Didn't they get like a £20bn bung last year? I guess KPMG and their ilk will have swallowed a lot of it...
Yes, but I think that sum quoted was over several years, albeit somewhat frontloaded.
My own Trust ended the last financial year with a £100 million overspend, and we are far from the worst in the country, indeed better than most comparable sized Trusts. We have been told that the workforce will shrink this year at all grades and areas. Most of the increased funding goes to GPs and community services, probably a wise decision.
The problem is that emergency attendances and admissions are relentlessly up 10% or so year on year. It's clearly a core part of the hospital service, but our income for the extra work is capped, hence emergency services are running at a continuous loss.
10% is just insane. Getting increasingly fed up with people who just say "demographics" ad infinitum. There's a lot more going on.
Healthcare inflation has long run at a higher rate than regular inflation. This is, I guess, because we’re good at inventing new treatments, mainly new drugs. For a long time, we were also seeing steady increases in life expectancy as well, although that’s stalled more recently.
Its also a tale of Sisyphus. We might invent medicines to try to cheat death but it doesn't matter how much effort you put into rolling that boulder up the hill, its going to roll back down again, for eternity.
It is demographic change, but not only is our population growing but it is ageing too and cheating death with a medicine this year doesn't end disease, it means the person is going to return with even more ailments next year.
It's just not the case, sorry. I know we've argued about this before but demographics are only a small element of why health costs are going on. It's just become a bit of a podcast meme - and more importantly, gives politicians an easy excuse.
We're just in a doom loop of finding more and more ways to keep very unwell people alive, at the cost of not actually preventing them becoming unwell in the first place.
I'm sorry but you are wrong.
Once people get past the age of 75 then their health conditions increase dramatically as does the expense. Our over 75 population has increased from 3.9 million in 2000 to 5.4 million in 2020, a 1.5 million increase.
That is not insignificant, however much you wish to pretend it is.
Yes, but there are 70 million people in the UK. A 100% increase in obesity rates across that entire population over the last 30 years has a far bigger effect.
And YODO. Most age-related expenses come in the last 12 months or so of life. So the number of people at that age simply does not matter - it's whether they are healthy or not.
(I'm not pretending. I can spam links to the literature like a madman but that will never satisfy you.).
Very large parts of the NHS drug budget are for managing chronic conditions, and simply grow with age.
I do find it truly remarkable, though, that no matter how many tens of billions of extra pounds are funnelled to the NHS it never seems to be enough. Sometimes, not even scratching the surface. And there's always an argument for masses more. Which, guess what, still doesn't cut it.
We've taken a lot of economic damage for last year's bung. At the very least we might expect some performance improvement in 2-3 years time.
I've just seen Starmer's phone call to Trump where he praises Donald's leadership. Wtf? He sounds exactly like one of those cult members in Trump's cabinet. It must be possible to be polite without losing every trace of dignity and self-respect. And the 'trade deal' is crap. Labour should replace Starmer asap
Amusingly most US commentators are saying the opposite, and MAGA are complaining that the US got the bad side of the deal.
The truth is probably somewhere in between - and it's only a provisional deal for now.
I don't think the US got much out of it. But a 'trade deal' that leaves a higher tariff on British goods than a few weeks ago doesn't warrant obsequious 'gratitude' from our silly PM. It's absurd and dishonest.
I think you're right. The amount of money saved -if any -will not cover the reputational damage of whoring the country out for a pat on the bottom from Trump. And not even his bottom but Mandleson's.
Supporting Starmer because the other contenders are worse is getting increasingly difficult. His breathless trip to the car factory where he had his choreographed dial-in with Trump was unbearable. Mandelson's poodle act with Trump was even worse. Sometimes you just can't find the words
If I understood you, what matters to you most isn’t what they deliver, but how they do it.
It’s not what you do, it’s the way that you do it?
Looks like immigration 'benefits' may have been incorrectly calculated for years, and the Home Office has finally woken up to it:
"The Home Office fears that annual net migration is going to settle above the 340,000 level expected by the government unless radical policies are introduced.
Officials believe that as well as underestimating the levels of long-term immigration to the UK, government forecasts are also overstating its economic benefits.
They fear that from 2028 net migration will be closer to 525,000 — currently the high end of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) projections — because migrants are staying for longer than previously thought."
"Immigration and economic experts have also warned that the official economic forecasts only take into account the initial few years or so of a migrant’s life in the UK, which is often when foreign workers are contributing the most to the economy and the public purse because they are paying taxes but cannot claim benefits for at least five years. They are also unlikely to use the NHS as much as they will later on in their lives."
Reading through that, you seem to be flagging up there is actually two very different types, good migration and bad migration - what would be a good idea is some sort of freedom of movement scheme to attract young people and productive skilled people to work here, who then largely return or go elsewhere where demand for them is. Filling labour shortages like that will definitely boost UK productivity a lot, wouldn’t it?
The trouble with your statement is "who then largely return or go elsewhere".
Looks like immigration 'benefits' may have been incorrectly calculated for years, and the Home Office has finally woken up to it:
"The Home Office fears that annual net migration is going to settle above the 340,000 level expected by the government unless radical policies are introduced.
Officials believe that as well as underestimating the levels of long-term immigration to the UK, government forecasts are also overstating its economic benefits.
They fear that from 2028 net migration will be closer to 525,000 — currently the high end of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) projections — because migrants are staying for longer than previously thought."
"Immigration and economic experts have also warned that the official economic forecasts only take into account the initial few years or so of a migrant’s life in the UK, which is often when foreign workers are contributing the most to the economy and the public purse because they are paying taxes but cannot claim benefits for at least five years. They are also unlikely to use the NHS as much as they will later on in their lives."
The problem with all of these analysis is that there are massive second and third order effects.
On the negative side: how are we measuring the impact on British people of there now being fewer GPs per citizen?
On the positive side: how do we measure if a business chose to set up in the UK rather than (say) France, because of how easy it is to get multilingual staff?
Measuring them all properly is incredibly difficult, because most people - however much they might claim otherwise - come to the question of immigration with their minds already made up. It's classic cognitive dissonance: they either see the right of people to live where they like as something that should be preserved and look for evidence that it is economically beneficial; or they come from a perspective of being perturbed by the changes to their local community, and look for evidence it is economically harmful.
“are we measuring the impact on British people of there now being fewer GPs per citizen”
I have been visiting a hospital a bit because my mum had a fall, and hurt her back, and was in a broken bone ward with old old people and she kept complaining we have to get her moved as they mistakenly put her with old people. But none of the doctors or nurses or other support staff were from UK. If we conclude impact on British people of there now being fewer GPs, dentists, housing etc is so bad so the policy has to be no immigration, what happens to the hospital system?
Reform do have that Trumpian sudden leap to zero migration policy.
I've just seen Starmer's phone call to Trump where he praises Donald's leadership. Wtf? He sounds exactly like one of those cult members in Trump's cabinet. It must be possible to be polite without losing every trace of dignity and self-respect. And the 'trade deal' is crap. Labour should replace Starmer asap
Amusingly most US commentators are saying the opposite, and MAGA are complaining that the US got the bad side of the deal.
The truth is probably somewhere in between - and it's only a provisional deal for now.
I don't think the US got much out of it. But a 'trade deal' that leaves a higher tariff on British goods than a few weeks ago doesn't warrant obsequious 'gratitude' from our silly PM. It's absurd and dishonest.
I think you're right. The amount of money saved -if any -will not cover the reputational damage of whoring the country out for a pat on the bottom from Trump. And not even his bottom but Mandleson's.
Supporting Starmer because the other contenders are worse is getting increasingly difficult. His breathless trip to the car factory where he had his choreographed dial-in with Trump was unbearable. Mandelson's poodle act with Trump was even worse. Sometimes you just can't find the words
If I understood you, what matters to you most isn’t what they deliver, but how they do it.
It’s not what you do, it’s the way that you do it?
They're related. The UK is a brand. The reputation of the brand is worth much more than any passing deal for ten Boeings. Look at Canada and Carney. Canada's reputation is sky-high. Even the EU would let them join. By contrast the UK looks feeble. Barely fit to carry Trump's golf cart
On the Header, I need to know what weapons I can have.
Unarmed.
Probably eight or nine could beat it, unarmed.
The assumption is that it's a 'naked rush' on the gorilla, in full-view. Or, like a Steven Seagal or Jean Claude Van-Damme film where each man approaches the gorilla individually, in turn, to 'have a go'.
In reality, humans would use their brains - even if naked and unarmed. Some men would provoke, entice or stalk the gorilla whilst luring it into a hole or trap curated by others. And then it'd be easy prey.
I think the opposite. Morale is important. After the first few were ripped limb from limb in full view the rest of the men would flee.
On the Header, I need to know what weapons I can have.
Unarmed.
Probably eight or nine could beat it, unarmed.
The assumption is that it's a 'naked rush' on the gorilla, in full-view. Or, like a Steven Seagal or Jean Claude Van-Damme film where each man approaches the gorilla individually, in turn, to 'have a go'.
In reality, humans would use their brains - even if naked and unarmed. Some men would provoke, entice or stalk the gorilla whilst luring it into a hole or trap curated by others. And then it'd be easy prey.
I think the opposite. Morale is important. After the first few were ripped limb from limb in full view the rest of the men would flee.
On the Header, I need to know what weapons I can have.
Unarmed.
Probably eight or nine could beat it, unarmed.
The assumption is that it's a 'naked rush' on the gorilla, in full-view. Or, like a Steven Seagal or Jean Claude Van-Damme film where each man approaches the gorilla individually, in turn, to 'have a go'.
In reality, humans would use their brains - even if naked and unarmed. Some men would provoke, entice or stalk the gorilla whilst luring it into a hole or trap curated by others. And then it'd be easy prey.
I think the opposite. Morale is important. After the first few were ripped limb from limb in full view the rest of the men would flee.
You clearly didn't read my post properly.
As I pointed out at the beginning of the thread, if the humans use their brains then there is no fight in the first place:
"All it takes is one intelligent man, to discern what the conflict is, and to resolve it. Gorillas are by nature gentle vegetarians and only violent if threatened.
Otherwise we are dealing with 101 apes, one much more powerful."
Looks like immigration 'benefits' may have been incorrectly calculated for years, and the Home Office has finally woken up to it:
"The Home Office fears that annual net migration is going to settle above the 340,000 level expected by the government unless radical policies are introduced.
Officials believe that as well as underestimating the levels of long-term immigration to the UK, government forecasts are also overstating its economic benefits.
They fear that from 2028 net migration will be closer to 525,000 — currently the high end of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) projections — because migrants are staying for longer than previously thought."
"Immigration and economic experts have also warned that the official economic forecasts only take into account the initial few years or so of a migrant’s life in the UK, which is often when foreign workers are contributing the most to the economy and the public purse because they are paying taxes but cannot claim benefits for at least five years. They are also unlikely to use the NHS as much as they will later on in their lives."
Reading through that, you seem to be flagging up there is actually two very different types, good migration and bad migration - what would be a good idea is some sort of freedom of movement scheme to attract young people and productive skilled people to work here, who then largely return or go elsewhere where demand for them is. Filling labour shortages like that will definitely boost UK productivity a lot, wouldn’t it?
Good heavens! You could almost be describing where we were in 2016 before the suicidal referendum that your Party foisted on the country and for which we are unlikely to ever fully recover
Looks like immigration 'benefits' may have been incorrectly calculated for years, and the Home Office has finally woken up to it:
"The Home Office fears that annual net migration is going to settle above the 340,000 level expected by the government unless radical policies are introduced.
Officials believe that as well as underestimating the levels of long-term immigration to the UK, government forecasts are also overstating its economic benefits.
They fear that from 2028 net migration will be closer to 525,000 — currently the high end of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) projections — because migrants are staying for longer than previously thought."
"Immigration and economic experts have also warned that the official economic forecasts only take into account the initial few years or so of a migrant’s life in the UK, which is often when foreign workers are contributing the most to the economy and the public purse because they are paying taxes but cannot claim benefits for at least five years. They are also unlikely to use the NHS as much as they will later on in their lives."
Reading through that, you seem to be flagging up there is actually two very different types, good migration and bad migration - what would be a good idea is some sort of freedom of movement scheme to attract young people and productive skilled people to work here, who then largely return or go elsewhere where demand for them is. Filling labour shortages like that will definitely boost UK productivity a lot, wouldn’t it?
The trouble with your statement is "who then largely return or go elsewhere".
They don't. And neither do the students.
We've heard this one before.
I think we should abolish the Treasury. It does immense harm across the government. Its people view investment as evil, and have no conception of anything other than short-term thinking.
On the Header, I need to know what weapons I can have.
Unarmed.
Probably eight or nine could beat it, unarmed.
The assumption is that it's a 'naked rush' on the gorilla, in full-view. Or, like a Steven Seagal or Jean Claude Van-Damme film where each man approaches the gorilla individually, in turn, to 'have a go'.
In reality, humans would use their brains - even if naked and unarmed. Some men would provoke, entice or stalk the gorilla whilst luring it into a hole or trap curated by others. And then it'd be easy prey.
I think the opposite. Morale is important. After the first few were ripped limb from limb in full view the rest of the men would flee.
That depends. People will often be prepared to take casualties.
Looks like immigration 'benefits' may have been incorrectly calculated for years, and the Home Office has finally woken up to it:
"The Home Office fears that annual net migration is going to settle above the 340,000 level expected by the government unless radical policies are introduced.
Officials believe that as well as underestimating the levels of long-term immigration to the UK, government forecasts are also overstating its economic benefits.
They fear that from 2028 net migration will be closer to 525,000 — currently the high end of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) projections — because migrants are staying for longer than previously thought."
"Immigration and economic experts have also warned that the official economic forecasts only take into account the initial few years or so of a migrant’s life in the UK, which is often when foreign workers are contributing the most to the economy and the public purse because they are paying taxes but cannot claim benefits for at least five years. They are also unlikely to use the NHS as much as they will later on in their lives."
Reading through that, you seem to be flagging up there is actually two very different types, good migration and bad migration - what would be a good idea is some sort of freedom of movement scheme to attract young people and productive skilled people to work here, who then largely return or go elsewhere where demand for them is. Filling labour shortages like that will definitely boost UK productivity a lot, wouldn’t it?
The trouble with your statement is "who then largely return or go elsewhere".
They don't. And neither do the students.
We've heard this one before.
But Brexit has actually meant we relaxed immigration rules for those beyond EU, that the ever restrictive EU rules were blocking us from doing? Brexit implementation removed cap on numbers and the Resident Labour Market Test requirements, the required minimum skill and salary level for overseas workers reduced, by a lot for those working in things like social care, and ability for international students to stay on to work in the UK after finishing their studies was made significantly easier by Brexit, because EU blocked these Brexit Freedoms didn’t it? as they were trying to “manufacture” the “one EU identity” thing with the rules, that Britain, with large thanks to Boris and Farage, has rejected being part of.
I've just seen Starmer's phone call to Trump where he praises Donald's leadership. Wtf? He sounds exactly like one of those cult members in Trump's cabinet. It must be possible to be polite without losing every trace of dignity and self-respect. And the 'trade deal' is crap. Labour should replace Starmer asap
Amusingly most US commentators are saying the opposite, and MAGA are complaining that the US got the bad side of the deal.
The truth is probably somewhere in between - and it's only a provisional deal for now.
I don't think the US got much out of it. But a 'trade deal' that leaves a higher tariff on British goods than a few weeks ago doesn't warrant obsequious 'gratitude' from our silly PM. It's absurd and dishonest.
I think you're right. The amount of money saved -if any -will not cover the reputational damage of whoring the country out for a pat on the bottom from Trump. And not even his bottom but Mandleson's.
Supporting Starmer because the other contenders are worse is getting increasingly difficult. His breathless trip to the car factory where he had his choreographed dial-in with Trump was unbearable. Mandelson's poodle act with Trump was even worse. Sometimes you just can't find the words
If I understood you, what matters to you most isn’t what they deliver, but how they do it.
It’s not what you do, it’s the way that you do it?
They're related. The UK is a brand. The reputation of the brand is worth much more than any passing deal for ten Boeings. Look at Canada and Carney. Canada's reputation is sky-high. Even the EU would let them join. By contrast the UK looks feeble. Barely fit to carry Trump's golf cart
Silly. You don’t carry golf carts, the golf carts carry you.
Looks like immigration 'benefits' may have been incorrectly calculated for years, and the Home Office has finally woken up to it:
"The Home Office fears that annual net migration is going to settle above the 340,000 level expected by the government unless radical policies are introduced.
Officials believe that as well as underestimating the levels of long-term immigration to the UK, government forecasts are also overstating its economic benefits.
They fear that from 2028 net migration will be closer to 525,000 — currently the high end of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) projections — because migrants are staying for longer than previously thought."
"Immigration and economic experts have also warned that the official economic forecasts only take into account the initial few years or so of a migrant’s life in the UK, which is often when foreign workers are contributing the most to the economy and the public purse because they are paying taxes but cannot claim benefits for at least five years. They are also unlikely to use the NHS as much as they will later on in their lives."
Reading through that, you seem to be flagging up there is actually two very different types, good migration and bad migration - what would be a good idea is some sort of freedom of movement scheme to attract young people and productive skilled people to work here, who then largely return or go elsewhere where demand for them is. Filling labour shortages like that will definitely boost UK productivity a lot, wouldn’t it?
Good heavens! You could almost be describing where we were in 2016 before the suicidal referendum that your Party foisted on the country and for which we are unlikely to ever fully recover
Come now Roger, neither the Indian trade deal nor the US trade declaration of intent could have happened without Brexit. So we have two tangible ( the only 2?) Brexit benefits. The funny thing is Brexiteers don't like them. Particularly the Indian deal because there is a clause which possibly advantages a very limited number of Indian people temporarily working here.
Looks like immigration 'benefits' may have been incorrectly calculated for years, and the Home Office has finally woken up to it:
"The Home Office fears that annual net migration is going to settle above the 340,000 level expected by the government unless radical policies are introduced.
Officials believe that as well as underestimating the levels of long-term immigration to the UK, government forecasts are also overstating its economic benefits.
They fear that from 2028 net migration will be closer to 525,000 — currently the high end of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) projections — because migrants are staying for longer than previously thought."
"Immigration and economic experts have also warned that the official economic forecasts only take into account the initial few years or so of a migrant’s life in the UK, which is often when foreign workers are contributing the most to the economy and the public purse because they are paying taxes but cannot claim benefits for at least five years. They are also unlikely to use the NHS as much as they will later on in their lives."
Reading through that, you seem to be flagging up there is actually two very different types, good migration and bad migration - what would be a good idea is some sort of freedom of movement scheme to attract young people and productive skilled people to work here, who then largely return or go elsewhere where demand for them is. Filling labour shortages like that will definitely boost UK productivity a lot, wouldn’t it?
Good heavens! You could almost be describing where we were in 2016 before the suicidal referendum that your Party foisted on the country and for which we are unlikely to ever fully recover
You have got your history wrong - it was Farage and Labour voters who made Brexit happen. Conservatives created the EU and single market and loved it, as EU and single market is based on Thatcherism. people who were Conservative voters up to 2016 voted remain!
On the Header, I need to know what weapons I can have.
Unarmed.
Probably eight or nine could beat it, unarmed.
The assumption is that it's a 'naked rush' on the gorilla, in full-view. Or, like a Steven Seagal or Jean Claude Van-Damme film where each man approaches the gorilla individually, in turn, to 'have a go'.
In reality, humans would use their brains - even if naked and unarmed. Some men would provoke, entice or stalk the gorilla whilst luring it into a hole or trap curated by others. And then it'd be easy prey.
I think the opposite. Morale is important. After the first few were ripped limb from limb in full view the rest of the men would flee.
You clearly didn't read my post properly.
As I pointed out at the beginning of the thread, if the humans use their brains then there is no fight in the first place:
"All it takes is one intelligent man, to discern what the conflict is, and to resolve it. Gorillas are by nature gentle vegetarians and only violent if threatened.
Otherwise we are dealing with 101 apes, one much more powerful."
One plausible way this could arise is if a mad despot wants to find out the answer, and locks 100 unarmed naked men and a gorilla into some kind of arena, gives them, say, 6 hours to kill the gorilla. After this time, if the gorilla is still alive then everyone is killed. There is nothing in the arena, just a bare concrete floor.
Maybe the humans should leave the gorilla alone while they make weapons out of the only material available - human bones. Then wait until the gorilla is asleep and try to smash its skull in.
Looks like immigration 'benefits' may have been incorrectly calculated for years, and the Home Office has finally woken up to it:
"The Home Office fears that annual net migration is going to settle above the 340,000 level expected by the government unless radical policies are introduced.
Officials believe that as well as underestimating the levels of long-term immigration to the UK, government forecasts are also overstating its economic benefits.
They fear that from 2028 net migration will be closer to 525,000 — currently the high end of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) projections — because migrants are staying for longer than previously thought."
"Immigration and economic experts have also warned that the official economic forecasts only take into account the initial few years or so of a migrant’s life in the UK, which is often when foreign workers are contributing the most to the economy and the public purse because they are paying taxes but cannot claim benefits for at least five years. They are also unlikely to use the NHS as much as they will later on in their lives."
Reading through that, you seem to be flagging up there is actually two very different types, good migration and bad migration - what would be a good idea is some sort of freedom of movement scheme to attract young people and productive skilled people to work here, who then largely return or go elsewhere where demand for them is. Filling labour shortages like that will definitely boost UK productivity a lot, wouldn’t it?
Good heavens! You could almost be describing where we were in 2016 before the suicidal referendum that your Party foisted on the country and for which we are unlikely to ever fully recover
Come now Roger, neither the Indian trade deal nor the US trade declaration of intent could have happened without Brexit. So we have two tangible ( the only 2?) Brexit benefits. The funny thing is Brexiteers don't like them. Particularly the Indian deal because there is a clause which possibly advantages a very limited number of Indian people temporarily working here.
It doesn't surprise me but I haven't been following it. The whole deal with India sounded like one of those that Kemi used to produce when she was in government and none ever amounted to anything. All they ever did was remind people how much better things were when we were in the EU
Looks like immigration 'benefits' may have been incorrectly calculated for years, and the Home Office has finally woken up to it:
"The Home Office fears that annual net migration is going to settle above the 340,000 level expected by the government unless radical policies are introduced.
Officials believe that as well as underestimating the levels of long-term immigration to the UK, government forecasts are also overstating its economic benefits.
They fear that from 2028 net migration will be closer to 525,000 — currently the high end of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) projections — because migrants are staying for longer than previously thought."
"Immigration and economic experts have also warned that the official economic forecasts only take into account the initial few years or so of a migrant’s life in the UK, which is often when foreign workers are contributing the most to the economy and the public purse because they are paying taxes but cannot claim benefits for at least five years. They are also unlikely to use the NHS as much as they will later on in their lives."
Reading through that, you seem to be flagging up there is actually two very different types, good migration and bad migration - what would be a good idea is some sort of freedom of movement scheme to attract young people and productive skilled people to work here, who then largely return or go elsewhere where demand for them is. Filling labour shortages like that will definitely boost UK productivity a lot, wouldn’t it?
Good heavens! You could almost be describing where we were in 2016 before the suicidal referendum that your Party foisted on the country and for which we are unlikely to ever fully recover
Come now Roger, neither the Indian trade deal nor the US trade declaration of intent could have happened without Brexit. So we have two tangible ( the only 2?) Brexit benefits. The funny thing is Brexiteers don't like them. Particularly the Indian deal because there is a clause which possibly advantages a very limited number of Indian people temporarily working here.
It doesn't surprise me but I haven't been following it. The whole deal with India sounded like one of those that Kemi used to produce when she was in government and none ever amounted to anything. All they ever did was remind people how much better things were when we were in the EU
Looks like immigration 'benefits' may have been incorrectly calculated for years, and the Home Office has finally woken up to it:
"The Home Office fears that annual net migration is going to settle above the 340,000 level expected by the government unless radical policies are introduced.
Officials believe that as well as underestimating the levels of long-term immigration to the UK, government forecasts are also overstating its economic benefits.
They fear that from 2028 net migration will be closer to 525,000 — currently the high end of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) projections — because migrants are staying for longer than previously thought."
"Immigration and economic experts have also warned that the official economic forecasts only take into account the initial few years or so of a migrant’s life in the UK, which is often when foreign workers are contributing the most to the economy and the public purse because they are paying taxes but cannot claim benefits for at least five years. They are also unlikely to use the NHS as much as they will later on in their lives."
Reading through that, you seem to be flagging up there is actually two very different types, good migration and bad migration - what would be a good idea is some sort of freedom of movement scheme to attract young people and productive skilled people to work here, who then largely return or go elsewhere where demand for them is. Filling labour shortages like that will definitely boost UK productivity a lot, wouldn’t it?
Good heavens! You could almost be describing where we were in 2016 before the suicidal referendum that your Party foisted on the country and for which we are unlikely to ever fully recover
You have got your history wrong - it was Farage and Labour voters who made Brexit happen. Conservatives created the EU and single market and loved it, as EU and single market is based on Thatcherism. people who were Conservative voters up to 2016 voted remain!
Looks like immigration 'benefits' may have been incorrectly calculated for years, and the Home Office has finally woken up to it:
"The Home Office fears that annual net migration is going to settle above the 340,000 level expected by the government unless radical policies are introduced.
Officials believe that as well as underestimating the levels of long-term immigration to the UK, government forecasts are also overstating its economic benefits.
They fear that from 2028 net migration will be closer to 525,000 — currently the high end of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) projections — because migrants are staying for longer than previously thought."
"Immigration and economic experts have also warned that the official economic forecasts only take into account the initial few years or so of a migrant’s life in the UK, which is often when foreign workers are contributing the most to the economy and the public purse because they are paying taxes but cannot claim benefits for at least five years. They are also unlikely to use the NHS as much as they will later on in their lives."
Reading through that, you seem to be flagging up there is actually two very different types, good migration and bad migration - what would be a good idea is some sort of freedom of movement scheme to attract young people and productive skilled people to work here, who then largely return or go elsewhere where demand for them is. Filling labour shortages like that will definitely boost UK productivity a lot, wouldn’t it?
Good heavens! You could almost be describing where we were in 2016 before the suicidal referendum that your Party foisted on the country and for which we are unlikely to ever fully recover
Come now Roger, neither the Indian trade deal nor the US trade declaration of intent could have happened without Brexit. So we have two tangible ( the only 2?) Brexit benefits. The funny thing is Brexiteers don't like them. Particularly the Indian deal because there is a clause which possibly advantages a very limited number of Indian people temporarily working here.
It doesn't surprise me but I haven't been following it. The whole deal with India sounded like one of those that Kemi used to produce when she was in government and none ever amounted to anything. All they ever did was remind people how much better things were when we were in the EU
Looks like immigration 'benefits' may have been incorrectly calculated for years, and the Home Office has finally woken up to it:
"The Home Office fears that annual net migration is going to settle above the 340,000 level expected by the government unless radical policies are introduced.
Officials believe that as well as underestimating the levels of long-term immigration to the UK, government forecasts are also overstating its economic benefits.
They fear that from 2028 net migration will be closer to 525,000 — currently the high end of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) projections — because migrants are staying for longer than previously thought."
"Immigration and economic experts have also warned that the official economic forecasts only take into account the initial few years or so of a migrant’s life in the UK, which is often when foreign workers are contributing the most to the economy and the public purse because they are paying taxes but cannot claim benefits for at least five years. They are also unlikely to use the NHS as much as they will later on in their lives."
Reading through that, you seem to be flagging up there is actually two very different types, good migration and bad migration - what would be a good idea is some sort of freedom of movement scheme to attract young people and productive skilled people to work here, who then largely return or go elsewhere where demand for them is. Filling labour shortages like that will definitely boost UK productivity a lot, wouldn’t it?
Good heavens! You could almost be describing where we were in 2016 before the suicidal referendum that your Party foisted on the country and for which we are unlikely to ever fully recover
You have got your history wrong - it was Farage and Labour voters who made Brexit happen. Conservatives created the EU and single market and loved it, as EU and single market is based on Thatcherism. people who were Conservative voters up to 2016 voted remain!
Have you not joined the PB exodus to Farage yet?
Never!
Farage and Trump have loony policies. You can’t implement zero immigration without a DOGE dramatically cutting the size of the bloated state. But no DOGE can cut the size of the bloated state when 99% of it is Pensions, Social Care, and Health spending - so zero immigration is less chance of paying for those things.
Looks like immigration 'benefits' may have been incorrectly calculated for years, and the Home Office has finally woken up to it:
"The Home Office fears that annual net migration is going to settle above the 340,000 level expected by the government unless radical policies are introduced.
Officials believe that as well as underestimating the levels of long-term immigration to the UK, government forecasts are also overstating its economic benefits.
They fear that from 2028 net migration will be closer to 525,000 — currently the high end of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) projections — because migrants are staying for longer than previously thought."
"Immigration and economic experts have also warned that the official economic forecasts only take into account the initial few years or so of a migrant’s life in the UK, which is often when foreign workers are contributing the most to the economy and the public purse because they are paying taxes but cannot claim benefits for at least five years. They are also unlikely to use the NHS as much as they will later on in their lives."
Reading through that, you seem to be flagging up there is actually two very different types, good migration and bad migration - what would be a good idea is some sort of freedom of movement scheme to attract young people and productive skilled people to work here, who then largely return or go elsewhere where demand for them is. Filling labour shortages like that will definitely boost UK productivity a lot, wouldn’t it?
Good heavens! You could almost be describing where we were in 2016 before the suicidal referendum that your Party foisted on the country and for which we are unlikely to ever fully recover
You have got your history wrong - it was Farage and Labour voters who made Brexit happen. Conservatives created the EU and single market and loved it, as EU and single market is based on Thatcherism. people who were Conservative voters up to 2016 voted remain!
The results don’t support that . Cameron couldn’t get enough Tory voters to vote Remain they split 60/40 for Leave .
BMG's Rob Struthers says: "Some polls make you do a double-take. This is one of them."
We are witnessing something pretty extraordinary here. This is potentially a quiet revolution. A Very British Tipping Point
Gives Reform a majority of 124 with FPTP on just under a third of the vote.
At the moment it seems PR might be the only way to stop Farage becoming PM with an outright majority
PR for parliamentary elections is a Reform UK policy (after a referendum on it).
Or perhaps it used to be given the potential advantage FPTP might offer them...
Indeed, ironically the Tories now need PR far more than Reform and Starmer is far more likely to stay PM with PR while at the moment Farage is odds on to become PM with FPTP.
Indeed under the BMG poll only the Greens would be worse off under FPTP than the Tories in terms of MPs won relative to voteshare, FPTP also now gives the LDs a solid base of around 70 MPs while the BPG poll would give the Tories less than 50 MPs when PR would give them over 100 seats on 19%.
One Nation Tories like Grieve in the Guardian are now openly pro PR
The cynical demolition of the AV referendum yet another strategic mistake by the Tories….
Looks like immigration 'benefits' may have been incorrectly calculated for years, and the Home Office has finally woken up to it:
"The Home Office fears that annual net migration is going to settle above the 340,000 level expected by the government unless radical policies are introduced.
Officials believe that as well as underestimating the levels of long-term immigration to the UK, government forecasts are also overstating its economic benefits.
They fear that from 2028 net migration will be closer to 525,000 — currently the high end of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) projections — because migrants are staying for longer than previously thought."
"Immigration and economic experts have also warned that the official economic forecasts only take into account the initial few years or so of a migrant’s life in the UK, which is often when foreign workers are contributing the most to the economy and the public purse because they are paying taxes but cannot claim benefits for at least five years. They are also unlikely to use the NHS as much as they will later on in their lives."
Reading through that, you seem to be flagging up there is actually two very different types, good migration and bad migration - what would be a good idea is some sort of freedom of movement scheme to attract young people and productive skilled people to work here, who then largely return or go elsewhere where demand for them is. Filling labour shortages like that will definitely boost UK productivity a lot, wouldn’t it?
The trouble with your statement is "who then largely return or go elsewhere".
They don't. And neither do the students.
We've heard this one before.
I'm puzzled what the problem is with having students who stay on. If it's absolute population numbers isn't it better to have graduates than babies who then have to be schooled and be unproductive for at least 18 years?
Wouldn't a two baby cap keep the numbers down and be more profitable for the country than sending those with a degree back to where they came from?
Looks like immigration 'benefits' may have been incorrectly calculated for years, and the Home Office has finally woken up to it:
"The Home Office fears that annual net migration is going to settle above the 340,000 level expected by the government unless radical policies are introduced.
Officials believe that as well as underestimating the levels of long-term immigration to the UK, government forecasts are also overstating its economic benefits.
They fear that from 2028 net migration will be closer to 525,000 — currently the high end of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) projections — because migrants are staying for longer than previously thought."
"Immigration and economic experts have also warned that the official economic forecasts only take into account the initial few years or so of a migrant’s life in the UK, which is often when foreign workers are contributing the most to the economy and the public purse because they are paying taxes but cannot claim benefits for at least five years. They are also unlikely to use the NHS as much as they will later on in their lives."
Reading through that, you seem to be flagging up there is actually two very different types, good migration and bad migration - what would be a good idea is some sort of freedom of movement scheme to attract young people and productive skilled people to work here, who then largely return or go elsewhere where demand for them is. Filling labour shortages like that will definitely boost UK productivity a lot, wouldn’t it?
The trouble with your statement is "who then largely return or go elsewhere".
They don't. And neither do the students.
We've heard this one before.
I'm puzzled what the problem is with having students who stay on. If it's absolute population numbers isn't it better to have graduates than babies who then have to be schooled and be unproductive for at least 18 years?
Wouldn't a two baby cap keep the numbers down and be more profitable for the country than sending those with a degree back to where they came from?
But that is exactly what Brexiteers are doing with Brexit freedoms, making it even easier for Students to stay on.
India, Nigeria and Pakistan are the countries that by Brexit governments implementing our Brexit Freedoms has sucked most migrants in from.
The Spectator lead article this week argues for an effective moratorium on migration.
That surprised me.
Indeed. How would @Leon write articles for them if there is a moratorium on movement?
Irregular noun: I am a traveller You are an expatriate He is an immigrant.
(One of the hilarities of Brexit is that it has replaced Europeans who generally flitted to and fro with people from further away who are more likely to want to be longer-term.)
It's concerning what a major war there might do to our immigration numbers.
If they wipe each other out in a nuclear war it would probably reduce our immigration numbers.
Among other things...
From what I've heard, the suspension by India of the river treaty is the most critical aspect. That's not happened before and is an existential threat to Pakistan which relies on the three rivers allocated to its usage but all of which flow (first) through India.
Looks like immigration 'benefits' may have been incorrectly calculated for years, and the Home Office has finally woken up to it:
"The Home Office fears that annual net migration is going to settle above the 340,000 level expected by the government unless radical policies are introduced.
Officials believe that as well as underestimating the levels of long-term immigration to the UK, government forecasts are also overstating its economic benefits.
They fear that from 2028 net migration will be closer to 525,000 — currently the high end of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) projections — because migrants are staying for longer than previously thought."
"Immigration and economic experts have also warned that the official economic forecasts only take into account the initial few years or so of a migrant’s life in the UK, which is often when foreign workers are contributing the most to the economy and the public purse because they are paying taxes but cannot claim benefits for at least five years. They are also unlikely to use the NHS as much as they will later on in their lives."
Reading through that, you seem to be flagging up there is actually two very different types, good migration and bad migration - what would be a good idea is some sort of freedom of movement scheme to attract young people and productive skilled people to work here, who then largely return or go elsewhere where demand for them is. Filling labour shortages like that will definitely boost UK productivity a lot, wouldn’t it?
The trouble with your statement is "who then largely return or go elsewhere".
They don't. And neither do the students.
We've heard this one before.
I'm puzzled what the problem is with having students who stay on. If it's absolute population numbers isn't it better to have graduates than babies who then have to be schooled and be unproductive for at least 18 years?
Wouldn't a two baby cap keep the numbers down and be more profitable for the country than sending those with a degree back to where they came from?
Also, only a small proportion of students stay on, and they do so through legal routes, mainly moving to an employment-based visa.
Meanwhile, in "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" news, the new Reform leader of Kent County Council was a (controversial) Conservative candidate at the 2019 General Election.
It's concerning what a major war there might do to our immigration numbers.
If they wipe each other out in a nuclear war it would probably reduce our immigration numbers.
Among other things...
Trump kept on blaming Biden for all the wars that happened on Biden's watch & kept on claiming that Russia-Ukraine & Israel-Gaza would never have happened if he had been in charge.
Someone should ask him why a new war has started & he's unable to stop it ?
Looks like immigration 'benefits' may have been incorrectly calculated for years, and the Home Office has finally woken up to it:
"The Home Office fears that annual net migration is going to settle above the 340,000 level expected by the government unless radical policies are introduced.
Officials believe that as well as underestimating the levels of long-term immigration to the UK, government forecasts are also overstating its economic benefits.
They fear that from 2028 net migration will be closer to 525,000 — currently the high end of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) projections — because migrants are staying for longer than previously thought."
"Immigration and economic experts have also warned that the official economic forecasts only take into account the initial few years or so of a migrant’s life in the UK, which is often when foreign workers are contributing the most to the economy and the public purse because they are paying taxes but cannot claim benefits for at least five years. They are also unlikely to use the NHS as much as they will later on in their lives."
Reading through that, you seem to be flagging up there is actually two very different types, good migration and bad migration - what would be a good idea is some sort of freedom of movement scheme to attract young people and productive skilled people to work here, who then largely return or go elsewhere where demand for them is. Filling labour shortages like that will definitely boost UK productivity a lot, wouldn’t it?
The trouble with your statement is "who then largely return or go elsewhere".
They don't. And neither do the students.
We've heard this one before.
I'm puzzled what the problem is with having students who stay on. If it's absolute population numbers isn't it better to have graduates than babies who then have to be schooled and be unproductive for at least 18 years?
Wouldn't a two baby cap keep the numbers down and be more profitable for the country than sending those with a degree back to where they came from?
The same two problems as with all immigration to a greater or lesser extent:
- insufficient housing and infrastructure to accommodate them, given pathetic political cowardice and incompetence in both those areas by all governments for decades - alien cultures being imported and needless political and social divisions being exacerbated.
The problems with skilled immigration are social, not directly economic. The problems with unskilled immigration are both.
The Spectator lead article this week argues for an effective moratorium on migration.
That surprised me.
Indeed. How would @Leon write articles for them if there is a moratorium on movement?
Irregular noun: I am a traveller You are an expatriate He is an immigrant.
(One of the hilarities of Brexit is that it has replaced Europeans who generally flitted to and fro with people from further away who are more likely to want to be longer-term.)
Yes EU nationals are also less likely to bring family members.
The Spectator lead article this week argues for an effective moratorium on migration.
That surprised me.
Indeed. How would @Leon write articles for them if there is a moratorium on movement?
Irregular noun: I am a traveller You are an expatriate He is an immigrant.
(One of the hilarities of Brexit is that it has replaced Europeans who generally flitted to and fro with people from further away who are more likely to want to be longer-term.)
Looks like immigration 'benefits' may have been incorrectly calculated for years, and the Home Office has finally woken up to it:
"The Home Office fears that annual net migration is going to settle above the 340,000 level expected by the government unless radical policies are introduced.
Officials believe that as well as underestimating the levels of long-term immigration to the UK, government forecasts are also overstating its economic benefits.
They fear that from 2028 net migration will be closer to 525,000 — currently the high end of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) projections — because migrants are staying for longer than previously thought."
"Immigration and economic experts have also warned that the official economic forecasts only take into account the initial few years or so of a migrant’s life in the UK, which is often when foreign workers are contributing the most to the economy and the public purse because they are paying taxes but cannot claim benefits for at least five years. They are also unlikely to use the NHS as much as they will later on in their lives."
Reading through that, you seem to be flagging up there is actually two very different types, good migration and bad migration - what would be a good idea is some sort of freedom of movement scheme to attract young people and productive skilled people to work here, who then largely return or go elsewhere where demand for them is. Filling labour shortages like that will definitely boost UK productivity a lot, wouldn’t it?
The trouble with your statement is "who then largely return or go elsewhere".
They don't. And neither do the students.
We've heard this one before.
If you've spent £100,000 to get a degree in the UK from a Russell Group University and then got a job that pays well enough to stay here where is the problem?
Meanwhile, in "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" news, the new Reform leader of Kent County Council was a (controversial) Conservative candidate at the 2019 General Election.
From the 1st article: “Mrs Kemkaran vowed to remove the Ukraine flag from the chamber, open the council’s books to auditors and review working practices across the authority.”
So he wants councils to scrap a tax (double council tax on second homes) that
1) voters don't pay as second home voters can't vote? 2) stops younger local voters from buying houses because they are priced out of the market.
No, he's representing his people, who are predominantly on the right, older than average and better off. People like Nigel. People more likely to have second homes. People who read the Telegraph and take it seriously.
I'd say who I think the idiots are, but I don't want to cause offence.
Looks like immigration 'benefits' may have been incorrectly calculated for years, and the Home Office has finally woken up to it:
"The Home Office fears that annual net migration is going to settle above the 340,000 level expected by the government unless radical policies are introduced.
Officials believe that as well as underestimating the levels of long-term immigration to the UK, government forecasts are also overstating its economic benefits.
They fear that from 2028 net migration will be closer to 525,000 — currently the high end of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) projections — because migrants are staying for longer than previously thought."
"Immigration and economic experts have also warned that the official economic forecasts only take into account the initial few years or so of a migrant’s life in the UK, which is often when foreign workers are contributing the most to the economy and the public purse because they are paying taxes but cannot claim benefits for at least five years. They are also unlikely to use the NHS as much as they will later on in their lives."
Reading through that, you seem to be flagging up there is actually two very different types, good migration and bad migration - what would be a good idea is some sort of freedom of movement scheme to attract young people and productive skilled people to work here, who then largely return or go elsewhere where demand for them is. Filling labour shortages like that will definitely boost UK productivity a lot, wouldn’t it?
The trouble with your statement is "who then largely return or go elsewhere".
They don't. And neither do the students.
We've heard this one before.
I'm puzzled what the problem is with having students who stay on. If it's absolute population numbers isn't it better to have graduates than babies who then have to be schooled and be unproductive for at least 18 years?
Wouldn't a two baby cap keep the numbers down and be more profitable for the country than sending those with a degree back to where they came from?
But that is exactly what Brexiteers are doing with Brexit freedoms, making it even easier for Students to stay on.
India, Nigeria and Pakistan are the countries that by Brexit governments implementing our Brexit Freedoms has sucked most migrants in from.
But the Brexiteers/Faragists on here have shown a preference for a white population. Would they need a Mengele character to get those brexit benefits and satisfy their tonal criteria?
The Spectator lead article this week argues for an effective moratorium on migration.
That surprised me.
Indeed. How would @Leon write articles for them if there is a moratorium on movement?
Irregular noun: I am a traveller You are an expatriate He is an immigrant.
(One of the hilarities of Brexit is that it has replaced Europeans who generally flitted to and fro with people from further away who are more likely to want to be longer-term.)
And far more visible cultural change too.
It’s the elephant in the room which politicians are avoiding . The UK will always need immigration , the blunt choice is do people want the majority coming from Europe with similar values including religion or Pakistan , India , Bangladesh which don’t share those .
I think if this question was asked we’d know the answer .
Looks like immigration 'benefits' may have been incorrectly calculated for years, and the Home Office has finally woken up to it:
"The Home Office fears that annual net migration is going to settle above the 340,000 level expected by the government unless radical policies are introduced.
Officials believe that as well as underestimating the levels of long-term immigration to the UK, government forecasts are also overstating its economic benefits.
They fear that from 2028 net migration will be closer to 525,000 — currently the high end of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) projections — because migrants are staying for longer than previously thought."
"Immigration and economic experts have also warned that the official economic forecasts only take into account the initial few years or so of a migrant’s life in the UK, which is often when foreign workers are contributing the most to the economy and the public purse because they are paying taxes but cannot claim benefits for at least five years. They are also unlikely to use the NHS as much as they will later on in their lives."
Reading through that, you seem to be flagging up there is actually two very different types, good migration and bad migration - what would be a good idea is some sort of freedom of movement scheme to attract young people and productive skilled people to work here, who then largely return or go elsewhere where demand for them is. Filling labour shortages like that will definitely boost UK productivity a lot, wouldn’t it?
Good heavens! You could almost be describing where we were in 2016 before the suicidal referendum that your Party foisted on the country and for which we are unlikely to ever fully recover
You have got your history wrong - it was Farage and Labour voters who made Brexit happen. Conservatives created the EU and single market and loved it, as EU and single market is based on Thatcherism. people who were Conservative voters up to 2016 voted remain!
I am not sure how you have tangled yourself up in history so dramatically here.
Your early history is indeed correct. Many Labour voters and MPs (I have just conjured up a picture of the vile Eric Heffer) were very hostile to the Common Market. Wilson when reaffirming Heath's entering Britain into a trade arrangement with mainland Europe (by referenda) was cleverly addressed. Wilson was well aware that "leave" could win a referendum but he sold the benefits whilst still appearing sceptical. The opposite of Cameron who assumed he would win because he always won and prepared poorly. Unfortunately all the stars aligned against Cameron and 3 quid Tories had just elected a pro-Soviet anti-Common Market cold wat throw back as Leader of the Labour Party.
Labour figures of note were resistant and the rise of the SDP and the "longest suicide note in history" were framed around Common Market membership, and to her credit she promoted Britain's membership of the EU, and likewise Major. It was later that you had Tories like Farage and Goldsmith declaring their various forms of UDI against the EU and figures within Parliament like Bill Cash and Redwood did their utmost to undermine Major (Maestricht).. They were still in the minority "the white coats flapping" to remove them from discourse.
And then the pro- EU New Labour and their embrace of A8 accession turbocharged Tory dissent. Cameron didn't have to call his Referendum ( Osborne said it would be an error) and Johnson didn't have to see Leaving the EU as a means to climb the greasy pole, and the rest just fell into place.
Joey Politano 🏳️🌈 @JosephPolitano · 56s I’m a broken record on this but the key to understanding Trump’s trade policy is that he just thinks the act of importing is itself an economic loss.
So he wants councils to scrap a tax (double council tax on second homes) that
1) voters don't pay as second home voters can't vote? 2) stops younger local voters from buying houses because they are priced out of the market.
No, he's representing his people, who are predominantly on the right, older than average and better off. People like Nigel. People more likely to have second homes. People who read the Telegraph and take it seriously.
I'd say who I think the idiots are, but I don't want to cause offence.
The Spectator lead article this week argues for an effective moratorium on migration.
That surprised me.
Indeed. How would @Leon write articles for them if there is a moratorium on movement?
Irregular noun: I am a traveller You are an expatriate He is an immigrant.
(One of the hilarities of Brexit is that it has replaced Europeans who generally flitted to and fro with people from further away who are more likely to want to be longer-term.)
And far more visible cultural change too.
It’s the elephant in the room which politicians are avoiding . The UK will always need immigration , the blunt choice is do people want the majority coming from Europe with similar values including religion or Pakistan , India , Bangladesh which don’t share those .
I think if this question was asked we’d know the answer .
I think non EU immigrants do often share our values, despite often obvious visible differences. I get on very well with my recently arrived colleagues from Egypt, Nigeria, Zimbabwe and the Phillipines. Indeed, because they are here for the long term they usually want to integrate more.
So he wants councils to scrap a tax (double council tax on second homes) that
1) voters don't pay as second home voters can't vote? 2) stops younger local voters from buying houses because they are priced out of the market.
Time for my regular reminder that a lot of second home owners escape CT altogether by letting their 2nd home for half the year and running it as a CT exempt small business.
Joey Politano 🏳️🌈 @JosephPolitano · 56s I’m a broken record on this but the key to understanding Trump’s trade policy is that he just thinks the act of importing is itself an economic loss.
So he wants councils to scrap a tax (double council tax on second homes) that
1) voters don't pay as second home voters can't vote? 2) stops younger local voters from buying houses because they are priced out of the market.
Good morning
Farage is wrong on this
It is widely applied across Wales and is popular with local communities
My daughter is in the process of buying a home here in Llandudno and the agents have said they have seen a considerable rise in second homes coming onto the market
The Spectator lead article this week argues for an effective moratorium on migration.
That surprised me.
Indeed. How would @Leon write articles for them if there is a moratorium on movement?
Irregular noun: I am a traveller You are an expatriate He is an immigrant.
(One of the hilarities of Brexit is that it has replaced Europeans who generally flitted to and fro with people from further away who are more likely to want to be longer-term.)
And far more visible cultural change too.
It’s the elephant in the room which politicians are avoiding . The UK will always need immigration , the blunt choice is do people want the majority coming from Europe with similar values including religion or Pakistan , India , Bangladesh which don’t share those .
I think if this question was asked we’d know the answer .
I think non EU immigrants do often share our values, despite often obvious visible differences. I get on very well with my recently arrived colleagues from Egypt, Nigeria, Zimbabwe and the Phillipines. Indeed, because they are here for the long term they usually want to integrate more.
How well do they share your liberal views on homosexuality?
The Spectator lead article this week argues for an effective moratorium on migration.
That surprised me.
Indeed. How would @Leon write articles for them if there is a moratorium on movement?
Irregular noun: I am a traveller You are an expatriate He is an immigrant.
(One of the hilarities of Brexit is that it has replaced Europeans who generally flitted to and fro with people from further away who are more likely to want to be longer-term.)
And far more visible cultural change too.
It’s the elephant in the room which politicians are avoiding . The UK will always need immigration , the blunt choice is do people want the majority coming from Europe with similar values including religion or Pakistan , India , Bangladesh which don’t share those .
I think if this question was asked we’d know the answer .
I think non EU immigrants do often share our values, despite often obvious visible differences. I get on very well with my recently arrived colleagues from Egypt, Nigeria, Zimbabwe and the Phillipines. Indeed, because they are here for the long term they usually want to integrate more.
On the Header, I need to know what weapons I can have.
Unarmed.
Probably eight or nine could beat it, unarmed.
The assumption is that it's a 'naked rush' on the gorilla, in full-view. Or, like a Steven Seagal or Jean Claude Van-Damme film where each man approaches the gorilla individually, in turn, to 'have a go'.
In reality, humans would use their brains - even if naked and unarmed. Some men would provoke, entice or stalk the gorilla whilst luring it into a hole or trap curated by others. And then it'd be easy prey.
I think the opposite. Morale is important. After the first few were ripped limb from limb in full view the rest of the men would flee.
That depends. People will often be prepared to take casualties.
Looks like immigration 'benefits' may have been incorrectly calculated for years, and the Home Office has finally woken up to it:
"The Home Office fears that annual net migration is going to settle above the 340,000 level expected by the government unless radical policies are introduced.
Officials believe that as well as underestimating the levels of long-term immigration to the UK, government forecasts are also overstating its economic benefits.
They fear that from 2028 net migration will be closer to 525,000 — currently the high end of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) projections — because migrants are staying for longer than previously thought."
"Immigration and economic experts have also warned that the official economic forecasts only take into account the initial few years or so of a migrant’s life in the UK, which is often when foreign workers are contributing the most to the economy and the public purse because they are paying taxes but cannot claim benefits for at least five years. They are also unlikely to use the NHS as much as they will later on in their lives."
Reading through that, you seem to be flagging up there is actually two very different types, good migration and bad migration - what would be a good idea is some sort of freedom of movement scheme to attract young people and productive skilled people to work here, who then largely return or go elsewhere where demand for them is. Filling labour shortages like that will definitely boost UK productivity a lot, wouldn’t it?
Good heavens! You could almost be describing where we were in 2016 before the suicidal referendum that your Party foisted on the country and for which we are unlikely to ever fully recover
You have got your history wrong - it was Farage and Labour voters who made Brexit happen. Conservatives created the EU and single market and loved it, as EU and single market is based on Thatcherism. people who were Conservative voters up to 2016 voted remain!
I am not sure how you have tangled yourself up in history so dramatically here.
Your early history is indeed correct. Many Labour voters and MPs (I have just conjured up a picture of the vile Eric Heffer) were very hostile to the Common Market. Wilson when reaffirming Heath's entering Britain into a trade arrangement with mainland Europe (by referenda) was cleverly addressed. Wilson was well aware that "leave" could win a referendum but he sold the benefits whilst still appearing sceptical. The opposite of Cameron who assumed he would win because he always won and prepared poorly. Unfortunately all the stars aligned against Cameron and 3 quid Tories had just elected a pro-Soviet anti-Common Market cold wat throw back as Leader of the Labour Party.
Labour figures of note were resistant and the rise of the SDP and the "longest suicide note in history" were framed around Common Market membership, and to her credit she promoted Britain's membership of the EU, and likewise Major. It was later that you had Tories like Farage and Goldsmith declaring their various forms of UDI against the EU and figures within Parliament like Bill Cash and Redwood did their utmost to undermine Major (Maestricht).. They were still in the minority "the white coats flapping" to remove them from discourse.
And then the pro- EU New Labour and their embrace of A8 accession turbocharged Tory dissent. Cameron didn't have to call his Referendum ( Osborne said it would be an error) and Johnson didn't have to see Leaving the EU as a means to climb the greasy pole, and the rest just fell into place.
Until 2016, not even 10 years ago, the official position of the Conservative Party was commitment to the EU and Single Market, and had been for a half century, under all leaderships. There was always some Anti-EU sentiment, but was in a minority.
Those days are gone, and so that majority of pro-business, pro-EU is either unenthusiastically embracing Brexitism, or left the party. Which is in large part why the polling for the Tories continues to decline. What is the point of them any more? The votes for Nativist autarky are gone to Reform, and it is only the over 75's who are deeply blue from cultural memory and habit.
The Spectator lead article this week argues for an effective moratorium on migration.
That surprised me.
Indeed. How would @Leon write articles for them if there is a moratorium on movement?
Irregular noun: I am a traveller You are an expatriate He is an immigrant.
(One of the hilarities of Brexit is that it has replaced Europeans who generally flitted to and fro with people from further away who are more likely to want to be longer-term.)
And far more visible cultural change too.
It’s the elephant in the room which politicians are avoiding . The UK will always need immigration , the blunt choice is do people want the majority coming from Europe with similar values including religion or Pakistan , India , Bangladesh which don’t share those .
I think if this question was asked we’d know the answer .
I think non EU immigrants do often share our values, despite often obvious visible differences. I get on very well with my recently arrived colleagues from Egypt, Nigeria, Zimbabwe and the Phillipines. Indeed, because they are here for the long term they usually want to integrate more.
How well do they share your liberal views on homosexuality?
They seem to accept it as part of British life. I see no friction between them and our gay members of staff, in either direction.
The rise of Reform in the polls is remarkable and shows no signs of abating
Switching on the news this morning Starmer is in Ukraine with other EU leaders and Zelensky posing for photos, and I am beginning to come to the conclusion no matter for all Starmer's efforts with the US and India he has lost the dressing room in football parlance
The question for Labour if the polls do not improve will be is Starmer the problem, as he certainly does not have any personality nor political nous
His press conference with Trunp from the car factory was toe curling with his Donald and Keir familiarity and it may be reaching the point nothing he says or does improves Labour's polling
Indeed with the huge NHS cuts muted and the immigration debate not helping what can save him if Labour want to win in 2028/9 ?
Looks like immigration 'benefits' may have been incorrectly calculated for years, and the Home Office has finally woken up to it:
"The Home Office fears that annual net migration is going to settle above the 340,000 level expected by the government unless radical policies are introduced.
Officials believe that as well as underestimating the levels of long-term immigration to the UK, government forecasts are also overstating its economic benefits.
They fear that from 2028 net migration will be closer to 525,000 — currently the high end of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) projections — because migrants are staying for longer than previously thought."
"Immigration and economic experts have also warned that the official economic forecasts only take into account the initial few years or so of a migrant’s life in the UK, which is often when foreign workers are contributing the most to the economy and the public purse because they are paying taxes but cannot claim benefits for at least five years. They are also unlikely to use the NHS as much as they will later on in their lives."
Reading through that, you seem to be flagging up there is actually two very different types, good migration and bad migration - what would be a good idea is some sort of freedom of movement scheme to attract young people and productive skilled people to work here, who then largely return or go elsewhere where demand for them is. Filling labour shortages like that will definitely boost UK productivity a lot, wouldn’t it?
Good heavens! You could almost be describing where we were in 2016 before the suicidal referendum that your Party foisted on the country and for which we are unlikely to ever fully recover
You have got your history wrong - it was Farage and Labour voters who made Brexit happen. Conservatives created the EU and single market and loved it, as EU and single market is based on Thatcherism. people who were Conservative voters up to 2016 voted remain!
I am not sure how you have tangled yourself up in history so dramatically here.
Your early history is indeed correct. Many Labour voters and MPs (I have just conjured up a picture of the vile Eric Heffer) were very hostile to the Common Market. Wilson when reaffirming Heath's entering Britain into a trade arrangement with mainland Europe (by referenda) was cleverly addressed. Wilson was well aware that "leave" could win a referendum but he sold the benefits whilst still appearing sceptical. The opposite of Cameron who assumed he would win because he always won and prepared poorly. Unfortunately all the stars aligned against Cameron and 3 quid Tories had just elected a pro-Soviet anti-Common Market cold wat throw back as Leader of the Labour Party.
Labour figures of note were resistant and the rise of the SDP and the "longest suicide note in history" were framed around Common Market membership, and to her credit she promoted Britain's membership of the EU, and likewise Major. It was later that you had Tories like Farage and Goldsmith declaring their various forms of UDI against the EU and figures within Parliament like Bill Cash and Redwood did their utmost to undermine Major (Maestricht).. They were still in the minority "the white coats flapping" to remove them from discourse.
And then the pro- EU New Labour and their embrace of A8 accession turbocharged Tory dissent. Cameron didn't have to call his Referendum ( Osborne said it would be an error) and Johnson didn't have to see Leaving the EU as a means to climb the greasy pole, and the rest just fell into place.
It makes you want to weep. We threw away our Euro sqillions lottery ticket and much more besides
Looks like immigration 'benefits' may have been incorrectly calculated for years, and the Home Office has finally woken up to it:
"The Home Office fears that annual net migration is going to settle above the 340,000 level expected by the government unless radical policies are introduced.
Officials believe that as well as underestimating the levels of long-term immigration to the UK, government forecasts are also overstating its economic benefits.
They fear that from 2028 net migration will be closer to 525,000 — currently the high end of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) projections — because migrants are staying for longer than previously thought."
"Immigration and economic experts have also warned that the official economic forecasts only take into account the initial few years or so of a migrant’s life in the UK, which is often when foreign workers are contributing the most to the economy and the public purse because they are paying taxes but cannot claim benefits for at least five years. They are also unlikely to use the NHS as much as they will later on in their lives."
Reading through that, you seem to be flagging up there is actually two very different types, good migration and bad migration - what would be a good idea is some sort of freedom of movement scheme to attract young people and productive skilled people to work here, who then largely return or go elsewhere where demand for them is. Filling labour shortages like that will definitely boost UK productivity a lot, wouldn’t it?
Good heavens! You could almost be describing where we were in 2016 before the suicidal referendum that your Party foisted on the country and for which we are unlikely to ever fully recover
You have got your history wrong - it was Farage and Labour voters who made Brexit happen. Conservatives created the EU and single market and loved it, as EU and single market is based on Thatcherism. people who were Conservative voters up to 2016 voted remain!
I am not sure how you have tangled yourself up in history so dramatically here.
Your early history is indeed correct. Many Labour voters and MPs (I have just conjured up a picture of the vile Eric Heffer) were very hostile to the Common Market. Wilson when reaffirming Heath's entering Britain into a trade arrangement with mainland Europe (by referenda) was cleverly addressed. Wilson was well aware that "leave" could win a referendum but he sold the benefits whilst still appearing sceptical. The opposite of Cameron who assumed he would win because he always won and prepared poorly. Unfortunately all the stars aligned against Cameron and 3 quid Tories had just elected a pro-Soviet anti-Common Market cold wat throw back as Leader of the Labour Party.
Labour figures of note were resistant and the rise of the SDP and the "longest suicide note in history" were framed around Common Market membership, and to her credit she promoted Britain's membership of the EU, and likewise Major. It was later that you had Tories like Farage and Goldsmith declaring their various forms of UDI against the EU and figures within Parliament like Bill Cash and Redwood did their utmost to undermine Major (Maestricht).. They were still in the minority "the white coats flapping" to remove them from discourse.
And then the pro- EU New Labour and their embrace of A8 accession turbocharged Tory dissent. Cameron didn't have to call his Referendum ( Osborne said it would be an error) and Johnson didn't have to see Leaving the EU as a means to climb the greasy pole, and the rest just fell into place.
Until 2016, not even 10 years ago, the official position of the Conservative Party was commitment to the EU and Single Market, and had been for a half century, under all leaderships. There was always some Anti-EU sentiment, but was in a minority.
Those days are gone, and so that majority of pro-business, pro-EU is either unenthusiastically embracing Brexitism, or left the party. Which is in large part why the polling for the Tories continues to decline. What is the point of them any more? The votes for Nativist autarky are gone to Reform, and it is only the over 75's who are deeply blue from cultural memory and habit.
It is somewhat ironic if the referendum to reunite the Conservative Party led to its ultimate decline.
A lesson for Labour too having embraced the Conservative model of Brexit.
The Spectator lead article this week argues for an effective moratorium on migration.
That surprised me.
Indeed. How would @Leon write articles for them if there is a moratorium on movement?
Irregular noun: I am a traveller You are an expatriate He is an immigrant.
(One of the hilarities of Brexit is that it has replaced Europeans who generally flitted to and fro with people from further away who are more likely to want to be longer-term.)
And far more visible cultural change too.
It’s the elephant in the room which politicians are avoiding . The UK will always need immigration , the blunt choice is do people want the majority coming from Europe with similar values including religion or Pakistan , India , Bangladesh which don’t share those .
I think if this question was asked we’d know the answer .
I think non EU immigrants do often share our values, despite often obvious visible differences. I get on very well with my recently arrived colleagues from Egypt, Nigeria, Zimbabwe and the Phillipines. Indeed, because they are here for the long term they usually want to integrate more.
How well do they share your liberal views on homosexuality?
They seem to accept it as part of British life. I see no friction between them and our gay members of staff, in either direction.
You see it as your job to tub-thump enthusiastically for immigration and playdown or dismiss any potential negatives.
The rise of Reform in the polls is remarkable and shows no signs of abating
Switching on the news this morning Starmer is in Ukraine with other EU leaders and Zelensky posing for photos, and I am beginning to come to the conclusion no matter for all Starmer's efforts with the US and India he has lost the dressing room in football parlance
The question for Labour if the polls do not improve will be is Starmer the problem, as he certainly does not have any personality nor political nous
His press conference with Trunp from the car factory was toe curling with his Donald and Keir familiarity and it may be reaching the point nothing he says or does improves Labour's polling
Indeed with the huge NHS cuts muted and the immigration debate not helping what can save him if Labour want to win in 2028/9 ?
On the surface that seems plausible but you and I are old enough to remember the 1981/2 Alliance bubble. In mid-December 1981 MORI produced a poll that had Con 23%, Lab 23.5% and Alliance on 50.5%, a lead of 27%.
Joey Politano 🏳️🌈 @JosephPolitano · 56s I’m a broken record on this but the key to understanding Trump’s trade policy is that he just thinks the act of importing is itself an economic loss.
And that mentality can be extended further to a micro scale that any spending at all is an economic loss.
Fully applied its a mentality which would reverse thousands of years of economic development.
For Trump to win his trade war, he has to cure America of its desire to buy foreign "stuff".
Whilst making stuff foreigners want to buy.
And he is fundamentally correct that the continuous and massive trade deficits that the US has run with the rest of the world are impoverishing the US. The debt that the US has piled up over the last 30 years means that there is a continuous flow of money from the US to other countries reducing domestic consumption and investment. A lot of this is in bonds but, as with the UK, there is also an increasing number of US businesses being sold to finance this deficit. It is making the US poorer.
What he is fundamentally incorrect about is his batshit "solutions" to the problem. Erratic tariffs and economic policies positively discourage investment in the US. His bizarre behaviour at borders is costing the US tourist market tens of billions. He has failed to comprehend that his policies restrict imports to which manufacturers in the US can add value further damaging production. He has failed to appreciate that the inflationary consequences of his actions makes it harder for the Fed to cut interest rates.
Biden's solutions to the same problem, such as the CHIPs Act, were a breach of GATT rules but the US has destroyed that institution by making the court non quorate by vetoing new appointments. But. right or wrong, those policies positively encouraged investment in manufacturing in the US. They were a far smarter way of addressing what is a real problem for the US.
So he wants councils to scrap a tax (double council tax on second homes) that
1) voters don't pay as second home voters can't vote? 2) stops younger local voters from buying houses because they are priced out of the market.
Good morning
Farage is wrong on this
It is widely applied across Wales and is popular with local communities
My daughter is in the process of buying a home here in Llandudno and the agents have said they have seen a considerable rise in second homes coming onto the market
Could this finally break the Westminster consensus/Prove that we were right all along?
How do you measure migrant costs? The question the OBR can’t answer
There is growing concern in government, shared by Morgan McSweeney, the prime minister’s chief of staff, that the benefit of immigration is being overstated because OBR does not take into account the additional costs of immigration-fuelled population growth to public infrastructure and services in its official forecasts.
In October the OBR for the first time started publishing an estimate of the fiscal impact of migrants across their lifetime and broke it down into highly paid, average and low-wage migrants, but it cannot incorporate this into the official forecasts.
It also assumes that each additional person would require an increase in public spending of £20,000 to cover for the extra strain on public infrastructure and services.
I've just seen Starmer's phone call to Trump where he praises Donald's leadership. Wtf? He sounds exactly like one of those cult members in Trump's cabinet. It must be possible to be polite without losing every trace of dignity and self-respect. And the 'trade deal' is crap. Labour should replace Starmer asap
Amusingly most US commentators are saying the opposite, and MAGA are complaining that the US got the bad side of the deal.
The truth is probably somewhere in between - and it's only a provisional deal for now.
I don't think the US got much out of it. But a 'trade deal' that leaves a higher tariff on British goods than a few weeks ago doesn't warrant obsequious 'gratitude' from our silly PM. It's absurd and dishonest.
I think you're right. The amount of money saved -if any -will not cover the reputational damage of whoring the country out for a pat on the bottom from Trump. And not even his bottom but Mandleson's.
Supporting Starmer because the other contenders are worse is getting increasingly difficult. His breathless trip to the car factory where he had his choreographed dial-in with Trump was unbearable. Mandelson's poodle act with Trump was even worse. Sometimes you just can't find the words
If I understood you, what matters to you most isn’t what they deliver, but how they do it.
It’s not what you do, it’s the way that you do it?
They're related. The UK is a brand. The reputation of the brand is worth much more than any passing deal for ten Boeings. Look at Canada and Carney. Canada's reputation is sky-high. Even the EU would let them join. By contrast the UK looks feeble. Barely fit to carry Trump's golf cart
Silly. You don’t carry golf carts, the golf carts carry you.
You meant the bag.
Roger was emphasising our remarkable strength, I guess.
Meanwhile, in "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" news, the new Reform leader of Kent County Council was a (controversial) Conservative candidate at the 2019 General Election.
So he wants councils to scrap a tax (double council tax on second homes) that
1) voters don't pay as second home voters can't vote? 2) stops younger local voters from buying houses because they are priced out of the market.
Voters with second homes can register and vote in local elections in both places, but can only vote once in national ones.
Farage might have just won next years Welsh election with this policy.
No, the rules are now much tighter than that. You can only register at your main residence. It is possible to have multiple main residences, if you genuinely live and work in several places, but the typical holiday home let out, or left empty and only used now and again, no longer entitles you to electoral registration. Similarly, landlords can no longer register themselves in all their owned properties, as used once to be common.
Looks like immigration 'benefits' may have been incorrectly calculated for years, and the Home Office has finally woken up to it:
"The Home Office fears that annual net migration is going to settle above the 340,000 level expected by the government unless radical policies are introduced.
Officials believe that as well as underestimating the levels of long-term immigration to the UK, government forecasts are also overstating its economic benefits.
They fear that from 2028 net migration will be closer to 525,000 — currently the high end of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) projections — because migrants are staying for longer than previously thought."
"Immigration and economic experts have also warned that the official economic forecasts only take into account the initial few years or so of a migrant’s life in the UK, which is often when foreign workers are contributing the most to the economy and the public purse because they are paying taxes but cannot claim benefits for at least five years. They are also unlikely to use the NHS as much as they will later on in their lives."
Reading through that, you seem to be flagging up there is actually two very different types, good migration and bad migration - what would be a good idea is some sort of freedom of movement scheme to attract young people and productive skilled people to work here, who then largely return or go elsewhere where demand for them is. Filling labour shortages like that will definitely boost UK productivity a lot, wouldn’t it?
Good heavens! You could almost be describing where we were in 2016 before the suicidal referendum that your Party foisted on the country and for which we are unlikely to ever fully recover
You have got your history wrong - it was Farage and Labour voters who made Brexit happen. Conservatives created the EU and single market and loved it, as EU and single market is based on Thatcherism. people who were Conservative voters up to 2016 voted remain!
I am not sure how you have tangled yourself up in history so dramatically here.
Your early history is indeed correct. Many Labour voters and MPs (I have just conjured up a picture of the vile Eric Heffer) were very hostile to the Common Market. Wilson when reaffirming Heath's entering Britain into a trade arrangement with mainland Europe (by referenda) was cleverly addressed. Wilson was well aware that "leave" could win a referendum but he sold the benefits whilst still appearing sceptical. The opposite of Cameron who assumed he would win because he always won and prepared poorly. Unfortunately all the stars aligned against Cameron and 3 quid Tories had just elected a pro-Soviet anti-Common Market cold wat throw back as Leader of the Labour Party.
Labour figures of note were resistant and the rise of the SDP and the "longest suicide note in history" were framed around Common Market membership, and to her credit she promoted Britain's membership of the EU, and likewise Major. It was later that you had Tories like Farage and Goldsmith declaring their various forms of UDI against the EU and figures within Parliament like Bill Cash and Redwood did their utmost to undermine Major (Maestricht).. They were still in the minority "the white coats flapping" to remove them from discourse.
And then the pro- EU New Labour and their embrace of A8 accession turbocharged Tory dissent. Cameron didn't have to call his Referendum ( Osborne said it would be an error) and Johnson didn't have to see Leaving the EU as a means to climb the greasy pole, and the rest just fell into place.
It makes you want to weep. We threw away our Euro sqillions lottery ticket and much more besides
As James O'Brexit says almost every day " the only population in history to vote to impose economic sanctions on itself".
Meanwhile, in "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" news, the new Reform leader of Kent County Council was a (controversial) Conservative candidate at the 2019 General Election.
Looks like immigration 'benefits' may have been incorrectly calculated for years, and the Home Office has finally woken up to it:
"The Home Office fears that annual net migration is going to settle above the 340,000 level expected by the government unless radical policies are introduced.
Officials believe that as well as underestimating the levels of long-term immigration to the UK, government forecasts are also overstating its economic benefits.
They fear that from 2028 net migration will be closer to 525,000 — currently the high end of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) projections — because migrants are staying for longer than previously thought."
"Immigration and economic experts have also warned that the official economic forecasts only take into account the initial few years or so of a migrant’s life in the UK, which is often when foreign workers are contributing the most to the economy and the public purse because they are paying taxes but cannot claim benefits for at least five years. They are also unlikely to use the NHS as much as they will later on in their lives."
Reading through that, you seem to be flagging up there is actually two very different types, good migration and bad migration - what would be a good idea is some sort of freedom of movement scheme to attract young people and productive skilled people to work here, who then largely return or go elsewhere where demand for them is. Filling labour shortages like that will definitely boost UK productivity a lot, wouldn’t it?
The trouble with your statement is "who then largely return or go elsewhere".
They don't. And neither do the students.
We've heard this one before.
I'm puzzled what the problem is with having students who stay on. If it's absolute population numbers isn't it better to have graduates than babies who then have to be schooled and be unproductive for at least 18 years?
Wouldn't a two baby cap keep the numbers down and be more profitable for the country than sending those with a degree back to where they came from?
But that is exactly what Brexiteers are doing with Brexit freedoms, making it even easier for Students to stay on.
India, Nigeria and Pakistan are the countries that by Brexit governments implementing our Brexit Freedoms has sucked most migrants in from.
But the Brexiteers/Faragists on here have shown a preference for a white population. Would they need a Mengele character to get those brexit benefits and satisfy their tonal criteria?
Comments
We've taken a lot of economic damage for last year's bung. At the very least we might expect some performance improvement in 2-3 years time.
https://youtu.be/0_kjctTbMHA?si=siHq0suPSG5ZwPOT
They don't. And neither do the students.
We've heard this one before.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=john+west+salmon+advert#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:9f64a238,vid:QYn1chaCqp8,st:0
I have been visiting a hospital a bit because my mum had a fall, and hurt her back, and was in a broken bone ward with old old people and she kept complaining we have to get her moved as they mistakenly put her with old people. But none of the doctors or nurses or other support staff were from UK. If we conclude impact on British people of there now being fewer GPs, dentists, housing etc is so bad so the policy has to be no immigration, what happens to the hospital system?
Reform do have that Trumpian sudden leap to zero migration policy.
"All it takes is one intelligent man, to discern what the conflict is, and to resolve it. Gorillas are by nature gentle vegetarians and only violent if threatened.
Otherwise we are dealing with 101 apes, one much more powerful."
That surprised me.
You meant the bag.
Maybe the humans should leave the gorilla alone while they make weapons out of the only material available - human bones. Then wait until the gorilla is asleep and try to smash its skull in.
Farage and Trump have loony policies. You can’t implement zero immigration without a DOGE dramatically cutting the size of the bloated state. But no DOGE can cut the size of the bloated state when 99% of it is Pensions, Social Care, and Health spending - so zero immigration is less chance of paying for those things.
Farage should argue to get the birth rate up.
Wouldn't a two baby cap keep the numbers down and be more profitable for the country than sending those with a degree back to where they came from?
It's concerning what a major war there might do to our immigration numbers.
Among other things...
India, Nigeria and Pakistan are the countries that by Brexit governments implementing our Brexit Freedoms has sucked most migrants in from.
I am a traveller
You are an expatriate
He is an immigrant.
(One of the hilarities of Brexit is that it has replaced Europeans who generally flitted to and fro with people from further away who are more likely to want to be longer-term.)
Virat Kohli wants to retire.
Ok, no longer the force he was but still the one Indian batsman capable of playing a really match changing innings.
https://www.kentonline.co.uk/kent/news/new-kcc-reform-uk-leader-reveals-plan-for-council-324062/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50736778
Someone should ask him why a new war has started & he's unable to stop it ?
- insufficient housing and infrastructure to accommodate them, given pathetic political cowardice and incompetence in both those areas by all governments for decades
- alien cultures being imported and needless political and social divisions being exacerbated.
The problems with skilled immigration are social, not directly economic. The problems with unskilled immigration are both.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/second-homes/farage-pressures-reform-councils-scrap-second-homes-tax-rai/
So he wants councils to scrap a tax (double council tax on second homes) that
1) voters don't pay as second home voters can't vote?
2) stops younger local voters from buying houses because they are priced out of the market.
I'd say who I think the idiots are, but I don't want to cause offence.
I think if this question was asked we’d know the answer .
Your early history is indeed correct. Many Labour voters and MPs (I have just conjured up a picture of the vile Eric Heffer) were very hostile to the Common Market. Wilson when reaffirming Heath's entering Britain into a trade arrangement with mainland Europe (by referenda) was cleverly addressed. Wilson was well aware that "leave" could win a referendum but he sold the benefits whilst still appearing sceptical. The opposite of Cameron who assumed he would win because he always won and prepared poorly. Unfortunately all the stars aligned against Cameron and 3 quid Tories had just elected a pro-Soviet anti-Common Market cold wat throw back as Leader of the Labour Party.
Labour figures of note were resistant and the rise of the SDP and the "longest suicide note in history" were framed around Common Market membership, and to her credit she promoted Britain's membership of the EU, and likewise Major. It was later that you had Tories like Farage and Goldsmith declaring their various forms of UDI against the EU and figures within Parliament like Bill Cash and Redwood did their utmost to undermine Major (Maestricht).. They were still in the minority "the white coats flapping" to remove them from discourse.
And then the pro- EU New Labour and their embrace of A8 accession turbocharged Tory dissent. Cameron didn't have to call his Referendum ( Osborne said it would be an error) and Johnson didn't have to see Leaving the EU as a means to climb the greasy pole, and the rest just fell into place.
And that mentality can be extended further to a micro scale that any spending at all is an economic loss.
Fully applied its a mentality which would reverse thousands of years of economic development.
Farage might have just won next years Welsh election with this policy.
Whilst making stuff foreigners want to buy.
Farage is wrong on this
It is widely applied across Wales and is popular with local communities
My daughter is in the process of buying a home here in Llandudno and the agents have said they have seen a considerable rise in second homes coming onto the market
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5YW4qKOAVM
Those days are gone, and so that majority of pro-business, pro-EU is either unenthusiastically embracing Brexitism, or left the party. Which is in large part why the polling for the Tories continues to decline. What is the point of them any more? The votes for Nativist autarky are gone to Reform, and it is only the over 75's who are deeply blue from cultural memory and habit.
Switching on the news this morning Starmer is in Ukraine with other EU leaders and Zelensky posing for photos, and I am beginning to come to the conclusion no matter for all Starmer's efforts with the US and India he has lost the dressing room in football parlance
The question for Labour if the polls do not improve will be is Starmer the problem, as he certainly does not have any personality nor political nous
His press conference with Trunp from the car factory was toe curling with his Donald and Keir familiarity and it may be reaching the point nothing he says or does improves Labour's polling
Indeed with the huge NHS cuts muted and the immigration debate not helping what can save him if Labour want to win in 2028/9 ?
NEW THREAD
A lesson for Labour too having embraced the Conservative model of Brexit.
I interpret your posts accordingly.
Anything could happen yet.
What he is fundamentally incorrect about is his batshit "solutions" to the problem. Erratic tariffs and economic policies positively discourage investment in the US. His bizarre behaviour at borders is costing the US tourist market tens of billions. He has failed to comprehend that his policies restrict imports to which manufacturers in the US can add value further damaging production. He has failed to appreciate that the inflationary consequences of his actions makes it harder for the Fed to cut interest rates.
Biden's solutions to the same problem, such as the CHIPs Act, were a breach of GATT rules but the US has destroyed that institution by making the court non quorate by vetoing new appointments. But. right or wrong, those policies positively encouraged investment in manufacturing in the US. They were a far smarter way of addressing what is a real problem for the US.
(laughs in statistician)
https://medium.com/@rkilner/can-anyone-stop-piastri-731b962f92d8
Free to read wibble for anyone into that sort of thing.