going to do this in the county of Lincolnshire, you are going to regret it."

    He added: "You're going to waste your money. It's going to be very painful financially, so you might as well take your money and your daft ideas elsewhere.

    "Whether it's planning blockages, whether it's judicial reviews, whether it's lawsuits, whether it's health and safety notices, we will use every available legal measure to an extreme way in order to frustrate these people."

    Mr Tice insisted that any new cables in Lincolnshire should be placed underground or "around the Wash offshore", which he claimed would be "the smarter, quicker thing to do".

    He also told the outlet of a meeting with senior figures in the National Grid, informing them about the party's plans if it wins the next general election.

    In February, Reform outlined its energy policy, which proposed taxes on the renewables sector and new legislation to prevent new pylons from being built.
    If this works anywhere, it would be Lincs, but I think Mr Tice is ... appropriately ... tilting at windmills. I think he is perhaps more suited to a real tiltyard.

    I think windy letters from someone who is not the decisionmaker opining about Planning Policy will get a dusty response. If he wants that then he should ask the Had of Planning, or maybe the Mayor, to send the letters.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 13,957
    eek said:

    a

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    a

    Eabhal said:

    algarkirk said:

    From the MP for Pendle and Clitheroe:

    https://x.com/Jonathan_Hinder/status/1919310898247643422

    “Can you hear that familiar sound?

    The engines of the liberal establishment are revving up to explain why Reform’s success is definitely not down to the one thing we know it definitely is: immigration.”

    My piece on what’s staring us in the face👇

    The significance of both Tory and, as here, Labour MPs talking Reform's language and advocvating their cause should not be overlooked.

    A centrist realignment is on the way, with the aim of shooting Reform's fox. Soon everyone will sound like 1950s Labour. Lab and Con have a common interest in shooting the fox before Reform's hounds catch up with them.
    Which is stupid, in another way.

    Do something. Do something that might work and be aligned with progressive principles.

    For example, go after demand. My idea to financialise going after the users/abusers of illegal migrant labour. The migrants themselves get a reward (paid for out of the assets of those exploiting them) and indefinite leave to remain.

    Make the rich criminals pay. Help the poor migrants. As an added bonus, this might work. Plus you get lots of headlines in the Mail - “House of head of slave gang in Holland Park seized”.
    I think the real deterrent would be fines on a strict liability basis. At the moment it's based on whether you knew they were illegal.

    Even better, apply it to those who use such services. Would certainly make me think twice before getting the car washed, ordering food, getting a haircut or jumping in an Uber. It would stimulate an awful lot of racial bias, and screw a lot of legitimate small businesses, but I think it's probably worth it at this stage.
    My plan

    1) 100k fine per instance of illegal employment/selling visas/etc
    2) liability via proceeds of crime legislation - a network of companies won’t save you.
    3) liability for sub-contractors - looking at you, Deliveroo.
    4) 50% of the fine goes to the reporter of the crime
    5) They get indefinite leave to remain.
    Yep. The debate around this is a good example of cognitive dissonance - it's all about asylum rules, even though the assumption is that all of the migrants are economic migrants. The only way to stop small boats (without murdering people in the channel) is to neutralise demand for cheap illegal labour.
    I don't know that the evidence supports that. Lots of people on small boats have valid asylum claims, so neutralising the demand for cheap illegal labour won't dissuade them. Those who have their claims denied, do they come over on the expectation/hope their claims will be successful? Or do they come over to do illegal labour? Government figures say few boat people disappear into the black economy; nearly all of them just make an asylum claim as soon as possible.
    Fair enough. I guess it would be a good way for Labour to look like they are doing something though.
    There’s a reason they are so keen on claiming asylum in the U.K.
    More people claim asylum in places like France and Germany. Those who claim asylum in the UK do so for a variety of reasons. Some are attracted to the UK, some speak English better than other languages, some are seeking to join family or existing communities. A Home Office research study, https://www.embraceni.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/hors243.pdf , concluded:

    "For those respondents who were in a position to choose a destination country, several key factors shaped their decision to come to the UK. These were: whether they had relatives or friends here; their belief that the UK is a safe, tolerant and democratic country; previous links between their own country and the UK including colonialism; and their ability to speak English or desire to learn it.

    "There was very little evidence that the sample respondents had a detailed knowledge of: UK immigration or asylum procedures; entitlements to benefits in the UK; or the availability of work in the UK. There was even less evidence that the respondents had a comparative knowledge of how these phenomena varied between different European countries. Most of the respondents wished to work and support themselves during the determination of their asylum claim rather than be dependent on the state."

    However, it's a difficult area to study and the paper notes concerns about sampling bias. The paper also notes that many people go through people smugglers, and they go where the people smugglers will take them.

    A 2006 paper, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13691830600821901 , reports:

    "Received wisdom suggests that asylum-seekers come to the UK because of the generosity of the welfare state and the ease of finding work in the growing informal labour market, because the UK has no identity cards, and because of a fairly poor record on sending home unsuccessful asylum applicants. Based on interviews with 87 asylum-seekers from Afghanistan, Colombia, Kosovo and Somalia, this paper suggests that the realities of asylum-seeking are quite different. Few of the respondents arrived with much knowledge of the UK, and their knowledge was limited to general impressions of the country; they knew little about asylum policy and practice. There are five main reasons why they knew so little: many had not chosen their own destination; surprisingly few had family or friends already in the UK; in some cases they had been provided with false or misleading information; many had departed their country of origin in a rush; and most were relatively poorly educated. Why they ended up in the UK was often linked to the role of smugglers, who often chose the final destination."
    The smugglers get them into debt, very often, which they then have to work off.

    A business model that only works, if they can get employment.
    Do you have some evidence, some data, on this?
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/05/04/illegal-migrants-britain-easy-money-deliveroo-jobs/
    I refer you to my earlier comment about the Telegraph. If you have some reliable evidence...
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 55,028

    snip

    From 20 years ago, with sample of 87 and by its nature will be self selecting....
    I referenced two other studies as well. It is a difficult area to study and I noted the issue of sampling bias. Feel free to share other research in this area. I'll take 20 year old research over vibes.

    And for these sorts of conclusions, 87 is fine as a sample size: see https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13645579.2015.1005453
    The other two were 20+ years and 15 years old. And as I say they are self selecting. The world is very different place now with internet access on every bodies phone and social media.
    We had smartphones and social media 15 years ago!
    Instagram hadn't even been launched 15 years ago.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 83,805
    edited 11:47AM

    snip

    From 20 years ago, with sample of 87 and by its nature will be self selecting....
    I referenced two other studies as well. It is a difficult area to study and I noted the issue of sampling bias. Feel free to share other research in this area. I'll take 20 year old research over vibes.

    And for these sorts of conclusions, 87 is fine as a sample size: see https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13645579.2015.1005453
    The other two were 20+ years and 15 years old. And as I say they are self selecting. The world is very different place now with internet access on every bodies phone and social media.
    We had smartphones and social media 15 years ago!

    If you would like to suggest some studies, I would be happy to read them. Declan Henry's Young Refugees and Asylum Seekers, published in February, says, "The reasons why young asylum seekers come to Europe and the UK have not changed greatly over the past 20 years."

    This 2021 paper, https://academic.oup.com/jrs/article-abstract/34/2/2052/6064839 ,
    "Interviews were conducted with 10 (8 male and 2 female) asylum seekers and refugees." -

    These are such tiny numbers to draw firm conclusions. And again self selecting.
  • eekeek Posts: 29,889

    eek said:

    a

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    a

    Eabhal said:

    algarkirk said:

    From the MP for Pendle and Clitheroe:

    https://x.com/Jonathan_Hinder/status/1919310898247643422

    “Can you hear that familiar sound?

    The engines of the liberal establishment are revving up to explain why Reform’s success is definitely not down to the one thing we know it definitely is: immigration.”

    My piece on what’s staring us in the face👇

    The significance of both Tory and, as here, Labour MPs talking Reform's language and advocvating their cause should not be overlooked.

    A centrist realignment is on the way, with the aim of shooting Reform's fox. Soon everyone will sound like 1950s Labour. Lab and Con have a common interest in shooting the fox before Reform's hounds catch up with them.
    Which is stupid, in another way.

    Do something. Do something that might work and be aligned with progressive principles.

    For example, go after demand. My idea to financialise going after the users/abusers of illegal migrant labour. The migrants themselves get a reward (paid for out of the assets of those exploiting them) and indefinite leave to remain.

    Make the rich criminals pay. Help the poor migrants. As an added bonus, this might work. Plus you get lots of headlines in the Mail - “House of head of slave gang in Holland Park seized”.
    I think the real deterrent would be fines on a strict liability basis. At the moment it's based on whether you knew they were illegal.

    Even better, apply it to those who use such services. Would certainly make me think twice before getting the car washed, ordering food, getting a haircut or jumping in an Uber. It would stimulate an awful lot of racial bias, and screw a lot of legitimate small businesses, but I think it's probably worth it at this stage.
    My plan

    1) 100k fine per instance of illegal employment/selling visas/etc
    2) liability via proceeds of crime legislation - a network of companies won’t save you.
    3) liability for sub-contractors - looking at you, Deliveroo.
    4) 50% of the fine goes to the reporter of the crime
    5) They get indefinite leave to remain.
    Yep. The debate around this is a good example of cognitive dissonance - it's all about asylum rules, even though the assumption is that all of the migrants are economic migrants. The only way to stop small boats (without murdering people in the channel) is to neutralise demand for cheap illegal labour.
    I don't know that the evidence supports that. Lots of people on small boats have valid asylum claims, so neutralising the demand for cheap illegal labour won't dissuade them. Those who have their claims denied, do they come over on the expectation/hope their claims will be successful? Or do they come over to do illegal labour? Government figures say few boat people disappear into the black economy; nearly all of them just make an asylum claim as soon as possible.
    Fair enough. I guess it would be a good way for Labour to look like they are doing something though.
    There’s a reason they are so keen on claiming asylum in the U.K.
    More people claim asylum in places like France and Germany. Those who claim asylum in the UK do so for a variety of reasons. Some are attracted to the UK, some speak English better than other languages, some are seeking to join family or existing communities. A Home Office research study, https://www.embraceni.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/hors243.pdf , concluded:

    "For those respondents who were in a position to choose a destination country, several key factors shaped their decision to come to the UK. These were: whether they had relatives or friends here; their belief that the UK is a safe, tolerant and democratic country; previous links between their own country and the UK including colonialism; and their ability to speak English or desire to learn it.

    "There was very little evidence that the sample respondents had a detailed knowledge of: UK immigration or asylum procedures; entitlements to benefits in the UK; or the availability of work in the UK. There was even less evidence that the respondents had a comparative knowledge of how these phenomena varied between different European countries. Most of the respondents wished to work and support themselves during the determination of their asylum claim rather than be dependent on the state."

    However, it's a difficult area to study and the paper notes concerns about sampling bias. The paper also notes that many people go through people smugglers, and they go where the people smugglers will take them.

    A 2006 paper, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13691830600821901 , reports:

    "Received wisdom suggests that asylum-seekers come to the UK because of the generosity of the welfare state and the ease of finding work in the growing informal labour market, because the UK has no identity cards, and because of a fairly poor record on sending home unsuccessful asylum applicants. Based on interviews with 87 asylum-seekers from Afghanistan, Colombia, Kosovo and Somalia, this paper suggests that the realities of asylum-seeking are quite different. Few of the respondents arrived with much knowledge of the UK, and their knowledge was limited to general impressions of the country; they knew little about asylum policy and practice. There are five main reasons why they knew so little: many had not chosen their own destination; surprisingly few had family or friends already in the UK; in some cases they had been provided with false or misleading information; many had departed their country of origin in a rush; and most were relatively poorly educated. Why they ended up in the UK was often linked to the role of smugglers, who often chose the final destination."
    The smugglers get them into debt, very often, which they then have to work off.

    A business model that only works, if they can get employment.
    Do you have some evidence, some data, on this?
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/05/04/illegal-migrants-britain-easy-money-deliveroo-jobs/
    I refer you to my earlier comment about the Telegraph. If you have some reliable evidence...
    It's anecdotal but this sort of research isn't exactly cheap and once discovered the people contacted aren't going to be so forthcoming second time around...
  • LeonLeon Posts: 60,174

    Leon said:

    Just end the right to asylum. Job done

    This should have happened some time ago.
    If you read the political discourse in the 1930s, we see people saying the same things as those opposed to asylum now say. Do you think in the 1930s we should have taken in more refugees, fewer refugees or we got the number just right?
    You'll flailing all over the place today trying to defend the universal right to asylum. And, now, you've plumped for your last refuge with Godwin.

    It's all pretty desperate, really. You know you're losing this.
    It is quite desperate

    Asylum was a lovely idea in the 19th century and for much of the 20th century. Generous and kind and noble. But now in 2025 in a world of 8 billion and
    international flights and mass migration and the rest, it simply doesn’t work, and millions of people worldwide are abusing the system to get into the west - causing severe social strain, economic decay and the rise of far right parties

    So: end it
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 5,267
    I see this idiotic government is now going to fxck universities in its efforts to win back some Reform voters.

    Overseas students bring a huge amount into the economy and effectively are stopping many universities from going bankrupt .

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 65,702
    Seems Thomas Friedman's prediction right back at the beginning was correct:

    ‪Shashank Joshi‬
    @shashj.bsky.social‬


    A big & lamentable shift. “The plan provides for the “conquering of Gaza” and retaining the territory, an Israeli official said Monday morning. The security cabinet unanimously approved the plan to expand the Gaza operation, the official said.” www.timesofisrael.com/israel-okays...

    https://bsky.app/profile/shashj.bsky.social/post/3logcfgmivk2b
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 83,805
    nico67 said:

    I see this idiotic government is now going to fxck universities in its efforts to win back some Reform voters.

    Overseas students bring a huge amount into the economy and effectively are stopping many universities from going bankrupt .

    Link?
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 5,267

    Seems Thomas Friedman's prediction right back at the beginning was correct:

    ‪Shashank Joshi‬
    @shashj.bsky.social‬


    A big & lamentable shift. “The plan provides for the “conquering of Gaza” and retaining the territory, an Israeli official said Monday morning. The security cabinet unanimously approved the plan to expand the Gaza operation, the official said.” www.timesofisrael.com/israel-okays...

    https://bsky.app/profile/shashj.bsky.social/post/3logcfgmivk2b

    No aid has been let in for two months . Mass starvation is happening and the west just doesn’t seem to care anymore .
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 65,702
    nico67 said:

    I see this idiotic government is now going to fxck universities in its efforts to win back some Reform voters.

    Overseas students bring a huge amount into the economy and effectively are stopping many universities from going bankrupt .

    They are the anchor employer in many of the Red Wall towns that Starmer is panicking about. They go down the local economy gets a lot worse.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,616
    nico67 said:

    I see this idiotic government is now going to fxck universities in its efforts to win back some Reform voters.

    Overseas students bring a huge amount into the economy and effectively are stopping many universities from going bankrupt .

    "Some Reform voters".

    32% on NEV in the local elections and on course to win a crushing GE victory on current polling.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 55,028
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Just end the right to asylum. Job done

    This should have happened some time ago.
    If you read the political discourse in the 1930s, we see people saying the same things as those opposed to asylum now say. Do you think in the 1930s we should have taken in more refugees, fewer refugees or we got the number just right?
    You'll flailing all over the place today trying to defend the universal right to asylum. And, now, you've plumped for your last refuge with Godwin.

    It's all pretty desperate, really. You know you're losing this.
    It is quite desperate

    Asylum was a lovely idea in the 19th century and for much of the 20th century. Generous and kind and noble. But now in 2025 in a world of 8 billion and
    international flights and mass migration and the rest, it simply doesn’t work, and millions of people worldwide are abusing the system to get into the west - causing severe social strain, economic decay and the rise of far right parties

    So: end it
    Maybe it needs the equivalent of the For Women Scotland case to distil the conflict of rights down to a simple question and get the Supreme Court to rule on it. Trump was right to say that if you don't have [enforceable] borders, you don't have a country.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 10,281

    kinabalu said:

    From the MP for Pendle and Clitheroe:

    https://x.com/Jonathan_Hinder/status/1919310898247643422

    “Can you hear that familiar sound?

    The engines of the liberal establishment are revving up to explain why Reform’s success is definitely not down to the one thing we know it definitely is: immigration.”

    My piece on what’s staring us in the face👇

    I don't know about the "liberal establishment" but I'm under no such illusions about Reform. They're a single issue party and the issue is indeed immigration.
    Good morning

    Not anymore apparently

    Reform UK has launched a campaign against net zero developments in rural areas, dealing a significant blow to Ed Miliband. Deputy leader Richard Tice announced that the party will use its newfound control over ten councils to obstruct renewable projects at every turn. The MP for Boston and Skegness plans to pen letters to potential developers involved in Lincolnshire projects following Reform's landmark victories in the local elections on Friday

    He said: "I'm now going to write again to them, saying now that we've won these elections, you need to be under no illusion. This is war. We will wage war against you people and your terrible ideas. If you think that you're going to do this in the county of Lincolnshire, you are going to regret it."

    He added: "You're going to waste your money. It's going to be very painful financially, so you might as well take your money and your daft ideas elsewhere.

    "Whether it's planning blockages, whether it's judicial reviews, whether it's lawsuits, whether it's health and safety notices, we will use every available legal measure to an extreme way in order to frustrate these people."


    Mr Tice insisted that any new cables in Lincolnshire should be placed underground or "around the Wash offshore", which he claimed would be "the smarter, quicker thing to do".

    He also told the outlet of a meeting with senior figures in the National Grid, informing them about the party's plans if it wins the next general election.

    In February, Reform outlined its energy policy, which proposed taxes on the renewables sector and new legislation to prevent new pylons from being built.
    Prediction: Lincolnshire County Council will make a lot of noise here, but will end up wasting their time and money. And no council actually has any money to spare.

    Excellent opposition politics, a martyrdom complex is great for getting voters cross, but not serious government.

    The "Reform could have filled X potholes with they money they wasted on lawyers" leaflets basically write themselves.
    Need to confront these folks with reality. Cancel all government investment in Greater Lincolnshire and put them on a regional tariff linked to the spot price of gas.
  • eekeek Posts: 29,889

    nico67 said:

    I see this idiotic government is now going to fxck universities in its efforts to win back some Reform voters.

    Overseas students bring a huge amount into the economy and effectively are stopping many universities from going bankrupt .

    "Some Reform voters".

    32% on NEV in the local elections and on course to win a crushing GE victory on current polling.
    You typical Chinese / USA student is going to bring £40,000 a year to the UK all paid up front...
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 5,267

    nico67 said:

    I see this idiotic government is now going to fxck universities in its efforts to win back some Reform voters.

    Overseas students bring a huge amount into the economy and effectively are stopping many universities from going bankrupt .

    Link?
    Here you go .

    https://observer.co.uk/news/politics/article/labour-plots-immigration-blitz-after-reform-success-at-polls
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 55,028
    nico67 said:

    I see this idiotic government is now going to fxck universities in its efforts to win back some Reform voters.

    Overseas students bring a huge amount into the economy and effectively are stopping many universities from going bankrupt .

    Mark Carney promised to cap the number of foreign workers and foreign students. This is rapidly becoming the global technocratic consensus because everyone can see what it leads to otherwise.
Sign In or Register to comment.