Gordon Brown resigned as PM fifteen years ago today.
'Resigned' is an amusing term of phrase, as if he had much choice in the matter.
Gordon Brown lost a General Election fifteen years and five days ago.
Well, in that five days he found out the LibDems wouldn't play ball
To be fair Brown actually knew that the maths did not work and told the Lib Dems to "get lost"- actually a ruder version- when they called him. For a day or two Clegg was open to trying a deal with Labour, but insisted that since Brown had lost, he should give way to a new Labour leader, hence the Mot de Cambronne from Brown. Meanwhile Cameron had offered a full coalition. We kind of knew it was a trap, but were being told that if we did not have deal by Monday, the markets would collapse and we would get the blame. After the Cleggasm the Lib Dems were incredibly disappointed with the final result, so the next four days were a real rollercoaster, from disappointment to shock to pressure, to the Rose Garden love-in.
If the next Parliament is NOC, then the Lib Dems will be massively better prepared. This time, electoral and constitutional change will not be optional.
You were told once by the public on electoral reform. You remember, back when you though referendums were a good idea?
So despite all that has happened you cling to error? Neither good politics nor a good way to analyse things.
Not an EU flag in sight:
Get a tie you horrid little toerag.
That's to Sir Dress-Down-Friday, not William Glenn.
Hypocritical much? Your own avatar is tieless
I was not representing the UK at an international peace conference.
Does the UK recognise a Kurdish state? Seems to be a better case than a Palestinian one does.
No I'm not ruling out the latter just a little puzzled as to why the Tory party is getting in a tizz over this. Probably to do with internal party politics. Remember the scandal with Robert Halfon's SpAd?
On the subject of importing low skilled workers (as carers, etc.), I think that this board is missing the biggest problem.
Marginal tax rates - once benefit reductions are included - are often in the 70-80% range for the poorest. For an unemployed mother trying to get back to work, and currently receiving housing benefit, marginal tax rates can be well over 100%.
Brits aren't stupid: if you offer them the opportunity to work 20 hours a week in a care home, and to end up with less money than they started with... well, they will choose not to work.
If you want to reduce the dependence on the care industry on low skilled, low paid immigrants, then ensure that for people coming off unemployment, that they get to keep 80% of what they earn.
UC is a lot better than legacy benefits for this - 90% of lone parents have a METR of less than 70%, compared with 60% under the old system. But only about 10% of lone parents have a METR of less than 20%. What's mad is people can get quite severly sanctioned for not taking a job with an effective tax rate of over 90%, and that's the "incentive" for most people in this situation.
I think you'd want to get this down to at most 50%, which is currently only 30% of lone parents and 40% of all claimants. The cost of doing so is eye-watering though - the change to the taper rate would catch lots more parents as a result.
(Worth remembering that this remains a relatively small issue - compared with other countries, our employment rate is pretty good. Those who aren't in work tend to be student, early retired, carers or sick).
They need to go after Farage and even if it’s controversial someone in the Labour Party needs to call him a traitor . Cause controversy by calling him that, have a big argument . It might at least get some media attention .
Gordon Brown resigned as PM fifteen years ago today.
'Resigned' is an amusing term of phrase, as if he had much choice in the matter.
Gordon Brown lost a General Election fifteen years and five days ago.
Well, in that five days he found out the LibDems wouldn't play ball
To be fair Brown actually knew that the maths did not work and told the Lib Dems to "get lost"- actually a ruder version- when they called him. For a day or two Clegg was open to trying a deal with Labour, but insisted that since Brown had lost, he should give way to a new Labour leader, hence the Mot de Cambronne from Brown. Meanwhile Cameron had offered a full coalition. We kind of knew it was a trap, but were being told that if we did not have deal by Monday, the markets would collapse and we would get the blame. After the Cleggasm the Lib Dems were incredibly disappointed with the final result, so the next four days were a real rollercoaster, from disappointment to shock to pressure, to the Rose Garden love-in.
If the next Parliament is NOC, then the Lib Dems will be massively better prepared. This time, electoral and constitutional change will not be optional.
You were told once by the public on electoral reform. You remember, back when you though referendums were a good idea?
So despite all that has happened you cling to error? Neither good politics nor a good way to analyse things.
Not an EU flag in sight:
Get a tie you horrid little toerag.
That's to Sir Dress-Down-Friday, not William Glenn.
Hypocritical much? Your own avatar is tieless
I was not representing the UK at an international peace conference.
Do you honestly think he would have represented the UK better if he was wearing a tie, or is it just that you hate Sir Keir because…
They need to go after Farage and even if it’s controversial someone in the Labour Party needs to call him a traitor . Cause controversy by calling him that, have a big argument . It might at least get some media attention .
Are you up with the young Labour councillor in Peterborough who suggested having CCTV in taxis as a safety measure? She was accused of racism and has now left the party.
Gordon Brown resigned as PM fifteen years ago today.
'Resigned' is an amusing term of phrase, as if he had much choice in the matter.
Gordon Brown lost a General Election fifteen years and five days ago.
Well, in that five days he found out the LibDems wouldn't play ball
To be fair Brown actually knew that the maths did not work and told the Lib Dems to "get lost"- actually a ruder version- when they called him. For a day or two Clegg was open to trying a deal with Labour, but insisted that since Brown had lost, he should give way to a new Labour leader, hence the Mot de Cambronne from Brown. Meanwhile Cameron had offered a full coalition. We kind of knew it was a trap, but were being told that if we did not have deal by Monday, the markets would collapse and we would get the blame. After the Cleggasm the Lib Dems were incredibly disappointed with the final result, so the next four days were a real rollercoaster, from disappointment to shock to pressure, to the Rose Garden love-in.
If the next Parliament is NOC, then the Lib Dems will be massively better prepared. This time, electoral and constitutional change will not be optional.
You were told once by the public on electoral reform. You remember, back when you though referendums were a good idea?
So despite all that has happened you cling to error? Neither good politics nor a good way to analyse things.
Not an EU flag in sight:
Get a tie you horrid little toerag.
That's to Sir Dress-Down-Friday, not William Glenn.
Hypocritical much? Your own avatar is tieless
I was not representing the UK at an international peace conference.
Gordon Brown resigned as PM fifteen years ago today.
'Resigned' is an amusing term of phrase, as if he had much choice in the matter.
Gordon Brown lost a General Election fifteen years and five days ago.
Well, in that five days he found out the LibDems wouldn't play ball
To be fair Brown actually knew that the maths did not work and told the Lib Dems to "get lost"- actually a ruder version- when they called him. For a day or two Clegg was open to trying a deal with Labour, but insisted that since Brown had lost, he should give way to a new Labour leader, hence the Mot de Cambronne from Brown. Meanwhile Cameron had offered a full coalition. We kind of knew it was a trap, but were being told that if we did not have deal by Monday, the markets would collapse and we would get the blame. After the Cleggasm the Lib Dems were incredibly disappointed with the final result, so the next four days were a real rollercoaster, from disappointment to shock to pressure, to the Rose Garden love-in.
If the next Parliament is NOC, then the Lib Dems will be massively better prepared. This time, electoral and constitutional change will not be optional.
You were told once by the public on electoral reform. You remember, back when you though referendums were a good idea?
So despite all that has happened you cling to error? Neither good politics nor a good way to analyse things.
Not an EU flag in sight:
Get a tie you horrid little toerag.
That's to Sir Dress-Down-Friday, not William Glenn.
Hypocritical much? Your own avatar is tieless
I was not representing the UK at an international peace conference.
They need to go after Farage and even if it’s controversial someone in the Labour Party needs to call him a traitor . Cause controversy by calling him that, have a big argument . It might at least get some media attention .
Good evening
Don't you think Farage is already getting media attention and he would just love a slanging match
For the first time the panel on Trevor Philips this am all agreed Farage could actually be PM
Gordon Brown resigned as PM fifteen years ago today.
'Resigned' is an amusing term of phrase, as if he had much choice in the matter.
Gordon Brown lost a General Election fifteen years and five days ago.
Well, in that five days he found out the LibDems wouldn't play ball
To be fair Brown actually knew that the maths did not work and told the Lib Dems to "get lost"- actually a ruder version- when they called him. For a day or two Clegg was open to trying a deal with Labour, but insisted that since Brown had lost, he should give way to a new Labour leader, hence the Mot de Cambronne from Brown. Meanwhile Cameron had offered a full coalition. We kind of knew it was a trap, but were being told that if we did not have deal by Monday, the markets would collapse and we would get the blame. After the Cleggasm the Lib Dems were incredibly disappointed with the final result, so the next four days were a real rollercoaster, from disappointment to shock to pressure, to the Rose Garden love-in.
If the next Parliament is NOC, then the Lib Dems will be massively better prepared. This time, electoral and constitutional change will not be optional.
You were told once by the public on electoral reform. You remember, back when you though referendums were a good idea?
So despite all that has happened you cling to error? Neither good politics nor a good way to analyse things.
Not an EU flag in sight:
Get a tie you horrid little toerag.
That's to Sir Dress-Down-Friday, not William Glenn.
We should get away from these emotionally incontinent displays.
We now know for sure that the great fire of the Marywilska shopping centre in Warsaw was caused by arson ordered by the Russian special services. Some of the perpetrators have already been detained, all the others are identified and searched for. We will get you all! https://x.com/donaldtusk/status/1921629800730382832
They need to go after Farage and even if it’s controversial someone in the Labour Party needs to call him a traitor . Cause controversy by calling him that, have a big argument . It might at least get some media attention .
God how idiotic can you get.?
Well he would have sided with Trump on Ukraine if he had been PM and is therefore a traitor.
They need to go after Farage and even if it’s controversial someone in the Labour Party needs to call him a traitor . Cause controversy by calling him that, have a big argument . It might at least get some media attention .
Good evening
Don't you think Farage is already getting media attention and he would just love a slanging match
For the first time the panel on Trevor Philips this am all agreed Farage could actually be PM
That’s because Labour and the Tories are spineless in how they’re taking on Farage. And the media are complicit in allowing Farage to coast around without being held to account .
They need to go after Farage and even if it’s controversial someone in the Labour Party needs to call him a traitor . Cause controversy by calling him that, have a big argument . It might at least get some media attention .
Are you up with the young Labour councillor in Peterborough who suggested having CCTV in taxis as a safety measure? She was accused of racism and has now left the party.
There's more politics going on on both sides of that than can be easily untangled, including by the Telegraph.
On the subject of importing low skilled workers (as carers, etc.), I think that this board is missing the biggest problem.
Marginal tax rates - once benefit reductions are included - are often in the 70-80% range for the poorest. For an unemployed mother trying to get back to work, and currently receiving housing benefit, marginal tax rates can be well over 100%.
Brits aren't stupid: if you offer them the opportunity to work 20 hours a week in a care home, and to end up with less money than they started with... well, they will choose not to work.
If you want to reduce the dependence on the care industry on low skilled, low paid immigrants, then ensure that for people coming off unemployment, that they get to keep 80% of what they earn.
But then doesn't working 16 hours and claiming benefits become the local maximum for millions more people? You've only saved 20% on your bill. And that's if the changes don't encourage more people to choose that local maximum. Maybe you save nothing.
Perhaps something time-limited -- some sort of glideslope?
The key is to avoid cliff edges, and there are many ways to do it (including simply taxing benefits), but if it is not done you end up disincentivizing people from working because you have insanely high real marginal tax rates.
And then the longer they are out of work, the harder it is to get them back into work.
Our tax and benefits system discourages people from working, and also encourages us to import low skilled labour. This seems like a deeply fucked up situation to be in.
They need to go after Farage and even if it’s controversial someone in the Labour Party needs to call him a traitor . Cause controversy by calling him that, have a big argument . It might at least get some media attention .
Are you up with the young Labour councillor in Peterborough who suggested having CCTV in taxis as a safety measure? She was accused of racism and has now left the party.
I think I saw some of those videos on YouP... some video site.
Gordon Brown resigned as PM fifteen years ago today.
'Resigned' is an amusing term of phrase, as if he had much choice in the matter.
Gordon Brown lost a General Election fifteen years and five days ago.
Well, in that five days he found out the LibDems wouldn't play ball
To be fair Brown actually knew that the maths did not work and told the Lib Dems to "get lost"- actually a ruder version- when they called him. For a day or two Clegg was open to trying a deal with Labour, but insisted that since Brown had lost, he should give way to a new Labour leader, hence the Mot de Cambronne from Brown. Meanwhile Cameron had offered a full coalition. We kind of knew it was a trap, but were being told that if we did not have deal by Monday, the markets would collapse and we would get the blame. After the Cleggasm the Lib Dems were incredibly disappointed with the final result, so the next four days were a real rollercoaster, from disappointment to shock to pressure, to the Rose Garden love-in.
If the next Parliament is NOC, then the Lib Dems will be massively better prepared. This time, electoral and constitutional change will not be optional.
You were told once by the public on electoral reform. You remember, back when you though referendums were a good idea?
So despite all that has happened you cling to error? Neither good politics nor a good way to analyse things.
Not an EU flag in sight:
Get a tie you horrid little toerag.
That's to Sir Dress-Down-Friday, not William Glenn.
Hypocritical much? Your own avatar is tieless
I was not representing the UK at an international peace conference.
They need to go after Farage and even if it’s controversial someone in the Labour Party needs to call him a traitor . Cause controversy by calling him that, have a big argument . It might at least get some media attention .
Good evening
Don't you think Farage is already getting media attention and he would just love a slanging match
For the first time the panel on Trevor Philips this am all agreed Farage could actually be PM
Not a programme I ever watch.
The issue for Farage is analogous to that faced by the spider trying to climb out of a bowl. The steeper the climb gets, the harder it gets and the nearer the top the steeper the climb.
Farage and Reform can be anything you want them to be currently but if they are looking close to Government, they will have to start spelling out either whether they would support a minority Labour or Conservative Government or what they would do if they won a majority. Platitudes only get you so far - detailed policy pronouncements will be required.
For example, how would a Reform Government "stop the boats" ? What would a Reform Government do to create the conditions for economic growth? What about education, housing, health, welfare and other public services including social care - small things like that?
On the subject of importing low skilled workers (as carers, etc.), I think that this board is missing the biggest problem.
Marginal tax rates - once benefit reductions are included - are often in the 70-80% range for the poorest. For an unemployed mother trying to get back to work, and currently receiving housing benefit, marginal tax rates can be well over 100%.
Brits aren't stupid: if you offer them the opportunity to work 20 hours a week in a care home, and to end up with less money than they started with... well, they will choose not to work.
If you want to reduce the dependence on the care industry on low skilled, low paid immigrants, then ensure that for people coming off unemployment, that they get to keep 80% of what they earn.
UC is a lot better than legacy benefits for this - 90% of lone parents have a METR of less than 70%, compared with 60% under the old system. But only about 10% of lone parents have a METR of less than 20%. What's mad is people can get quite severly sanctioned for not taking a job with an effective tax rate of over 90%, and that's the "incentive" for most people in this situation.
I think you'd want to get this down to at most 50%, which is currently only 30% of lone parents and 40% of all claimants. The cost of doing so is eye-watering though - the change to the taper rate would catch lots more parents as a result.
(Worth remembering that this remains a relatively small issue - compared with other countries, our employment rate is pretty good. Those who aren't in work tend to be student, early retired, carers or sick).
Our employment rate is boosted, though, by us importing lots of people who work.
They need to go after Farage and even if it’s controversial someone in the Labour Party needs to call him a traitor . Cause controversy by calling him that, have a big argument . It might at least get some media attention .
Even if Farage was explicitly taking Russia’s side, it wouldn’t make him a traitor; he’s not from Ukraine. We aren’t at war with Russia.
For all the criticism of Trump, it seems the likelihood of a truce has only come about since he became President. It didn’t seem like Putin would even consider it until the last few months.
Anyway, I think you’d be surprised by how many people outside of the politically engaged are completely uninterested in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, and wouldn’t complain if we were not involved at all
They need to go after Farage and even if it’s controversial someone in the Labour Party needs to call him a traitor . Cause controversy by calling him that, have a big argument . It might at least get some media attention .
Are you up with the young Labour councillor in Peterborough who suggested having CCTV in taxis as a safety measure? She was accused of racism and has now left the party.
There's more politics going on on both sides of that than can be easily untangled, including by the Telegraph.
How do you know 'there is more politics going on on both sides of that than can be easily untangled.' All I know is what she has claimed. Perhaps she is being less than honest? But her claims are worthy of enquiry.
They need to go after Farage and even if it’s controversial someone in the Labour Party needs to call him a traitor . Cause controversy by calling him that, have a big argument . It might at least get some media attention .
Good evening
Don't you think Farage is already getting media attention and he would just love a slanging match
For the first time the panel on Trevor Philips this am all agreed Farage could actually be PM
That’s because Labour and the Tories are spineless in how they’re taking on Farage. And the media are complicit in allowing Farage to coast around without being held to account .
It is far more complex than that and your plan would be just what Farage would want
He needs to be taken on with plausible policies not shouty abuse much as you would like
Gordon Brown resigned as PM fifteen years ago today.
'Resigned' is an amusing term of phrase, as if he had much choice in the matter.
Gordon Brown lost a General Election fifteen years and five days ago.
Well, in that five days he found out the LibDems wouldn't play ball
To be fair Brown actually knew that the maths did not work and told the Lib Dems to "get lost"- actually a ruder version- when they called him. For a day or two Clegg was open to trying a deal with Labour, but insisted that since Brown had lost, he should give way to a new Labour leader, hence the Mot de Cambronne from Brown. Meanwhile Cameron had offered a full coalition. We kind of knew it was a trap, but were being told that if we did not have deal by Monday, the markets would collapse and we would get the blame. After the Cleggasm the Lib Dems were incredibly disappointed with the final result, so the next four days were a real rollercoaster, from disappointment to shock to pressure, to the Rose Garden love-in.
If the next Parliament is NOC, then the Lib Dems will be massively better prepared. This time, electoral and constitutional change will not be optional.
You were told once by the public on electoral reform. You remember, back when you though referendums were a good idea?
So despite all that has happened you cling to error? Neither good politics nor a good way to analyse things.
Not an EU flag in sight:
Get a tie you horrid little toerag.
That's to Sir Dress-Down-Friday, not William Glenn.
Hypocritical much? Your own avatar is tieless
I was not representing the UK at an international peace conference.
Do you honestly think he would have represented the UK better if he was wearing a tie, or is it just that you hate Sir Keir because…
Yes I do. If a man is an empty suit, he can at the very least get the suit bit right.
They need to go after Farage and even if it’s controversial someone in the Labour Party needs to call him a traitor . Cause controversy by calling him that, have a big argument . It might at least get some media attention .
God how idiotic can you get.?
Well he would have sided with Trump on Ukraine if he had been PM and is therefore a traitor.
Actually Tice told Trevor Phillips Farage does not support Putin in the war in Ukraine
The stupid home Secretary, wet lettuce cooper, has instantly caused a massive crisis in the UK care industry. You can’t just switch off immigration like a tap that shouldn’t be on - how many zillion care homes now close? where do their customers go other than the NHS bed blocking? What now happens to NHS and hospital and treatment waits thanks to this stupid policy decision?
THERES CONSEQUENCES TO JUST SUDDENLY SWITCHING OFF IMMIGRATION WITHOUT WARNING TO INDUSTRIES.
Not least the horrendous damage of your actual actions not meeting your policy announcements.
Care homes pre-dated these visas and they'll survive past them too. Last data I've seen showed shows that 88% of employees in care homes are British anyway.
Supply and demand may mean that wages need to rise beyond minimum wage to fill vacancies. Oh dear, how sad, nevermind.
You havn’t provided any answers to social care crisis in your pirate response.
The Boris, Truss and Sunak governments were not nearly stupid enough to do something as stupid as what Labour announced today - switching off immigration whilst there is a need for it. The last government are known as stupid and unelectable for putting out vibes they would switch the gushing immigration off, whilst actually doing the opposite. Labour have so quickly shredded themselves by making the same mistakes, trapping themselves between fantasy and reality.
To be tough on immigration you first need to get in place mitigation for all immigration you don’t really need. No other way of doing it. Labour have kicked sorting social care crisis into the long grass, just like, for all their bluster, the Conservatives did.
This bolsters what an awful week it’s been for this Labour government. This little period of getting themselves caught with rhetoric they can’t deliver on, caught in no man’s land between EU and Trump on trade, is defining why they lose the next election.
Yes, it's completely insane.
They are not taking any active steps to stop the most visible form of illegal migration, that causes the most anger among voters, which is the boats crossing the channel. Their war on the migration 'gangs' will be as successful as the 'war on drugs' & the boats will continue to arrive & the hotels will keep filling up.
Instead Labour are stopping migration from the one source, aged care workers, where even a lot of Reform voters might be Ok to have a limited number of migrants.
I doubt many Reform voters are eager to go and work in aged care. They want to stop the entry of migrant criminals, as a top priority, and then the entry of migrants who take good well-paying jobs, such as tradesmen & factory workers. Instead of prioritising this, Labour instead goes & stops the entry of aged care workers.
And, no, a Labour government that is cutting Winter Fuel Allowance, won't be putting any more money into aged care. So, the end result will voters who continue being angry about the boats and are now also angry about the deteriorating quality of aged care services.
See the numbers I posted from the gov (above). Visas for recruited abroad carers have collapsed under scrutiny.
- The care home workforce is 750k - It’s 88% U.K. origin. - So 90,000 of immigrant origin. - at one point, the number of visas for carers was 6 figures. Per year. - Last year, one company arranged for 1200 visas. But employs 20. The BBC found multiple allegations against them of selling non-existent jobs.
I strongly suspect that the government found that very few of the people getting visas to work in care homes were ending up working in care homes.
Very strange that Yvette Cooper isn't saying anything like that, if that's the reason.
But is instead talking about improving carers' pay to make the jobs more attractive to UK workers. I wonder whether there is any kind of plan to fund better pay.
Almost certainly no plan.
The only reason to restrict visas is if there are too many UK nationals chasing limited vacancies.
I could think of another reason - the visas aren’t leading to people in the actual jobs.
If they are merely enriching the kind of middle man con man everyone so loves, why not ditch them and let the immigration numbers tumble?
Not really. Either there's a shortage of available labour or there's not. If there is a shortage but visas aren't alleviating that shortage, you need to fix how you do the visas. If there's no shortage you don't need to offer the visas.
My point stands.
What Cooper is talking about is ending the practise where a company recruits for a job abroad - effectively granting a visa. Because in practise, the companies seem to start selling the visas. A lot.
As I understand it, every time they make enquiries, it turns out that there is a pile of fraud going on.
The plan seems to be to allow individual visa applications, direct to HMG.
They need to go after Farage and even if it’s controversial someone in the Labour Party needs to call him a traitor . Cause controversy by calling him that, have a big argument . It might at least get some media attention .
Even if Farage was explicitly taking Russia’s side, it wouldn’t make him a traitor; he’s not from Ukraine. We aren’t at war with Russia.
For all the criticism of Trump, it seems the likelihood of a truce has only come about since he became President. It didn’t seem like Putin would even consider it until the last few months.
Anyway, I think you’d be surprised by how many people outside of the politically engaged are completely uninterested in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, and wouldn’t complain if we were not involved at all
Russia is at war with the west. The success of western style democracies is seen as a threat to the ruling class in Russia. He's long chosen which side he's on which is as a junior partner to China. And they definitely don't want us to succeed.
We now know for sure that the great fire of the Marywilska shopping centre in Warsaw was caused by arson ordered by the Russian special services. Some of the perpetrators have already been detained, all the others are identified and searched for. We will get you all! https://x.com/donaldtusk/status/1921629800730382832
I am sure PB will be outraged at the lack of due process and habeas corpus displayed in this Tweet.
They need to go after Farage and even if it’s controversial someone in the Labour Party needs to call him a traitor . Cause controversy by calling him that, have a big argument . It might at least get some media attention .
Even if Farage was explicitly taking Russia’s side, it wouldn’t make him a traitor; he’s not from Ukraine. We aren’t at war with Russia.
For all the criticism of Trump, it seems the likelihood of a truce has only come about since he became President. It didn’t seem like Putin would even consider it until the last few months.
Anyway, I think you’d be surprised by how many people outside of the politically engaged are completely uninterested in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, and wouldn’t complain if we were not involved at all
I was with you until that last paragraph. My experience is that politics generally doesn't come up much in conversations but Trump and Ukraine do get discussed quite a lot.
Trump is pretty much universally despised and derided by the UK public imo; Russia is widely hated whilst Ukraine is greatly admired.
They need to go after Farage and even if it’s controversial someone in the Labour Party needs to call him a traitor . Cause controversy by calling him that, have a big argument . It might at least get some media attention .
Good evening
Don't you think Farage is already getting media attention and he would just love a slanging match
For the first time the panel on Trevor Philips this am all agreed Farage could actually be PM
Not a programme I ever watch.
The issue for Farage is analogous to that faced by the spider trying to climb out of a bowl. The steeper the climb gets, the harder it gets and the nearer the top the steeper the climb.
Farage and Reform can be anything you want them to be currently but if they are looking close to Government, they will have to start spelling out either whether they would support a minority Labour or Conservative Government or what they would do if they won a majority. Platitudes only get you so far - detailed policy pronouncements will be required.
For example, how would a Reform Government "stop the boats" ? What would a Reform Government do to create the conditions for economic growth? What about education, housing, health, welfare and other public services including social care - small things like that?
Trevor Phillips on Sky is one of the best political interviewers and I would recommend watching his programme from 8.30am on Sundays
I agree with you about policies but apparently Tice answer this morning was a special minister for deportations !!
Gordon Brown resigned as PM fifteen years ago today.
'Resigned' is an amusing term of phrase, as if he had much choice in the matter.
Gordon Brown lost a General Election fifteen years and five days ago.
Well, in that five days he found out the LibDems wouldn't play ball
To be fair Brown actually knew that the maths did not work and told the Lib Dems to "get lost"- actually a ruder version- when they called him. For a day or two Clegg was open to trying a deal with Labour, but insisted that since Brown had lost, he should give way to a new Labour leader, hence the Mot de Cambronne from Brown. Meanwhile Cameron had offered a full coalition. We kind of knew it was a trap, but were being told that if we did not have deal by Monday, the markets would collapse and we would get the blame. After the Cleggasm the Lib Dems were incredibly disappointed with the final result, so the next four days were a real rollercoaster, from disappointment to shock to pressure, to the Rose Garden love-in.
If the next Parliament is NOC, then the Lib Dems will be massively better prepared. This time, electoral and constitutional change will not be optional.
You were told once by the public on electoral reform. You remember, back when you though referendums were a good idea?
So despite all that has happened you cling to error? Neither good politics nor a good way to analyse things.
Not an EU flag in sight:
Get a tie you horrid little toerag.
That's to Sir Dress-Down-Friday, not William Glenn.
Hypocritical much? Your own avatar is tieless
I was not representing the UK at an international peace conference.
We now know for sure that the great fire of the Marywilska shopping centre in Warsaw was caused by arson ordered by the Russian special services. Some of the perpetrators have already been detained, all the others are identified and searched for. We will get you all! https://x.com/donaldtusk/status/1921629800730382832
I am sure PB will be outraged at the lack of due process and habeas corpus displayed in this Tweet.
Would you rather live under Poland's justice system or Russia's?
They need to go after Farage and even if it’s controversial someone in the Labour Party needs to call him a traitor . Cause controversy by calling him that, have a big argument . It might at least get some media attention .
God how idiotic can you get.?
Well he would have sided with Trump on Ukraine if he had been PM and is therefore a traitor.
Actually Tice told Trevor Phillips Farage does not support Putin in the war in Ukraine
Well that’s nice of him ! Farage blamed NATO and has swallowed Putins line .
They need to go after Farage and even if it’s controversial someone in the Labour Party needs to call him a traitor . Cause controversy by calling him that, have a big argument . It might at least get some media attention .
God how idiotic can you get.?
Well he would have sided with Trump on Ukraine if he had been PM and is therefore a traitor.
Actually Tice told Trevor Phillips Farage does not support Putin in the war in Ukraine
Kit Malthouse's letter to Palestine has gone down like a cup of cold sick in North-West Hampshire amongst the Tory base.
He's lost both my parents vote to Reform over it.
I'd be especially worried about my father who is as staunch and loyal a Conservative as they come.
Malthouse's letter only supported recognition of Palestine as a state, as 149 UN members states now do and as the UK government has supported a 2 state solution.
I assume your parents believe Israel should take full control of Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza and support full Jewish settler occupation of Palestinian lands? ie little different to the hardline parties in Netanyahu's Cabinet hence their vote for Reform. However even most Tory voters aren't that hardline Zionist and the oldest ones remember the King David Hotel bombing
As I explained to more than one Islamist at UCL in the early 90s, the problem with screaming “Death To The West” a lot, is that the people you are screaming at will hear a voice inside their heads.
Gordon Brown resigned as PM fifteen years ago today.
'Resigned' is an amusing term of phrase, as if he had much choice in the matter.
Gordon Brown lost a General Election fifteen years and five days ago.
Well, in that five days he found out the LibDems wouldn't play ball
To be fair Brown actually knew that the maths did not work and told the Lib Dems to "get lost"- actually a ruder version- when they called him. For a day or two Clegg was open to trying a deal with Labour, but insisted that since Brown had lost, he should give way to a new Labour leader, hence the Mot de Cambronne from Brown. Meanwhile Cameron had offered a full coalition. We kind of knew it was a trap, but were being told that if we did not have deal by Monday, the markets would collapse and we would get the blame. After the Cleggasm the Lib Dems were incredibly disappointed with the final result, so the next four days were a real rollercoaster, from disappointment to shock to pressure, to the Rose Garden love-in.
If the next Parliament is NOC, then the Lib Dems will be massively better prepared. This time, electoral and constitutional change will not be optional.
You were told once by the public on electoral reform. You remember, back when you though referendums were a good idea?
So despite all that has happened you cling to error? Neither good politics nor a good way to analyse things.
Not an EU flag in sight:
Get a tie you horrid little toerag.
That's to Sir Dress-Down-Friday, not William Glenn.
Hypocritical much? Your own avatar is tieless
I was not representing the UK at an international peace conference.
They need to go after Farage and even if it’s controversial someone in the Labour Party needs to call him a traitor . Cause controversy by calling him that, have a big argument . It might at least get some media attention .
God how idiotic can you get.?
Well he would have sided with Trump on Ukraine if he had been PM and is therefore a traitor.
Actually Tice told Trevor Phillips Farage does not support Putin in the war in Ukraine
Gordon Brown resigned as PM fifteen years ago today.
'Resigned' is an amusing term of phrase, as if he had much choice in the matter.
Gordon Brown lost a General Election fifteen years and five days ago.
Well, in that five days he found out the LibDems wouldn't play ball
To be fair Brown actually knew that the maths did not work and told the Lib Dems to "get lost"- actually a ruder version- when they called him. For a day or two Clegg was open to trying a deal with Labour, but insisted that since Brown had lost, he should give way to a new Labour leader, hence the Mot de Cambronne from Brown. Meanwhile Cameron had offered a full coalition. We kind of knew it was a trap, but were being told that if we did not have deal by Monday, the markets would collapse and we would get the blame. After the Cleggasm the Lib Dems were incredibly disappointed with the final result, so the next four days were a real rollercoaster, from disappointment to shock to pressure, to the Rose Garden love-in.
If the next Parliament is NOC, then the Lib Dems will be massively better prepared. This time, electoral and constitutional change will not be optional.
You were told once by the public on electoral reform. You remember, back when you though referendums were a good idea?
So despite all that has happened you cling to error? Neither good politics nor a good way to analyse things.
Not an EU flag in sight:
Get a tie you horrid little toerag.
That's to Sir Dress-Down-Friday, not William Glenn.
Hypocritical much? Your own avatar is tieless
I was not representing the UK at an international peace conference.
We now know for sure that the great fire of the Marywilska shopping centre in Warsaw was caused by arson ordered by the Russian special services. Some of the perpetrators have already been detained, all the others are identified and searched for. We will get you all! https://x.com/donaldtusk/status/1921629800730382832
I am sure PB will be outraged at the lack of due process and habeas corpus displayed in this Tweet.
Hmmm… some criminals have been identified. Some have been arrested, others on the run. A politician says that they will get the rest.
Where is the lack of habeus corpus and due process in that?
On the subject of importing low skilled workers (as carers, etc.), I think that this board is missing the biggest problem.
Marginal tax rates - once benefit reductions are included - are often in the 70-80% range for the poorest. For an unemployed mother trying to get back to work, and currently receiving housing benefit, marginal tax rates can be well over 100%.
Brits aren't stupid: if you offer them the opportunity to work 20 hours a week in a care home, and to end up with less money than they started with... well, they will choose not to work.
If you want to reduce the dependence on the care industry on low skilled, low paid immigrants, then ensure that for people coming off unemployment, that they get to keep 80% of what they earn.
Oh gee that's a completely novel concept, completely missed it. Never knew that. That changes everything. 😉
We now know for sure that the great fire of the Marywilska shopping centre in Warsaw was caused by arson ordered by the Russian special services. Some of the perpetrators have already been detained, all the others are identified and searched for. We will get you all! https://x.com/donaldtusk/status/1921629800730382832
I am sure PB will be outraged at the lack of due process and habeas corpus displayed in this Tweet.
Hmmm… some criminals have been identified. Some have been arrested, others on the run. A politician says that they will get the rest.
Where is the lack of habeus corpus and due process in that?
Because unless they have been put on trial and found guilty, they are suspects, not perpetrators.
Just as we’ve now - belatedly - admitted that mass immigration makes us poorer, not richer, so we will soon admit that - in many areas - it leads to higher crime
A questionable assertion given the available data.
The lump of labour fallacy is back in fashion. Data doesn't come into it
The lump of labour fallacy cuts both ways. If there isn't a set amount of work that needs doing then you can't assert that we need to import people to do it.
I'm not asserting anything one way or the other one on the need for immigration. I do assert that immigration makes the country richer - that should be obvious - and it could be useful for tax revenues for example that help fund a better lifestyle for the population. The data I have seen shows wealth per head is essentially a wash. Each immigrant on average increases the GDP in proportion. It benefits the indigenous population however as immigrant jobs tend to be lower paid allowing the indigenous population more opportunity for a higher paid job. You might be better restricting higher wage immigration than minimum wage ones that everyone focuses on.
And the band played believe it if you like.
Well, going back to the point about care workers. I'm not sure the country will get behind: "Your grandmother died covered in her own shit because there weren't any care workers. And that's OK because we knocked a couple of digits off a number Reform are banging on about."
I really don't know what Yvette Cooper thinks she's doing,
88% of care workers are British and it's a job that does not require any qualifications, other than passing a DBS for safeguarding.
If homes can't fill their vacancies it's either they are not paying enough, or they have poor conditions for their staff. Both are fixable by management without recourse to minimum wage migrants.
The stupid home Secretary, wet lettuce cooper, has instantly caused a massive crisis in the UK care industry. You can’t just switch off immigration like a tap that shouldn’t be on - how many zillion care homes now close? where do their customers go other than the NHS bed blocking? What now happens to NHS and hospital and treatment waits thanks to this stupid policy decision?
THERES CONSEQUENCES TO JUST SUDDENLY SWITCHING OFF IMMIGRATION WITHOUT WARNING TO INDUSTRIES.
Not least the horrendous damage of your actual actions not meeting your policy announcements.
Care homes pre-dated these visas and they'll survive past them too. Last data I've seen showed shows that 88% of employees in care homes are British anyway.
Supply and demand may mean that wages need to rise beyond minimum wage to fill vacancies. Oh dear, how sad, nevermind.
You havn’t provided any answers to social care crisis in your pirate response.
The Boris, Truss and Sunak governments were not nearly stupid enough to do something as stupid as what Labour announced today - switching off immigration whilst there is a need for it. The last government are known as stupid and unelectable for putting out vibes they would switch the gushing immigration off, whilst actually doing the opposite. Labour have so quickly shredded themselves by making the same mistakes, trapping themselves between fantasy and reality.
To be tough on immigration you first need to get in place mitigation for all immigration you don’t really need. No other way of doing it. Labour have kicked sorting social care crisis into the long grass, just like, for all their bluster, the Conservatives did.
This bolsters what an awful week it’s been for this Labour government. This little period of getting themselves caught with rhetoric they can’t deliver on, caught in no man’s land between EU and Trump on trade, is defining why they lose the next election.
Yes, it's completely insane.
They are not taking any active steps to stop the most visible form of illegal migration, that causes the most anger among voters, which is the boats crossing the channel. Their war on the migration 'gangs' will be as successful as the 'war on drugs' & the boats will continue to arrive & the hotels will keep filling up.
Instead Labour are stopping migration from the one source, aged care workers, where even a lot of Reform voters might be Ok to have a limited number of migrants.
I doubt many Reform voters are eager to go and work in aged care. They want to stop the entry of migrant criminals, as a top priority, and then the entry of migrants who take good well-paying jobs, such as tradesmen & factory workers. Instead of prioritising this, Labour instead goes & stops the entry of aged care workers.
And, no, a Labour government that is cutting Winter Fuel Allowance, won't be putting any more money into aged care. So, the end result will voters who continue being angry about the boats and are now also angry about the deteriorating quality of aged care services.
See the numbers I posted from the gov (above). Visas for recruited abroad carers have collapsed under scrutiny.
- The care home workforce is 750k - It’s 88% U.K. origin. - So 90,000 of immigrant origin. - at one point, the number of visas for carers was 6 figures. Per year. - Last year, one company arranged for 1200 visas. But employs 20. The BBC found multiple allegations against them of selling non-existent jobs.
I strongly suspect that the government found that very few of the people getting visas to work in care homes were ending up working in care homes.
Very strange that Yvette Cooper isn't saying anything like that, if that's the reason.
But is instead talking about improving carers' pay to make the jobs more attractive to UK workers. I wonder whether there is any kind of plan to fund better pay.
Almost certainly no plan.
The only reason to restrict visas is if there are too many UK nationals chasing limited vacancies.
I could think of another reason - the visas aren’t leading to people in the actual jobs.
If they are merely enriching the kind of middle man con man everyone so loves, why not ditch them and let the immigration numbers tumble?
Not really. Either there's a shortage of available labour or there's not. If there is a shortage but visas aren't alleviating that shortage, you need to fix how you do the visas. If there's no shortage you don't need to offer the visas.
My point stands.
No. You are again making the lump of labour fallacy!
There's never a shortage of labour. Import people and the quantity of jobs needed goes up. Lose people and it goes down. It scales.
There might be a shortage of skilled labour, but this is unskilled work (as in it requires no qualifications and anyone can do it) so it's moot.
We now know for sure that the great fire of the Marywilska shopping centre in Warsaw was caused by arson ordered by the Russian special services. Some of the perpetrators have already been detained, all the others are identified and searched for. We will get you all! https://x.com/donaldtusk/status/1921629800730382832
I am sure PB will be outraged at the lack of due process and habeas corpus displayed in this Tweet.
I don’t think you understand what either of those things mean. The individual detained has been charged and will face trial.
Tusk is hardly respecting the Polish equivalent of sub judice though.
Gordon Brown resigned as PM fifteen years ago today.
'Resigned' is an amusing term of phrase, as if he had much choice in the matter.
Gordon Brown lost a General Election fifteen years and five days ago.
Well, in that five days he found out the LibDems wouldn't play ball
To be fair Brown actually knew that the maths did not work and told the Lib Dems to "get lost"- actually a ruder version- when they called him. For a day or two Clegg was open to trying a deal with Labour, but insisted that since Brown had lost, he should give way to a new Labour leader, hence the Mot de Cambronne from Brown. Meanwhile Cameron had offered a full coalition. We kind of knew it was a trap, but were being told that if we did not have deal by Monday, the markets would collapse and we would get the blame. After the Cleggasm the Lib Dems were incredibly disappointed with the final result, so the next four days were a real rollercoaster, from disappointment to shock to pressure, to the Rose Garden love-in.
If the next Parliament is NOC, then the Lib Dems will be massively better prepared. This time, electoral and constitutional change will not be optional.
You were told once by the public on electoral reform. You remember, back when you though referendums were a good idea?
So despite all that has happened you cling to error? Neither good politics nor a good way to analyse things.
Not an EU flag in sight:
Get a tie you horrid little toerag.
That's to Sir Dress-Down-Friday, not William Glenn.
Hypocritical much? Your own avatar is tieless
I was not representing the UK at an international peace conference.
Just as we’ve now - belatedly - admitted that mass immigration makes us poorer, not richer, so we will soon admit that - in many areas - it leads to higher crime
A questionable assertion given the available data.
The lump of labour fallacy is back in fashion. Data doesn't come into it
The lump of labour fallacy cuts both ways. If there isn't a set amount of work that needs doing then you can't assert that we need to import people to do it.
I'm not asserting anything one way or the other one on the need for immigration. I do assert that immigration makes the country richer - that should be obvious - and it could be useful for tax revenues for example that help fund a better lifestyle for the population. The data I have seen shows wealth per head is essentially a wash. Each immigrant on average increases the GDP in proportion. It benefits the indigenous population however as immigrant jobs tend to be lower paid allowing the indigenous population more opportunity for a higher paid job. You might be better restricting higher wage immigration than minimum wage ones that everyone focuses on.
And the band played believe it if you like.
Well, going back to the point about care workers. I'm not sure the country will get behind: "Your grandmother died covered in her own shit because there weren't any care workers. And that's OK because we knocked a couple of digits off a number Reform are banging on about."
I really don't know what Yvette Cooper thinks she's doing,
88% of care workers are British and it's a job that does not require any qualifications, other than passing a DBS for safeguarding.
If homes can't fill their vacancies it's either they are not paying enough, or they have poor conditions for their staff. Both are fixable by management without recourse to minimum wage migrants.
In addition, they have had very extensive recourse to minimum wage migrants. See the visa applications. Yet, a very, very large proportion of the immigrants on these visas end up not working in the care industry.
It ratters reminds me of the moment the EU realised that the Saffron being exported from Spain (as Spanish grown) was several times greater than the amount of Saffron grown in Spain….
We now know for sure that the great fire of the Marywilska shopping centre in Warsaw was caused by arson ordered by the Russian special services. Some of the perpetrators have already been detained, all the others are identified and searched for. We will get you all! https://x.com/donaldtusk/status/1921629800730382832
I am sure PB will be outraged at the lack of due process and habeas corpus displayed in this Tweet.
I don’t think you understand what either of those things mean. The individual detained has been charged and will face trial.
So is the fact that Donald Tusk has announced the suspect's guilt not prejudicial to their trial?
Just as we’ve now - belatedly - admitted that mass immigration makes us poorer, not richer, so we will soon admit that - in many areas - it leads to higher crime
A questionable assertion given the available data.
The lump of labour fallacy is back in fashion. Data doesn't come into it
The lump of labour fallacy cuts both ways. If there isn't a set amount of work that needs doing then you can't assert that we need to import people to do it.
I'm not asserting anything one way or the other one on the need for immigration. I do assert that immigration makes the country richer - that should be obvious - and it could be useful for tax revenues for example that help fund a better lifestyle for the population. The data I have seen shows wealth per head is essentially a wash. Each immigrant on average increases the GDP in proportion. It benefits the indigenous population however as immigrant jobs tend to be lower paid allowing the indigenous population more opportunity for a higher paid job. You might be better restricting higher wage immigration than minimum wage ones that everyone focuses on.
it making the country richer is not obvious to any one that is unthinkingly pro immigration, some immigration does, some doesn't and costs more in public services than they pay in tax
GDP is really a shit measure to argue because gdp often doesnt increase the general populations wealth
We now know for sure that the great fire of the Marywilska shopping centre in Warsaw was caused by arson ordered by the Russian special services. Some of the perpetrators have already been detained, all the others are identified and searched for. We will get you all! https://x.com/donaldtusk/status/1921629800730382832
I am sure PB will be outraged at the lack of due process and habeas corpus displayed in this Tweet.
I don’t think you understand what either of those things mean. The individual detained has been charged and will face trial.
So is the fact that Donald Tusk has announced the suspect's guilt not prejudicial to their trial?
Under Poland’s privacy laws, the suspect has not been named.
Can you explain your ‘habeas corpus’ reference ? It appears completely meaningless.
We now know for sure that the great fire of the Marywilska shopping centre in Warsaw was caused by arson ordered by the Russian special services. Some of the perpetrators have already been detained, all the others are identified and searched for. We will get you all! https://x.com/donaldtusk/status/1921629800730382832
I am sure PB will be outraged at the lack of due process and habeas corpus displayed in this Tweet.
I don’t think you understand what either of those things mean. The individual detained has been charged and will face trial.
So is the fact that Donald Tusk has announced the suspect's guilt not prejudicial to their trial?
Plenty of times, in many countries, politicians have commented on the guilt of suspects.
We now know for sure that the great fire of the Marywilska shopping centre in Warsaw was caused by arson ordered by the Russian special services. Some of the perpetrators have already been detained, all the others are identified and searched for. We will get you all! https://x.com/donaldtusk/status/1921629800730382832
I am sure PB will be outraged at the lack of due process and habeas corpus displayed in this Tweet.
The stooges who carried out arson attacks on behalf of Russian agents are being held and interrogated by various authorities across Europe. Russia doesn't protect the people it has engaged, nor is it particularly careful about hiding its association with them.
We now know for sure that the great fire of the Marywilska shopping centre in Warsaw was caused by arson ordered by the Russian special services. Some of the perpetrators have already been detained, all the others are identified and searched for. We will get you all! https://x.com/donaldtusk/status/1921629800730382832
I am sure PB will be outraged at the lack of due process and habeas corpus displayed in this Tweet.
I don’t think you understand what either of those things mean. The individual detained has been charged and will face trial.
So is the fact that Donald Tusk has announced the suspect's guilt not prejudicial to their trial?
Plenty of times, in many countries, politicians have commented on the guilt of suspects.
None of us (I would include Dura Ace too) are particularly pro-Russian in my opinion.
When Russia began to be pushed back, lost territory in Ukraine and Kursk was invaded, at least one poster from the “realist” point of view lost his usual sense of humour and became quite… terse.
We now know for sure that the great fire of the Marywilska shopping centre in Warsaw was caused by arson ordered by the Russian special services. Some of the perpetrators have already been detained, all the others are identified and searched for. We will get you all! https://x.com/donaldtusk/status/1921629800730382832
I am sure PB will be outraged at the lack of due process and habeas corpus displayed in this Tweet.
I don’t think you understand what either of those things mean. The individual detained has been charged and will face trial.
So is the fact that Donald Tusk has announced the suspect's guilt not prejudicial to their trial?
Under Poland’s privacy laws, the suspect has not been named.
Can you explain your ‘habeas corpus’ reference ? It appears completely meaningless.
The suspect not being named is irrelevant.
The Head of Government (I assume that's what Tusk is) has announced that the suspect is guilty, and that his motive has been proven.
Habeas Corpus sprang to mind because of all the discussion on it recently. The need for a body has no direct bearing on this case, but I enjoyed adding it in.
We now know for sure that the great fire of the Marywilska shopping centre in Warsaw was caused by arson ordered by the Russian special services. Some of the perpetrators have already been detained, all the others are identified and searched for. We will get you all! https://x.com/donaldtusk/status/1921629800730382832
I am sure PB will be outraged at the lack of due process and habeas corpus displayed in this Tweet.
I don’t think you understand what either of those things mean. The individual detained has been charged and will face trial.
Tusk is hardly respecting the Polish equivalent of sub judice though.
This is the best response. Lucky had maybe half a valid point about presumption of innocence and/or sub judice here.
No idea what on earth habeas corpus has got to do with it. Maybe keep that one tucked away for commentary on US or Russian treatment of detainees.
We now know for sure that the great fire of the Marywilska shopping centre in Warsaw was caused by arson ordered by the Russian special services. Some of the perpetrators have already been detained, all the others are identified and searched for. We will get you all! https://x.com/donaldtusk/status/1921629800730382832
I am sure PB will be outraged at the lack of due process and habeas corpus displayed in this Tweet.
The stooges who carried out arson attacks on behalf of Russian agents are being held and interrogated by various authorities across Europe. Russia doesn't protect the people it has engaged, nor is it particularly careful about hiding its association with them.
He's saying it as it is, basically
Sure. But you can't 'say it as it is' before a trial. Starmer had riots rather than 'say it as it is' and PBers assured us he was right so to do.
On the subject of importing low skilled workers (as carers, etc.), I think that this board is missing the biggest problem.
Marginal tax rates - once benefit reductions are included - are often in the 70-80% range for the poorest. For an unemployed mother trying to get back to work, and currently receiving housing benefit, marginal tax rates can be well over 100%.
Brits aren't stupid: if you offer them the opportunity to work 20 hours a week in a care home, and to end up with less money than they started with... well, they will choose not to work.
If you want to reduce the dependence on the care industry on low skilled, low paid immigrants, then ensure that for people coming off unemployment, that they get to keep 80% of what they earn.
Oh gee that's a completely novel concept, completely missed it. Never knew that. That changes everything. 😉
You are one of the few people who gets it: and it's infuriating to me. Everyone is so focused on the symptoms of a broken tax and benefits system, and they are desperate to solve those, that they miss the underlying cause.
It's like trying to treat an alcoholic with repeated liver transplants.
Attitudes to Russia and Ukraine are a useful Britishness litmus test, I feel.
neither labour nor lib dems can complain....corbyn would have sold us out to a foreign power...putin....whoever is the leader of the lib dems would sell us out to a foreign power the eu
Just as we’ve now - belatedly - admitted that mass immigration makes us poorer, not richer, so we will soon admit that - in many areas - it leads to higher crime
A questionable assertion given the available data.
The lump of labour fallacy is back in fashion. Data doesn't come into it
The lump of labour fallacy cuts both ways. If there isn't a set amount of work that needs doing then you can't assert that we need to import people to do it.
I'm not asserting anything one way or the other one on the need for immigration. I do assert that immigration makes the country richer - that should be obvious - and it could be useful for tax revenues for example that help fund a better lifestyle for the population. The data I have seen shows wealth per head is essentially a wash. Each immigrant on average increases the GDP in proportion. It benefits the indigenous population however as immigrant jobs tend to be lower paid allowing the indigenous population more opportunity for a higher paid job. You might be better restricting higher wage immigration than minimum wage ones that everyone focuses on.
it making the country richer is not obvious to any one that is unthinkingly pro immigration, some immigration does, some doesn't and costs more in public services than they pay in tax
GDP is really a shit measure to argue because gdp often doesnt increase the general populations wealth
Individual immigrants can be a burden on the state, as can individual British citizens, to a rather greater extent as it happens. If you want to talk about how to be selective in immigration, I am happy to have that conversation. But we're talking about immigration in aggregate. The assertion that immigration overall makes the country poorer is incorrect. This is backed up by data.
We now know for sure that the great fire of the Marywilska shopping centre in Warsaw was caused by arson ordered by the Russian special services. Some of the perpetrators have already been detained, all the others are identified and searched for. We will get you all! https://x.com/donaldtusk/status/1921629800730382832
I am sure PB will be outraged at the lack of due process and habeas corpus displayed in this Tweet.
Would you rather live under Poland's justice system or Russia's?
Unquestionably Poland's. But as you have probably surmised, I was comparing the PB hive mind's distress over the decline in legal due process in the USA, particularly over the deportation of someone who turned out to be a people trafficker, to the unironic cheerleading of Poland's Head of Government announcing a suspects' guilt on Twitter.
On the subject of importing low skilled workers (as carers, etc.), I think that this board is missing the biggest problem.
Marginal tax rates - once benefit reductions are included - are often in the 70-80% range for the poorest. For an unemployed mother trying to get back to work, and currently receiving housing benefit, marginal tax rates can be well over 100%.
Brits aren't stupid: if you offer them the opportunity to work 20 hours a week in a care home, and to end up with less money than they started with... well, they will choose not to work.
If you want to reduce the dependence on the care industry on low skilled, low paid immigrants, then ensure that for people coming off unemployment, that they get to keep 80% of what they earn.
Oh gee that's a completely novel concept, completely missed it. Never knew that. That changes everything. 😉
You are one of the few people who gets it: and it's infuriating to me. Everyone is so focused on the symptoms of a broken tax and benefits system, and they are desperate to solve those, that they miss the underlying cause.
It's like trying to treat an alcoholic with repeated liver transplants.
I understand that there is a trap and that people behave rationally around it. I hate them for it a bit as I think working for a living is the right thing to do, but I get that others will disagree. But I have not yet seen a solution that’s fair to those in the trap at the same time as other people who don’t recieve the benefits but are low paid. Are they not unfairly penalised if the others get a boost to help them out?
Just as we’ve now - belatedly - admitted that mass immigration makes us poorer, not richer, so we will soon admit that - in many areas - it leads to higher crime
A questionable assertion given the available data.
The lump of labour fallacy is back in fashion. Data doesn't come into it
The lump of labour fallacy cuts both ways. If there isn't a set amount of work that needs doing then you can't assert that we need to import people to do it.
I'm not asserting anything one way or the other one on the need for immigration. I do assert that immigration makes the country richer - that should be obvious - and it could be useful for tax revenues for example that help fund a better lifestyle for the population. The data I have seen shows wealth per head is essentially a wash. Each immigrant on average increases the GDP in proportion. It benefits the indigenous population however as immigrant jobs tend to be lower paid allowing the indigenous population more opportunity for a higher paid job. You might be better restricting higher wage immigration than minimum wage ones that everyone focuses on.
it making the country richer is not obvious to any one that is unthinkingly pro immigration, some immigration does, some doesn't and costs more in public services than they pay in tax
GDP is really a shit measure to argue because gdp often doesnt increase the general populations wealth
Individual immigrants can be a burden on the state, as can individual British citizens, to a rather greater extent as it happens. If you want to talk about how to be selective in immigration, I am happy to have that conversation. But we're talking about immigration in aggregate. The assertion that immigration overall makes the country poorer is incorrect. This is backed up by data.
See you prove my point exactly yes we have a lot of people that are uk citizens that are a net burden...please explain why we import more. Yes I want to be selective and not allow net burdens to come it just adds to our problems....don't give a shit about your immigration is an aggregate....tell immigrants that are going to be a burden to fuck right of now and just take those that are going to be a net benefit then you don't have to hand wave about aggregates
On the subject of importing low skilled workers (as carers, etc.), I think that this board is missing the biggest problem.
Marginal tax rates - once benefit reductions are included - are often in the 70-80% range for the poorest. For an unemployed mother trying to get back to work, and currently receiving housing benefit, marginal tax rates can be well over 100%.
Brits aren't stupid: if you offer them the opportunity to work 20 hours a week in a care home, and to end up with less money than they started with... well, they will choose not to work.
If you want to reduce the dependence on the care industry on low skilled, low paid immigrants, then ensure that for people coming off unemployment, that they get to keep 80% of what they earn.
Oh gee that's a completely novel concept, completely missed it. Never knew that. That changes everything. 😉
You are one of the few people who gets it: and it's infuriating to me. Everyone is so focused on the symptoms of a broken tax and benefits system, and they are desperate to solve those, that they miss the underlying cause.
It's like trying to treat an alcoholic with repeated liver transplants.
I understand that there is a trap and that people behave rationally around it. I hate them for it a bit as I think working for a living is the right thing to do, but I get that others will disagree. But I have not yet seen a solution that’s fair to those in the trap at the same time as other people who don’t recieve the benefits but are low paid. Are they not unfairly penalised if the others get a boost to help them out?
The taper is the killer because to reduce the percentage of the taper you end up with more people receiving it at the fringes because suddenly people earning up to £35,000 or so start qualifying for a tiny bit of it.
I actually wonder if the only solution is to give children a £5000 or so tax allowance that can be given to the parents. if that was tapered away between £40,000 and £60,000 it might solve a lot of low paid issues. I suspect it would require putting a penny on income tax but it may solve a lot of the problems we see at the moment.
They need to go after Farage and even if it’s controversial someone in the Labour Party needs to call him a traitor . Cause controversy by calling him that, have a big argument . It might at least get some media attention .
God how idiotic can you get.?
Well he would have sided with Trump on Ukraine if he had been PM and is therefore a traitor.
Actually Tice told Trevor Phillips Farage does not support Putin in the war in Ukraine
On the subject of importing low skilled workers (as carers, etc.), I think that this board is missing the biggest problem.
Marginal tax rates - once benefit reductions are included - are often in the 70-80% range for the poorest. For an unemployed mother trying to get back to work, and currently receiving housing benefit, marginal tax rates can be well over 100%.
Brits aren't stupid: if you offer them the opportunity to work 20 hours a week in a care home, and to end up with less money than they started with... well, they will choose not to work.
If you want to reduce the dependence on the care industry on low skilled, low paid immigrants, then ensure that for people coming off unemployment, that they get to keep 80% of what they earn.
Oh gee that's a completely novel concept, completely missed it. Never knew that. That changes everything. 😉
You are one of the few people who gets it: and it's infuriating to me. Everyone is so focused on the symptoms of a broken tax and benefits system, and they are desperate to solve those, that they miss the underlying cause.
It's like trying to treat an alcoholic with repeated liver transplants.
I understand that there is a trap and that people behave rationally around it. I hate them for it a bit as I think working for a living is the right thing to do, but I get that others will disagree. But I have not yet seen a solution that’s fair to those in the trap at the same time as other people who don’t recieve the benefits but are low paid. Are they not unfairly penalised if the others get a boost to help them out?
The taper is the killer because to reduce the percentage of the taper you end up with more people receiving it at the fringes because suddenly people earning up to £35,000 or so start qualifying for a tiny bit of it.
I actually wonder if the only solution is to give children a £5000 or so tax allowance that can be given to the parents. if that was tapered away between £40,000 and £60,000 it might solve a lot of low paid issues. I suspect it would require putting a penny on income tax but it may solve a lot of the problems we see at the moment.
So you want to give people who have made a conscious decision to cost the tax payer more a tax break?
On the subject of importing low skilled workers (as carers, etc.), I think that this board is missing the biggest problem.
Marginal tax rates - once benefit reductions are included - are often in the 70-80% range for the poorest. For an unemployed mother trying to get back to work, and currently receiving housing benefit, marginal tax rates can be well over 100%.
Brits aren't stupid: if you offer them the opportunity to work 20 hours a week in a care home, and to end up with less money than they started with... well, they will choose not to work.
If you want to reduce the dependence on the care industry on low skilled, low paid immigrants, then ensure that for people coming off unemployment, that they get to keep 80% of what they earn.
Oh gee that's a completely novel concept, completely missed it. Never knew that. That changes everything. 😉
You are one of the few people who gets it: and it's infuriating to me. Everyone is so focused on the symptoms of a broken tax and benefits system, and they are desperate to solve those, that they miss the underlying cause.
It's like trying to treat an alcoholic with repeated liver transplants.
I understand that there is a trap and that people behave rationally around it. I hate them for it a bit as I think working for a living is the right thing to do, but I get that others will disagree. But I have not yet seen a solution that’s fair to those in the trap at the same time as other people who don’t recieve the benefits but are low paid. Are they not unfairly penalised if the others get a boost to help them out?
The taper is the killer because to reduce the percentage of the taper you end up with more people receiving it at the fringes because suddenly people earning up to £35,000 or so start qualifying for a tiny bit of it.
I actually wonder if the only solution is to give children a £5000 or so tax allowance that can be given to the parents. if that was tapered away between £40,000 and £60,000 it might solve a lot of low paid issues. I suspect it would require putting a penny on income tax but it may solve a lot of the problems we see at the moment.
So you want to give people who have made a conscious decision to cost the tax payer more a tax break?
Sounds sensible given our now well below average fertility rate
On the subject of importing low skilled workers (as carers, etc.), I think that this board is missing the biggest problem.
Marginal tax rates - once benefit reductions are included - are often in the 70-80% range for the poorest. For an unemployed mother trying to get back to work, and currently receiving housing benefit, marginal tax rates can be well over 100%.
Brits aren't stupid: if you offer them the opportunity to work 20 hours a week in a care home, and to end up with less money than they started with... well, they will choose not to work.
If you want to reduce the dependence on the care industry on low skilled, low paid immigrants, then ensure that for people coming off unemployment, that they get to keep 80% of what they earn.
Oh gee that's a completely novel concept, completely missed it. Never knew that. That changes everything. 😉
You are one of the few people who gets it: and it's infuriating to me. Everyone is so focused on the symptoms of a broken tax and benefits system, and they are desperate to solve those, that they miss the underlying cause.
It's like trying to treat an alcoholic with repeated liver transplants.
I understand that there is a trap and that people behave rationally around it. I hate them for it a bit as I think working for a living is the right thing to do, but I get that others will disagree. But I have not yet seen a solution that’s fair to those in the trap at the same time as other people who don’t recieve the benefits but are low paid. Are they not unfairly penalised if the others get a boost to help them out?
The taper is the killer because to reduce the percentage of the taper you end up with more people receiving it at the fringes because suddenly people earning up to £35,000 or so start qualifying for a tiny bit of it.
I actually wonder if the only solution is to give children a £5000 or so tax allowance that can be given to the parents. if that was tapered away between £40,000 and £60,000 it might solve a lot of low paid issues. I suspect it would require putting a penny on income tax but it may solve a lot of the problems we see at the moment.
So you want to give people who have made a conscious decision to cost the tax payer more a tax break?
Sounds sensible given our now well below average fertility rate
Because you believe more people in the world is a good thing....its not
On the subject of importing low skilled workers (as carers, etc.), I think that this board is missing the biggest problem.
Marginal tax rates - once benefit reductions are included - are often in the 70-80% range for the poorest. For an unemployed mother trying to get back to work, and currently receiving housing benefit, marginal tax rates can be well over 100%.
Brits aren't stupid: if you offer them the opportunity to work 20 hours a week in a care home, and to end up with less money than they started with... well, they will choose not to work.
If you want to reduce the dependence on the care industry on low skilled, low paid immigrants, then ensure that for people coming off unemployment, that they get to keep 80% of what they earn.
Oh gee that's a completely novel concept, completely missed it. Never knew that. That changes everything. 😉
You are one of the few people who gets it: and it's infuriating to me. Everyone is so focused on the symptoms of a broken tax and benefits system, and they are desperate to solve those, that they miss the underlying cause.
It's like trying to treat an alcoholic with repeated liver transplants.
I understand that there is a trap and that people behave rationally around it. I hate them for it a bit as I think working for a living is the right thing to do, but I get that others will disagree. But I have not yet seen a solution that’s fair to those in the trap at the same time as other people who don’t recieve the benefits but are low paid. Are they not unfairly penalised if the others get a boost to help them out?
The taper is the killer because to reduce the percentage of the taper you end up with more people receiving it at the fringes because suddenly people earning up to £35,000 or so start qualifying for a tiny bit of it.
I actually wonder if the only solution is to give children a £5000 or so tax allowance that can be given to the parents. if that was tapered away between £40,000 and £60,000 it might solve a lot of low paid issues. I suspect it would require putting a penny on income tax but it may solve a lot of the problems we see at the moment.
So you want to give people who have made a conscious decision to cost the tax payer more a tax break?
Sounds sensible given our now well below average fertility rate
Because you believe more people in the world is a good thing....its not
Well, if there are two countries next to each other, and one has a TFR of 2.5 and the other has one 1.5, then one day the place with the TFR of 2.5 is going to walk in to the other.
On the subject of importing low skilled workers (as carers, etc.), I think that this board is missing the biggest problem.
Marginal tax rates - once benefit reductions are included - are often in the 70-80% range for the poorest. For an unemployed mother trying to get back to work, and currently receiving housing benefit, marginal tax rates can be well over 100%.
Brits aren't stupid: if you offer them the opportunity to work 20 hours a week in a care home, and to end up with less money than they started with... well, they will choose not to work.
If you want to reduce the dependence on the care industry on low skilled, low paid immigrants, then ensure that for people coming off unemployment, that they get to keep 80% of what they earn.
Oh gee that's a completely novel concept, completely missed it. Never knew that. That changes everything. 😉
You are one of the few people who gets it: and it's infuriating to me. Everyone is so focused on the symptoms of a broken tax and benefits system, and they are desperate to solve those, that they miss the underlying cause.
It's like trying to treat an alcoholic with repeated liver transplants.
I understand that there is a trap and that people behave rationally around it. I hate them for it a bit as I think working for a living is the right thing to do, but I get that others will disagree. But I have not yet seen a solution that’s fair to those in the trap at the same time as other people who don’t recieve the benefits but are low paid. Are they not unfairly penalised if the others get a boost to help them out?
The taper is the killer because to reduce the percentage of the taper you end up with more people receiving it at the fringes because suddenly people earning up to £35,000 or so start qualifying for a tiny bit of it.
I actually wonder if the only solution is to give children a £5000 or so tax allowance that can be given to the parents. if that was tapered away between £40,000 and £60,000 it might solve a lot of low paid issues. I suspect it would require putting a penny on income tax but it may solve a lot of the problems we see at the moment.
Sounds like a good idea, but will politicians listen to proposals like this?
On the subject of importing low skilled workers (as carers, etc.), I think that this board is missing the biggest problem.
Marginal tax rates - once benefit reductions are included - are often in the 70-80% range for the poorest. For an unemployed mother trying to get back to work, and currently receiving housing benefit, marginal tax rates can be well over 100%.
Brits aren't stupid: if you offer them the opportunity to work 20 hours a week in a care home, and to end up with less money than they started with... well, they will choose not to work.
If you want to reduce the dependence on the care industry on low skilled, low paid immigrants, then ensure that for people coming off unemployment, that they get to keep 80% of what they earn.
Oh gee that's a completely novel concept, completely missed it. Never knew that. That changes everything. 😉
You are one of the few people who gets it: and it's infuriating to me. Everyone is so focused on the symptoms of a broken tax and benefits system, and they are desperate to solve those, that they miss the underlying cause.
It's like trying to treat an alcoholic with repeated liver transplants.
I understand that there is a trap and that people behave rationally around it. I hate them for it a bit as I think working for a living is the right thing to do, but I get that others will disagree. But I have not yet seen a solution that’s fair to those in the trap at the same time as other people who don’t recieve the benefits but are low paid. Are they not unfairly penalised if the others get a boost to help them out?
The taper is the killer because to reduce the percentage of the taper you end up with more people receiving it at the fringes because suddenly people earning up to £35,000 or so start qualifying for a tiny bit of it.
I actually wonder if the only solution is to give children a £5000 or so tax allowance that can be given to the parents. if that was tapered away between £40,000 and £60,000 it might solve a lot of low paid issues. I suspect it would require putting a penny on income tax but it may solve a lot of the problems we see at the moment.
So you want to give people who have made a conscious decision to cost the tax payer more a tax break?
Sounds sensible given our now well below average fertility rate
Because you believe more people in the world is a good thing....its not
Well, if there are two countries next to each other, and one has a TFR of 2.5 and the other has one 1.5, then one day the place with the TFR of 2.5 is going to walk in to the other.
Why does that matter? Its now like we dont already live in the world where countries march into each other....simple fact is the about 8 billion too many people in the world currently
On the subject of importing low skilled workers (as carers, etc.), I think that this board is missing the biggest problem.
Marginal tax rates - once benefit reductions are included - are often in the 70-80% range for the poorest. For an unemployed mother trying to get back to work, and currently receiving housing benefit, marginal tax rates can be well over 100%.
Brits aren't stupid: if you offer them the opportunity to work 20 hours a week in a care home, and to end up with less money than they started with... well, they will choose not to work.
If you want to reduce the dependence on the care industry on low skilled, low paid immigrants, then ensure that for people coming off unemployment, that they get to keep 80% of what they earn.
Oh gee that's a completely novel concept, completely missed it. Never knew that. That changes everything. 😉
You are one of the few people who gets it: and it's infuriating to me. Everyone is so focused on the symptoms of a broken tax and benefits system, and they are desperate to solve those, that they miss the underlying cause.
It's like trying to treat an alcoholic with repeated liver transplants.
I understand that there is a trap and that people behave rationally around it. I hate them for it a bit as I think working for a living is the right thing to do, but I get that others will disagree. But I have not yet seen a solution that’s fair to those in the trap at the same time as other people who don’t recieve the benefits but are low paid. Are they not unfairly penalised if the others get a boost to help them out?
The taper is the killer because to reduce the percentage of the taper you end up with more people receiving it at the fringes because suddenly people earning up to £35,000 or so start qualifying for a tiny bit of it.
I actually wonder if the only solution is to give children a £5000 or so tax allowance that can be given to the parents. if that was tapered away between £40,000 and £60,000 it might solve a lot of low paid issues. I suspect it would require putting a penny on income tax but it may solve a lot of the problems we see at the moment.
So you want to give people who have made a conscious decision to cost the tax payer more a tax break?
Sounds sensible given our now well below average fertility rate
Because you believe more people in the world is a good thing....its not
Well, if there are two countries next to each other, and one has a TFR of 2.5 and the other has one 1.5, then one day the place with the TFR of 2.5 is going to walk in to the other.
French TFR is below replacement. So all we need is a TFR of 2.000001 and the dream is achievable….
Just as we’ve now - belatedly - admitted that mass immigration makes us poorer, not richer, so we will soon admit that - in many areas - it leads to higher crime
A questionable assertion given the available data.
The lump of labour fallacy is back in fashion. Data doesn't come into it
The lump of labour fallacy cuts both ways. If there isn't a set amount of work that needs doing then you can't assert that we need to import people to do it.
I'm not asserting anything one way or the other one on the need for immigration. I do assert that immigration makes the country richer - that should be obvious - and it could be useful for tax revenues for example that help fund a better lifestyle for the population. The data I have seen shows wealth per head is essentially a wash. Each immigrant on average increases the GDP in proportion. It benefits the indigenous population however as immigrant jobs tend to be lower paid allowing the indigenous population more opportunity for a higher paid job. You might be better restricting higher wage immigration than minimum wage ones that everyone focuses on.
it making the country richer is not obvious to any one that is unthinkingly pro immigration, some immigration does, some doesn't and costs more in public services than they pay in tax
GDP is really a shit measure to argue because gdp often doesnt increase the general populations wealth
Individual immigrants can be a burden on the state, as can individual British citizens, to a rather greater extent as it happens. If you want to talk about how to be selective in immigration, I am happy to have that conversation. But we're talking about immigration in aggregate. The assertion that immigration overall makes the country poorer is incorrect. This is backed up by data.
See you prove my point exactly yes we have a lot of people that are uk citizens that are a net burden...please explain why we import more. Yes I want to be selective and not allow net burdens to come it just adds to our problems....don't give a shit about your immigration is an aggregate....tell immigrants that are going to be a burden to fuck right of now and just take those that are going to be a net benefit then you don't have to hand wave about aggregates
You might not be talking about aggregates but everybody else seems to be. Immigration is bad - we don't need it.
On the subject of importing low skilled workers (as carers, etc.), I think that this board is missing the biggest problem.
Marginal tax rates - once benefit reductions are included - are often in the 70-80% range for the poorest. For an unemployed mother trying to get back to work, and currently receiving housing benefit, marginal tax rates can be well over 100%.
Brits aren't stupid: if you offer them the opportunity to work 20 hours a week in a care home, and to end up with less money than they started with... well, they will choose not to work.
If you want to reduce the dependence on the care industry on low skilled, low paid immigrants, then ensure that for people coming off unemployment, that they get to keep 80% of what they earn.
Oh gee that's a completely novel concept, completely missed it. Never knew that. That changes everything. 😉
You are one of the few people who gets it: and it's infuriating to me. Everyone is so focused on the symptoms of a broken tax and benefits system, and they are desperate to solve those, that they miss the underlying cause.
It's like trying to treat an alcoholic with repeated liver transplants.
I understand that there is a trap and that people behave rationally around it. I hate them for it a bit as I think working for a living is the right thing to do, but I get that others will disagree. But I have not yet seen a solution that’s fair to those in the trap at the same time as other people who don’t recieve the benefits but are low paid. Are they not unfairly penalised if the others get a boost to help them out?
The taper is the killer because to reduce the percentage of the taper you end up with more people receiving it at the fringes because suddenly people earning up to £35,000 or so start qualifying for a tiny bit of it.
I actually wonder if the only solution is to give children a £5000 or so tax allowance that can be given to the parents. if that was tapered away between £40,000 and £60,000 it might solve a lot of low paid issues. I suspect it would require putting a penny on income tax but it may solve a lot of the problems we see at the moment.
So you want to give people who have made a conscious decision to cost the tax payer more a tax break?
Sounds sensible given our now well below average fertility rate
Because you believe more people in the world is a good thing....its not
Well, if there are two countries next to each other, and one has a TFR of 2.5 and the other has one 1.5, then one day the place with the TFR of 2.5 is going to walk in to the other.
French TFR is below replacement. So all we need is a TFR of 2.000001 and the dream is achievable….
Britain wont conquer france again even if our population gets bigger we did once took a look at calais and said its all a bit shit here lets go home
On the subject of importing low skilled workers (as carers, etc.), I think that this board is missing the biggest problem.
Marginal tax rates - once benefit reductions are included - are often in the 70-80% range for the poorest. For an unemployed mother trying to get back to work, and currently receiving housing benefit, marginal tax rates can be well over 100%.
Brits aren't stupid: if you offer them the opportunity to work 20 hours a week in a care home, and to end up with less money than they started with... well, they will choose not to work.
If you want to reduce the dependence on the care industry on low skilled, low paid immigrants, then ensure that for people coming off unemployment, that they get to keep 80% of what they earn.
Oh gee that's a completely novel concept, completely missed it. Never knew that. That changes everything. 😉
You are one of the few people who gets it: and it's infuriating to me. Everyone is so focused on the symptoms of a broken tax and benefits system, and they are desperate to solve those, that they miss the underlying cause.
It's like trying to treat an alcoholic with repeated liver transplants.
I understand that there is a trap and that people behave rationally around it. I hate them for it a bit as I think working for a living is the right thing to do, but I get that others will disagree. But I have not yet seen a solution that’s fair to those in the trap at the same time as other people who don’t recieve the benefits but are low paid. Are they not unfairly penalised if the others get a boost to help them out?
The taper is the killer because to reduce the percentage of the taper you end up with more people receiving it at the fringes because suddenly people earning up to £35,000 or so start qualifying for a tiny bit of it.
I actually wonder if the only solution is to give children a £5000 or so tax allowance that can be given to the parents. if that was tapered away between £40,000 and £60,000 it might solve a lot of low paid issues. I suspect it would require putting a penny on income tax but it may solve a lot of the problems we see at the moment.
Why taper between £40,000 and £60,000? All that does is mean that the marginal tax rate for parents in that group is really high? Why not simply give each kid a £5,000 tax benefit transfers to the parents.
Now, sure, it'd be expensive, but maybe you could combine it with reducing the personal allowance slightly, and merging NI and income tax.
In other words:
(1) Parents would be better off (2) Unemployed parents would be able to enter the workforce without having ruinious tax rates - which would benefit the whole country, because we'd have more British people working (3) The burden would most largely on wealthy pensioners
But *if* it could reduce levels of economic activity, it would not just be morally good, it would largely pay for itself, and it would significantly reduce the demand for unskilled immigrant labour.
Just as we’ve now - belatedly - admitted that mass immigration makes us poorer, not richer, so we will soon admit that - in many areas - it leads to higher crime
A questionable assertion given the available data.
The lump of labour fallacy is back in fashion. Data doesn't come into it
The lump of labour fallacy cuts both ways. If there isn't a set amount of work that needs doing then you can't assert that we need to import people to do it.
I'm not asserting anything one way or the other one on the need for immigration. I do assert that immigration makes the country richer - that should be obvious - and it could be useful for tax revenues for example that help fund a better lifestyle for the population. The data I have seen shows wealth per head is essentially a wash. Each immigrant on average increases the GDP in proportion. It benefits the indigenous population however as immigrant jobs tend to be lower paid allowing the indigenous population more opportunity for a higher paid job. You might be better restricting higher wage immigration than minimum wage ones that everyone focuses on.
it making the country richer is not obvious to any one that is unthinkingly pro immigration, some immigration does, some doesn't and costs more in public services than they pay in tax
GDP is really a shit measure to argue because gdp often doesnt increase the general populations wealth
Individual immigrants can be a burden on the state, as can individual British citizens, to a rather greater extent as it happens. If you want to talk about how to be selective in immigration, I am happy to have that conversation. But we're talking about immigration in aggregate. The assertion that immigration overall makes the country poorer is incorrect. This is backed up by data.
See you prove my point exactly yes we have a lot of people that are uk citizens that are a net burden...please explain why we import more. Yes I want to be selective and not allow net burdens to come it just adds to our problems....don't give a shit about your immigration is an aggregate....tell immigrants that are going to be a burden to fuck right of now and just take those that are going to be a net benefit then you don't have to hand wave about aggregates
You might not be talking about aggregates but everybody else seems to be. Immigration is bad - we don't need it.
Yes some immigration is bad lets tell them to fuck off
Some immigration is a net benefit lets say come in
Arguing on aggregates is just you saying we should accept bad as well as good
On the subject of importing low skilled workers (as carers, etc.), I think that this board is missing the biggest problem.
Marginal tax rates - once benefit reductions are included - are often in the 70-80% range for the poorest. For an unemployed mother trying to get back to work, and currently receiving housing benefit, marginal tax rates can be well over 100%.
Brits aren't stupid: if you offer them the opportunity to work 20 hours a week in a care home, and to end up with less money than they started with... well, they will choose not to work.
If you want to reduce the dependence on the care industry on low skilled, low paid immigrants, then ensure that for people coming off unemployment, that they get to keep 80% of what they earn.
Oh gee that's a completely novel concept, completely missed it. Never knew that. That changes everything. 😉
You are one of the few people who gets it: and it's infuriating to me. Everyone is so focused on the symptoms of a broken tax and benefits system, and they are desperate to solve those, that they miss the underlying cause.
It's like trying to treat an alcoholic with repeated liver transplants.
I understand that there is a trap and that people behave rationally around it. I hate them for it a bit as I think working for a living is the right thing to do, but I get that others will disagree. But I have not yet seen a solution that’s fair to those in the trap at the same time as other people who don’t recieve the benefits but are low paid. Are they not unfairly penalised if the others get a boost to help them out?
The taper is the killer because to reduce the percentage of the taper you end up with more people receiving it at the fringes because suddenly people earning up to £35,000 or so start qualifying for a tiny bit of it.
I actually wonder if the only solution is to give children a £5000 or so tax allowance that can be given to the parents. if that was tapered away between £40,000 and £60,000 it might solve a lot of low paid issues. I suspect it would require putting a penny on income tax but it may solve a lot of the problems we see at the moment.
So you want to give people who have made a conscious decision to cost the tax payer more a tax break?
Sounds sensible given our now well below average fertility rate
Because you believe more people in the world is a good thing....its not
Well, if there are two countries next to each other, and one has a TFR of 2.5 and the other has one 1.5, then one day the place with the TFR of 2.5 is going to walk in to the other.
Why does that matter? Its now like we dont already live in the world where countries march into each other....simple fact is the about 8 billion too many people in the world currently
Are you secretly a member of Extinction Rebellion?
On the subject of importing low skilled workers (as carers, etc.), I think that this board is missing the biggest problem.
Marginal tax rates - once benefit reductions are included - are often in the 70-80% range for the poorest. For an unemployed mother trying to get back to work, and currently receiving housing benefit, marginal tax rates can be well over 100%.
Brits aren't stupid: if you offer them the opportunity to work 20 hours a week in a care home, and to end up with less money than they started with... well, they will choose not to work.
If you want to reduce the dependence on the care industry on low skilled, low paid immigrants, then ensure that for people coming off unemployment, that they get to keep 80% of what they earn.
Oh gee that's a completely novel concept, completely missed it. Never knew that. That changes everything. 😉
You are one of the few people who gets it: and it's infuriating to me. Everyone is so focused on the symptoms of a broken tax and benefits system, and they are desperate to solve those, that they miss the underlying cause.
It's like trying to treat an alcoholic with repeated liver transplants.
I understand that there is a trap and that people behave rationally around it. I hate them for it a bit as I think working for a living is the right thing to do, but I get that others will disagree. But I have not yet seen a solution that’s fair to those in the trap at the same time as other people who don’t recieve the benefits but are low paid. Are they not unfairly penalised if the others get a boost to help them out?
The taper is the killer because to reduce the percentage of the taper you end up with more people receiving it at the fringes because suddenly people earning up to £35,000 or so start qualifying for a tiny bit of it.
I actually wonder if the only solution is to give children a £5000 or so tax allowance that can be given to the parents. if that was tapered away between £40,000 and £60,000 it might solve a lot of low paid issues. I suspect it would require putting a penny on income tax but it may solve a lot of the problems we see at the moment.
So you want to give people who have made a conscious decision to cost the tax payer more a tax break?
Sounds sensible given our now well below average fertility rate
Because you believe more people in the world is a good thing....its not
Well, if there are two countries next to each other, and one has a TFR of 2.5 and the other has one 1.5, then one day the place with the TFR of 2.5 is going to walk in to the other.
Why does that matter? Its now like we dont already live in the world where countries march into each other....simple fact is the about 8 billion too many people in the world currently
Are you secretly a member of Extinction Rebellion?
I see you have had fun and games on here today, lots of racially charged posts about immigration (which is a shame and why I thought it best to keep off before I started effing and jeffing at some of the truly unpleasant posts) and @kamski got banned for insulting @Taz
Well the other day @Taz called me a sp@cker. Not a term I was familiar with but apparently it means I have cerebral palsy. Classy guy.
We now know for sure that the great fire of the Marywilska shopping centre in Warsaw was caused by arson ordered by the Russian special services. Some of the perpetrators have already been detained, all the others are identified and searched for. We will get you all! https://x.com/donaldtusk/status/1921629800730382832
I am sure PB will be outraged at the lack of due process and habeas corpus displayed in this Tweet.
I don’t think you understand what either of those things mean. The individual detained has been charged and will face trial.
So is the fact that Donald Tusk has announced the suspect's guilt not prejudicial to their trial?
Plenty of times, in many countries, politicians have commented on the guilt of suspects.
I'm sure they have - I'm not sure it's relevant.
It’s relevant because politicians commenting prejudicial is not, in itself, a violation of due process. In legal systems which have sub judicial rules (not all do), there are mechanisms for dealing with such things. That for example might involve a judge telling the politician to desist - or instructing a jury to ignore such comments. If suspect were to be denied the ability to have their lawyers object to prejudicial statements, then that would be a violation of dues process. There’s no indication of that here.
Due process is important, and it’s important that it should properly be understood, because without it you don’t have a legal system at all.
I see you have had fun and games on here today, lots of racially charged posts about immigration (which is a shame and why I thought it best to keep off before I started effing and jeffing at some of the truly unpleasant posts) and @kamski got banned for insulting @Taz
Well the other day @Taz called me a sp@cker. Not a term I was familiar with but apparently it means I have cerebral palsy. Classy guy.
Kamski did not get banned for calling someone a spacker
I see you have had fun and games on here today, lots of racially charged posts about immigration (which is a shame and why I thought it best to keep off before I started effing and jeffing at some of the truly unpleasant posts) and @kamski got banned for insulting @Taz
Well the other day @Taz called me a sp@cker. Not a term I was familiar with but apparently it means I have cerebral palsy. Classy guy.
Kamski did not get banned for calling someone a spacker
No he didn't he got banned for swearing at the poster that offended me with that vile term.
I see you have had fun and games on here today, lots of racially charged posts about immigration (which is a shame and why I thought it best to keep off before I started effing and jeffing at some of the truly unpleasant posts) and @kamski got banned for insulting @Taz
Well the other day @Taz called me a sp@cker. Not a term I was familiar with but apparently it means I have cerebral palsy. Classy guy.
Kamski did not get banned for calling someone a spacker
No he didn't he got banned for swearing at the poster that offended me with that vile term.
On the subject of importing low skilled workers (as carers, etc.), I think that this board is missing the biggest problem.
Marginal tax rates - once benefit reductions are included - are often in the 70-80% range for the poorest. For an unemployed mother trying to get back to work, and currently receiving housing benefit, marginal tax rates can be well over 100%.
Brits aren't stupid: if you offer them the opportunity to work 20 hours a week in a care home, and to end up with less money than they started with... well, they will choose not to work.
If you want to reduce the dependence on the care industry on low skilled, low paid immigrants, then ensure that for people coming off unemployment, that they get to keep 80% of what they earn.
Oh gee that's a completely novel concept, completely missed it. Never knew that. That changes everything. 😉
You are one of the few people who gets it: and it's infuriating to me. Everyone is so focused on the symptoms of a broken tax and benefits system, and they are desperate to solve those, that they miss the underlying cause.
It's like trying to treat an alcoholic with repeated liver transplants.
I understand that there is a trap and that people behave rationally around it. I hate them for it a bit as I think working for a living is the right thing to do, but I get that others will disagree. But I have not yet seen a solution that’s fair to those in the trap at the same time as other people who don’t recieve the benefits but are low paid. Are they not unfairly penalised if the others get a boost to help them out?
The taper is the killer because to reduce the percentage of the taper you end up with more people receiving it at the fringes because suddenly people earning up to £35,000 or so start qualifying for a tiny bit of it.
I actually wonder if the only solution is to give children a £5000 or so tax allowance that can be given to the parents. if that was tapered away between £40,000 and £60,000 it might solve a lot of low paid issues. I suspect it would require putting a penny on income tax but it may solve a lot of the problems we see at the moment.
So you want to give people who have made a conscious decision to cost the tax payer more a tax break?
Yep and I suspect it will solve an awful lot of problems. What I can also tell you is that the treasury and HMRC would absolutely hate it but I can't see any other way to fix tax credits.
1) the people receiving it are currently parents often with young children and broken relationships. 2) this fix would allow them to work 20-24 hours a week rather than 12 which would also fix a whole set of other long term issues as children of parents who don't work also end up following the same path because their expertise is in how to game the benefit system.
On the subject of importing low skilled workers (as carers, etc.), I think that this board is missing the biggest problem.
Marginal tax rates - once benefit reductions are included - are often in the 70-80% range for the poorest. For an unemployed mother trying to get back to work, and currently receiving housing benefit, marginal tax rates can be well over 100%.
Brits aren't stupid: if you offer them the opportunity to work 20 hours a week in a care home, and to end up with less money than they started with... well, they will choose not to work.
If you want to reduce the dependence on the care industry on low skilled, low paid immigrants, then ensure that for people coming off unemployment, that they get to keep 80% of what they earn.
Oh gee that's a completely novel concept, completely missed it. Never knew that. That changes everything. 😉
You are one of the few people who gets it: and it's infuriating to me. Everyone is so focused on the symptoms of a broken tax and benefits system, and they are desperate to solve those, that they miss the underlying cause.
It's like trying to treat an alcoholic with repeated liver transplants.
I understand that there is a trap and that people behave rationally around it. I hate them for it a bit as I think working for a living is the right thing to do, but I get that others will disagree. But I have not yet seen a solution that’s fair to those in the trap at the same time as other people who don’t recieve the benefits but are low paid. Are they not unfairly penalised if the others get a boost to help them out?
The taper is the killer because to reduce the percentage of the taper you end up with more people receiving it at the fringes because suddenly people earning up to £35,000 or so start qualifying for a tiny bit of it.
I actually wonder if the only solution is to give children a £5000 or so tax allowance that can be given to the parents. if that was tapered away between £40,000 and £60,000 it might solve a lot of low paid issues. I suspect it would require putting a penny on income tax but it may solve a lot of the problems we see at the moment.
So you want to give people who have made a conscious decision to cost the tax payer more a tax break?
Yep and I suspect it will solve an awful lot of problems. What I can also tell you is that the treasury and HMRC would absolutely hate it but I can't see any other way to fix tax credits.
1) the people receiving it are currently parents often with young children and broken relationships. 2) this fix would allow them to work 20-24 hours a week rather than 12 which would also fix a whole set of other long term issues as children of parents who don't work also end up following the same path because their expertise is in how to game the benefit system.
How about instead we up the tax for people with children as they cost more and encourage more to be childless....better for the planet and the environment
On the subject of importing low skilled workers (as carers, etc.), I think that this board is missing the biggest problem.
Marginal tax rates - once benefit reductions are included - are often in the 70-80% range for the poorest. For an unemployed mother trying to get back to work, and currently receiving housing benefit, marginal tax rates can be well over 100%.
Brits aren't stupid: if you offer them the opportunity to work 20 hours a week in a care home, and to end up with less money than they started with... well, they will choose not to work.
If you want to reduce the dependence on the care industry on low skilled, low paid immigrants, then ensure that for people coming off unemployment, that they get to keep 80% of what they earn.
Oh gee that's a completely novel concept, completely missed it. Never knew that. That changes everything. 😉
You are one of the few people who gets it: and it's infuriating to me. Everyone is so focused on the symptoms of a broken tax and benefits system, and they are desperate to solve those, that they miss the underlying cause.
It's like trying to treat an alcoholic with repeated liver transplants.
I understand that there is a trap and that people behave rationally around it. I hate them for it a bit as I think working for a living is the right thing to do, but I get that others will disagree. But I have not yet seen a solution that’s fair to those in the trap at the same time as other people who don’t recieve the benefits but are low paid. Are they not unfairly penalised if the others get a boost to help them out?
The taper is the killer because to reduce the percentage of the taper you end up with more people receiving it at the fringes because suddenly people earning up to £35,000 or so start qualifying for a tiny bit of it.
I actually wonder if the only solution is to give children a £5000 or so tax allowance that can be given to the parents. if that was tapered away between £40,000 and £60,000 it might solve a lot of low paid issues. I suspect it would require putting a penny on income tax but it may solve a lot of the problems we see at the moment.
So you want to give people who have made a conscious decision to cost the tax payer more a tax break?
Sounds sensible given our now well below average fertility rate
Because you believe more people in the world is a good thing....its not
It certainly is in the West and Far East otherwise the young will have to pay ever higher taxes to support an ageing population and we will need even more immigrants to fill job roles leading and yet more far right backlash.
Africa could do with a few less babies maybe, the UK a few more
On the subject of importing low skilled workers (as carers, etc.), I think that this board is missing the biggest problem.
Marginal tax rates - once benefit reductions are included - are often in the 70-80% range for the poorest. For an unemployed mother trying to get back to work, and currently receiving housing benefit, marginal tax rates can be well over 100%.
Brits aren't stupid: if you offer them the opportunity to work 20 hours a week in a care home, and to end up with less money than they started with... well, they will choose not to work.
If you want to reduce the dependence on the care industry on low skilled, low paid immigrants, then ensure that for people coming off unemployment, that they get to keep 80% of what they earn.
Oh gee that's a completely novel concept, completely missed it. Never knew that. That changes everything. 😉
You are one of the few people who gets it: and it's infuriating to me. Everyone is so focused on the symptoms of a broken tax and benefits system, and they are desperate to solve those, that they miss the underlying cause.
It's like trying to treat an alcoholic with repeated liver transplants.
I understand that there is a trap and that people behave rationally around it. I hate them for it a bit as I think working for a living is the right thing to do, but I get that others will disagree. But I have not yet seen a solution that’s fair to those in the trap at the same time as other people who don’t recieve the benefits but are low paid. Are they not unfairly penalised if the others get a boost to help them out?
The taper is the killer because to reduce the percentage of the taper you end up with more people receiving it at the fringes because suddenly people earning up to £35,000 or so start qualifying for a tiny bit of it.
I actually wonder if the only solution is to give children a £5000 or so tax allowance that can be given to the parents. if that was tapered away between £40,000 and £60,000 it might solve a lot of low paid issues. I suspect it would require putting a penny on income tax but it may solve a lot of the problems we see at the moment.
So you want to give people who have made a conscious decision to cost the tax payer more a tax break?
Sounds sensible given our now well below average fertility rate
Because you believe more people in the world is a good thing....its not
It certainly is in the West and Far East otherwise the young will have to pay ever higher taxes to support an ageing population and we will need even more immigrants to fill job roles leading and yet more far right backlash.
Africa could do with a few less babies maybe, the UK a few more
No they won't because now we have the assisted dying bill going through
I see you have had fun and games on here today, lots of racially charged posts about immigration (which is a shame and why I thought it best to keep off before I started effing and jeffing at some of the truly unpleasant posts) and @kamski got banned for insulting @Taz
Well the other day @Taz called me a sp@cker. Not a term I was familiar with but apparently it means I have cerebral palsy. Classy guy.
He got banned for calling Bart the ‘C’ word actually. Admin here take a strong line on that.
I said I had no problem with him calling me a ‘spacker’. Worse has been said here anyway.
On the subject of importing low skilled workers (as carers, etc.), I think that this board is missing the biggest problem.
Marginal tax rates - once benefit reductions are included - are often in the 70-80% range for the poorest. For an unemployed mother trying to get back to work, and currently receiving housing benefit, marginal tax rates can be well over 100%.
Brits aren't stupid: if you offer them the opportunity to work 20 hours a week in a care home, and to end up with less money than they started with... well, they will choose not to work.
If you want to reduce the dependence on the care industry on low skilled, low paid immigrants, then ensure that for people coming off unemployment, that they get to keep 80% of what they earn.
Oh gee that's a completely novel concept, completely missed it. Never knew that. That changes everything. 😉
You are one of the few people who gets it: and it's infuriating to me. Everyone is so focused on the symptoms of a broken tax and benefits system, and they are desperate to solve those, that they miss the underlying cause.
It's like trying to treat an alcoholic with repeated liver transplants.
I understand that there is a trap and that people behave rationally around it. I hate them for it a bit as I think working for a living is the right thing to do, but I get that others will disagree. But I have not yet seen a solution that’s fair to those in the trap at the same time as other people who don’t recieve the benefits but are low paid. Are they not unfairly penalised if the others get a boost to help them out?
The taper is the killer because to reduce the percentage of the taper you end up with more people receiving it at the fringes because suddenly people earning up to £35,000 or so start qualifying for a tiny bit of it.
I actually wonder if the only solution is to give children a £5000 or so tax allowance that can be given to the parents. if that was tapered away between £40,000 and £60,000 it might solve a lot of low paid issues. I suspect it would require putting a penny on income tax but it may solve a lot of the problems we see at the moment.
So you want to give people who have made a conscious decision to cost the tax payer more a tax break?
Sounds sensible given our now well below average fertility rate
Because you believe more people in the world is a good thing....its not
Well, if there are two countries next to each other, and one has a TFR of 2.5 and the other has one 1.5, then one day the place with the TFR of 2.5 is going to walk in to the other.
French TFR is below replacement. So all we need is a TFR of 2.000001 and the dream is achievable….
France has a TFR of 1.79, the UK 1.57, so at the moment even the French are beating us on birthrate.
Even if we are higher than the Germans still who are at 1.46
On the subject of importing low skilled workers (as carers, etc.), I think that this board is missing the biggest problem.
Marginal tax rates - once benefit reductions are included - are often in the 70-80% range for the poorest. For an unemployed mother trying to get back to work, and currently receiving housing benefit, marginal tax rates can be well over 100%.
Brits aren't stupid: if you offer them the opportunity to work 20 hours a week in a care home, and to end up with less money than they started with... well, they will choose not to work.
If you want to reduce the dependence on the care industry on low skilled, low paid immigrants, then ensure that for people coming off unemployment, that they get to keep 80% of what they earn.
Oh gee that's a completely novel concept, completely missed it. Never knew that. That changes everything. 😉
You are one of the few people who gets it: and it's infuriating to me. Everyone is so focused on the symptoms of a broken tax and benefits system, and they are desperate to solve those, that they miss the underlying cause.
It's like trying to treat an alcoholic with repeated liver transplants.
I understand that there is a trap and that people behave rationally around it. I hate them for it a bit as I think working for a living is the right thing to do, but I get that others will disagree. But I have not yet seen a solution that’s fair to those in the trap at the same time as other people who don’t recieve the benefits but are low paid. Are they not unfairly penalised if the others get a boost to help them out?
The taper is the killer because to reduce the percentage of the taper you end up with more people receiving it at the fringes because suddenly people earning up to £35,000 or so start qualifying for a tiny bit of it.
I actually wonder if the only solution is to give children a £5000 or so tax allowance that can be given to the parents. if that was tapered away between £40,000 and £60,000 it might solve a lot of low paid issues. I suspect it would require putting a penny on income tax but it may solve a lot of the problems we see at the moment.
Why taper between £40,000 and £60,000? All that does is mean that the marginal tax rate for parents in that group is really high? Why not simply give each kid a £5,000 tax benefit transfers to the parents.
Now, sure, it'd be expensive, but maybe you could combine it with reducing the personal allowance slightly, and merging NI and income tax.
In other words:
(1) Parents would be better off (2) Unemployed parents would be able to enter the workforce without having ruinious tax rates - which would benefit the whole country, because we'd have more British people working (3) The burden would most largely on wealthy pensioners
But *if* it could reduce levels of economic activity, it would not just be morally good, it would largely pay for itself, and it would significantly reduce the demand for unskilled immigrant labour.
And there's the rub.
We have persuaded ourselves that tax rates should be low and thresholds should be high. In the face of it, those sound like good positions to take.
But one of the consequences of that is that we have to withdraw benefits far too quickly at the bottom end, because there doesn't seem to money to do anything else.
It was Blair who talked about ideas that sound good after thirty seconds can sound bad after three minutes, wasn't it?
On the subject of importing low skilled workers (as carers, etc.), I think that this board is missing the biggest problem.
Marginal tax rates - once benefit reductions are included - are often in the 70-80% range for the poorest. For an unemployed mother trying to get back to work, and currently receiving housing benefit, marginal tax rates can be well over 100%.
Brits aren't stupid: if you offer them the opportunity to work 20 hours a week in a care home, and to end up with less money than they started with... well, they will choose not to work.
If you want to reduce the dependence on the care industry on low skilled, low paid immigrants, then ensure that for people coming off unemployment, that they get to keep 80% of what they earn.
Oh gee that's a completely novel concept, completely missed it. Never knew that. That changes everything. 😉
You are one of the few people who gets it: and it's infuriating to me. Everyone is so focused on the symptoms of a broken tax and benefits system, and they are desperate to solve those, that they miss the underlying cause.
It's like trying to treat an alcoholic with repeated liver transplants.
I understand that there is a trap and that people behave rationally around it. I hate them for it a bit as I think working for a living is the right thing to do, but I get that others will disagree. But I have not yet seen a solution that’s fair to those in the trap at the same time as other people who don’t recieve the benefits but are low paid. Are they not unfairly penalised if the others get a boost to help them out?
The taper is the killer because to reduce the percentage of the taper you end up with more people receiving it at the fringes because suddenly people earning up to £35,000 or so start qualifying for a tiny bit of it.
I actually wonder if the only solution is to give children a £5000 or so tax allowance that can be given to the parents. if that was tapered away between £40,000 and £60,000 it might solve a lot of low paid issues. I suspect it would require putting a penny on income tax but it may solve a lot of the problems we see at the moment.
So you want to give people who have made a conscious decision to cost the tax payer more a tax break?
Sounds sensible given our now well below average fertility rate
Because you believe more people in the world is a good thing....its not
It certainly is in the West and Far East otherwise the young will have to pay ever higher taxes to support an ageing population and we will need even more immigrants to fill job roles leading and yet more far right backlash.
Africa could do with a few less babies maybe, the UK a few more
No they won't because now we have the assisted dying bill going through
Which reminds me Talking Pictures TV showed the BBC drama, with James Bolam in the lead role, about Harold Shipman, tonight.
On the subject of importing low skilled workers (as carers, etc.), I think that this board is missing the biggest problem.
Marginal tax rates - once benefit reductions are included - are often in the 70-80% range for the poorest. For an unemployed mother trying to get back to work, and currently receiving housing benefit, marginal tax rates can be well over 100%.
Brits aren't stupid: if you offer them the opportunity to work 20 hours a week in a care home, and to end up with less money than they started with... well, they will choose not to work.
If you want to reduce the dependence on the care industry on low skilled, low paid immigrants, then ensure that for people coming off unemployment, that they get to keep 80% of what they earn.
Oh gee that's a completely novel concept, completely missed it. Never knew that. That changes everything. 😉
You are one of the few people who gets it: and it's infuriating to me. Everyone is so focused on the symptoms of a broken tax and benefits system, and they are desperate to solve those, that they miss the underlying cause.
It's like trying to treat an alcoholic with repeated liver transplants.
I understand that there is a trap and that people behave rationally around it. I hate them for it a bit as I think working for a living is the right thing to do, but I get that others will disagree. But I have not yet seen a solution that’s fair to those in the trap at the same time as other people who don’t recieve the benefits but are low paid. Are they not unfairly penalised if the others get a boost to help them out?
The taper is the killer because to reduce the percentage of the taper you end up with more people receiving it at the fringes because suddenly people earning up to £35,000 or so start qualifying for a tiny bit of it.
I actually wonder if the only solution is to give children a £5000 or so tax allowance that can be given to the parents. if that was tapered away between £40,000 and £60,000 it might solve a lot of low paid issues. I suspect it would require putting a penny on income tax but it may solve a lot of the problems we see at the moment.
So you want to give people who have made a conscious decision to cost the tax payer more a tax break?
Sounds sensible given our now well below average fertility rate
Because you believe more people in the world is a good thing....its not
It certainly is in the West and Far East otherwise the young will have to pay ever higher taxes to support an ageing population and we will need even more immigrants to fill job roles leading and yet more far right backlash.
Africa could do with a few less babies maybe, the UK a few more
No they won't because now we have the assisted dying bill going through
Which only applies to those with a terminal illness and less than 6 months to live and who want it anyway, so little difference.
We continue to be ever more top heavy population wise and with an ever ageing population, indeed the median voter in the UK is now 50 and the median age 41 compared to a global median age of 30
I see you have had fun and games on here today, lots of racially charged posts about immigration (which is a shame and why I thought it best to keep off before I started effing and jeffing at some of the truly unpleasant posts) and @kamski got banned for insulting @Taz
Well the other day @Taz called me a sp@cker. Not a term I was familiar with but apparently it means I have cerebral palsy. Classy guy.
He got banned for calling Bart the ‘C’ word actually. Admin here take a strong line on that.
I said I had no problem with him calling me a ‘spacker’. Worse has been said here anyway.
I have a problem with you using that term to describe me. I was not aware of the word. We used a similarly derived (and equally vile) term when I was at school. I assumed the world had moved on. Apparently not.
Comments
No I'm not ruling out the latter just a little puzzled as to why the Tory party is getting in a tizz over this. Probably to do with internal party politics. Remember the scandal with Robert Halfon's SpAd?
I think you'd want to get this down to at most 50%, which is currently only 30% of lone parents and 40% of all claimants. The cost of doing so is eye-watering though - the change to the taper rate would catch lots more parents as a result.
(Worth remembering that this remains a relatively small issue - compared with other countries, our employment rate is pretty good. Those who aren't in work tend to be student, early retired, carers or sick).
He had a tie:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c87j03x9px2o
And you’re a prat to think people don’t take the ridiculous things off from time to time.
“Horrid little toerag”? Pfffft.
Don't you think Farage is already getting media attention and he would just love a slanging match
For the first time the panel on Trevor Philips this am all agreed Farage could actually be PM
https://x.com/donaldtusk/status/1921629800730382832
https://archive.is/20250507184856/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/05/07/labours-youngest-councillor-called-racist-taxis-cctv/
It should not be at all contentious, as it is already compulsory in eg London for Taxis and PHVs.
https://content.tfl.gov.uk/guidelines-for-cctv-in-taxis-and-phvs.pdf
And then the longer they are out of work, the harder it is to get them back into work.
Our tax and benefits system discourages people from working, and also encourages us to import low skilled labour. This seems like a deeply fucked up situation to be in.
Perhaps its the new man of the red wall vibe that someone has clearly advised. No doubt he was wearing Addidas skate shoes under the table.
The issue for Farage is analogous to that faced by the spider trying to climb out of a bowl. The steeper the climb gets, the harder it gets and the nearer the top the steeper the climb.
Farage and Reform can be anything you want them to be currently but if they are looking close to Government, they will have to start spelling out either whether they would support a minority Labour or Conservative Government or what they would do if they won a majority. Platitudes only get you so far - detailed policy pronouncements will be required.
For example, how would a Reform Government "stop the boats" ? What would a Reform Government do to create the conditions for economic growth? What about education, housing, health, welfare and other public services including social care - small things like that?
For all the criticism of Trump, it seems the likelihood of a truce has only come about since he became President. It didn’t seem like Putin would even consider it until the last few months.
Anyway, I think you’d be surprised by how many people outside of the politically engaged are completely uninterested in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, and wouldn’t complain if we were not involved at all
He needs to be taken on with plausible policies not shouty abuse much as you would like
As I understand it, every time they make enquiries, it turns out that there is a pile of fraud going on.
The plan seems to be to allow individual visa applications, direct to HMG.
Trump is pretty much universally despised and derided by the UK public imo; Russia is widely hated whilst Ukraine is greatly admired.
I agree with you about policies but apparently Tice answer this morning was a special minister for deportations !!
https://www.deutschland.de/sites/default/files/styles/image_carousel_mobile/public/media/image/news_10052025_merzukraine.jpg
Screaming “Death To The East”.
https://x.com/PolymarketIntel/status/1921669218526806187
Of whom I think you’re perhaps the sole representative ?
Where is the lack of habeus corpus and due process in that?
https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1921650914189775290
@Luckyguy1983? @williamglenn? @Taz?
If homes can't fill their vacancies it's either they are not paying enough, or they have poor conditions for their staff. Both are fixable by management without recourse to minimum wage migrants.
There's never a shortage of labour. Import people and the quantity of jobs needed goes up. Lose people and it goes down. It scales.
There might be a shortage of skilled labour, but this is unskilled work (as in it requires no qualifications and anyone can do it) so it's moot.
The individual detained has been charged and will face trial.
Tusk is hardly respecting the Polish equivalent of sub judice though.
I mean who even packs a tracksuit?
It ratters reminds me of the moment the EU realised that the Saffron being exported from
Spain (as Spanish grown) was several times greater than the amount of Saffron grown in Spain….
it making the country richer is not obvious to any one that is unthinkingly pro immigration, some immigration does, some doesn't and costs more in public services than they pay in tax
GDP is really a shit measure to argue because gdp often doesnt increase the general populations wealth
Can you explain your ‘habeas corpus’ reference ?
It appears completely meaningless.
He's saying it as it is, basically
Quite amusing, really.
The Head of Government (I assume that's what Tusk is) has announced that the suspect is guilty, and that his motive has been proven.
Habeas Corpus sprang to mind because of all the discussion on it recently. The need for a body has no direct bearing on this case, but I enjoyed adding it in.
No idea what on earth habeas corpus has got to do with it. Maybe keep that one tucked away for commentary on US or Russian treatment of detainees.
It's like trying to treat an alcoholic with repeated liver transplants.
https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/25154349.durham-reform-uk-benfieldside-councillor-andrew-kilburn-resigns/
Hint I think I've found a 50-60k saving for Durham County Council as Andrew clearly can't read simple bullet points...
I actually wonder if the only solution is to give children a £5000 or so tax allowance that can be given to the parents. if that was tapered away between £40,000 and £60,000 it might solve a lot of low paid issues. I suspect it would require putting a penny on income tax but it may solve a lot of the problems we see at the moment.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c722pn07w99o
At least not for a year or so. Then hiring two people on 30-40k to press forward and back on his powerpoint slides about taxpayer value.
Now, sure, it'd be expensive, but maybe you could combine it with reducing the personal allowance slightly, and merging NI and income tax.
In other words:
(1) Parents would be better off
(2) Unemployed parents would be able to enter the workforce without having ruinious tax rates - which would benefit the whole country, because we'd have more British people working
(3) The burden would most largely on wealthy pensioners
But *if* it could reduce levels of economic activity, it would not just be morally good, it would largely pay for itself, and it would significantly reduce the demand for unskilled immigrant labour.
Some immigration is a net benefit lets say come in
Arguing on aggregates is just you saying we should accept bad as well as good
Well the other day @Taz called me a sp@cker. Not a term I was familiar with but apparently it means I have cerebral palsy. Classy guy.
In legal systems which have sub judicial rules (not all do), there are mechanisms for dealing with such things. That for example might involve a judge telling the politician to desist - or instructing a jury to ignore such comments.
If suspect were to be denied the ability to have their lawyers object to prejudicial statements, then that would be a violation of dues process. There’s no indication of that here.
Due process is important, and it’s important that it should properly be understood, because without it you don’t have a legal system at all.
Kamski did not get banned for calling someone a spacker
1) the people receiving it are currently parents often with young children and broken relationships.
2) this fix would allow them to work 20-24 hours a week rather than 12 which would also fix a whole set of other long term issues as children of parents who don't work also end up following the same path because their expertise is in how to game the benefit system.
Africa could do with a few less babies maybe, the UK a few more
He got banned for calling Bart the ‘C’ word actually. Admin here take a strong line on that.
I said I had no problem with him calling me a ‘spacker’. Worse has been said here anyway.
Even if we are higher than the Germans still who are at 1.46
We have persuaded ourselves that tax rates should be low and thresholds should be high. In the face of it, those sound like good positions to take.
But one of the consequences of that is that we have to withdraw benefits far too quickly at the bottom end, because there doesn't seem to money to do anything else.
It was Blair who talked about ideas that sound good after thirty seconds can sound bad after three minutes, wasn't it?
We continue to be ever more top heavy population wise and with an ever ageing population, indeed the median voter in the UK is now 50 and the median age 41 compared to a global median age of 30