Yougov have Reform 28%, Labour 23%, Con 18%, Lib Dem 16%, Green 9%.
I’d love to see a Lib Dem / Tory crossover, even if only briefly. It’s within touching distance.
That’s LLG 48 RefCon 46, so a slight lead for the out of touch liberal woke elites.
It’s SPLORG 59 LabCon 41
The Lib Dems did, of course, finish ahead of the Tories in the recent local elections.
As far as national polling goes, there've been two polls to have the Lib Dems just one point behind the Tories: the previous YouGov (C 17, LD 16), and the most recent FON (C 16, LD 15).
The next GE is four years away, and no-one as a clue of course what it will be like. But at the moment all the parties and targets are moving. There are two 'finishing points' which would bring some clarity to the issues in the next election. One would be the decline and collapse of Reform and a return to an election in which the principle contests were Lab v Con and LD v Con with little overlap. Unlikely but not impossible.
The other neat contest with clarity would be LD v Reform. I don't think this is impossible either. Momentum is clearly building behind Reform being a main challenger. Lab and Con are truly tarnished. LDs, Lab and One Nationers getting behind the LDs would make sense.
I think the mistake is presuming we will get to a finishing point or clarity. It may be that the next general election is partway along that journey, resulting in a messy mix of Reform UK and the LibDems on the rise, the Conservatives collapsing, Labour somewhere in between, and other stuff going on. Something like the 1929 general election result, but messier. A result like the current polling. FPTP will completely break down.
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We've had an inflow of 17 million migrants since the year 2000. Are you saying that even with those 17 million we wouldn't have enough employees/workers without additional migration?
I'm not sure what your numbers refer to. The non UK born population in 2021 was 10 million, up from 5 million in 2001. That's an increase of 5 million, and includes British citizens born overseas (like two of my children).
The 17 million is how many people came in to the UK in total, but ~12 million of them left again. It's a misleading figure used to scare.
The failure of the USN to establish anything approaching air superiority over the Houthis is interesting. And should factor into the analysis of the usefulness of our own greatly inferior carriers.
Lots of interesting takeaways from this piece, but the winner has to be "multiple US officials" confirming the Houthis nearly shot down an F-35, the most advanced aircraft ever built... https://x.com/gbrew24/status/1922077099252208114
Serious question: do the houthis have an air force? If not, what is the point of a F35? Would a navalised A-10 suffice?
They have lots of shiny toys (missiles) donated by adversaries of the US. It's a proxy war.
EDIT: An A-10 puts you nicely in the heart of the coverage of just about every SAM system ever built. With next to no electronic warfare capability and a radar cross section of a barn. In the event of an opponent who can shoot back, your life expectancy in one of those is measured in seconds.
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We can invest in automation to cut out unnecessary jobs and boost productivity.
If we can't afford to raise wages, then maybe the job is not productive enough and it doesn't need to be done.
That's easy to say when it's not your elderly relative lying in their own shit all day because there are no carers.
An interesting question would be at what pay rate would the middle class professionals on this board be happy to do care work? At what pay rate might they recommend it to their kids as a potential career?
And how can we raise the difference in that and current near NMW pay from taxation, insurance or private funding?
Here's the thing, with cleaning and particularly nursery work you can sort of see a link between the wages and what is paid. With care that link seems totally out of whack, the bills are universally enormous whilst the wages are appalling
Similar question. Why aren't the middle class professionals and entrepreneurs with access to capital on pb opening care home chains if the margins are so easy?
In reality a lot of care homes are struggling and closing.
The trouble with running a care home is the round the clock nature of it. 1 minimum wage employee for 24 hours is almost £300 in straight wages, plus NI, pensions, holidays etc.
£6.5k/month for a resident sounds like a lot of cash, but it's only about £216/day.
Take £50 of that as the "hotel" cost of the room, bedding, cleaning (that's Travellodge off peak sort of price), put £30 in for meals (£10ea), you have £136 left for caring labour and associated costs.
That £136 is around the true cost of 8hrs labour at minimum wage, so if you're averaging a inmate:staff ratio of less than 3:1 over 24hrs you're in the red.
If any of you have worked for a PE company that has underlying property assets, you'll find that the property is either hived off or 'securitised'. The drive is therefore cash to pay debts plus securitisation so if the Directors (sometimes original founders / sometimes MBI) can't cover the cash requirements the business folds. See also GP practices and Vets.
Nowt wrong with the approach and all perfectly legal but it does pit rather aggressive business types against Local Authorities who have to find the cash. It's an indirect way of milking the system (or watering if you've bought a water utility)
It's a choice the country made a while ago to privatise everything and has developed since then. Question for the young who will be carrying the tax burden of this wave of 'asset sweating' is do they want to continue to pay.
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We've had an inflow of 17 million migrants since the year 2000. Are you saying that even with those 17 million we wouldn't have enough employees/workers without additional migration?
I'm not sure what your numbers refer to. The non UK born population in 2021 was 10 million, up from 5 million in 2001. That's an increase of 5 million, and includes British citizens born overseas (like two of my children).
The 17 million is how many people came in to the UK in total, but ~12 million of them left again. It's a misleading figure used to scare.
Considering ~7-8 million have emigrated from the UK since 2000, where are you getting the data that ~12 million of those who immigrated have left again from?
If they were here long enough to be in the immigration figure, and have left, they should also be in the emigration figure and your claim massively exceeds that total emigration figure.
The failure of the USN to establish anything approaching air superiority over the Houthis is interesting. And should factor into the analysis of the usefulness of our own greatly inferior carriers.
Lots of interesting takeaways from this piece, but the winner has to be "multiple US officials" confirming the Houthis nearly shot down an F-35, the most advanced aircraft ever built... https://x.com/gbrew24/status/1922077099252208114
Serious question: do the houthis have an air force? If not, what is the point of a F35? Would a navalised A-10 suffice?
They have lots of shiny toys (missiles) donated by adversaries of the US. It's a proxy war.
EDIT: An A-10 puts you nicely in the heart of the coverage of just about every SAM system ever built. With next to no electronic warfare capability and a radar cross section of a barn. In the event of an opponent who can shoot back, your life expectancy in one of those is measured in seconds.
“According to figures produced by the OBR, the average “low-wage migrant worker” will cost the British taxpayer £465,000 by the time they reach 81 years of age. According to analysis conducted by Karl Williams, from the Centre for Policy Studies, just 5 percent of all visas in 2022-23 were given to high-skilled migrants who are likely to be net contributors - fully 72 percent of skilled work visas went to migrants likely to be earning less than the average UK salary”
If you read that quickly, you think 3/4 of immigrants will cost us half a million each. But the article is pulling a fast one. In the 1st sentence, it references an OBR analysis on the “low-wage migrant worker”, but the 2nd sentence's 72% refers to those “likely to be earning less than the average UK salary”. These are not the same.
The OBR figure is for someone on 50% less than UK average. But lots of people will be earning less than average, but more than 50% less. Indeed, the Telegraph article linked to has 54% as being around the OBR low-wage category, not 72%. The 72% is the 54% plus a group higher than low-wage but below average.
But 54% is still high. How do we get that figure? That comes from the Centre for Policy Studies, a report co-written by Rob Jenrick, a 2nd Tory MP + Williams. It looks more partisan with all the authors!
The CPS report is clear they don’t have robust data. They criticise govt for not collecting such data. Instead, they look at people on skilled worker visas by category of occupation and then look at median earnings of people (immigrant or not) in those occupation categories. This is a brave attempt at doing something, but has huge uncertainties, as is acknowledged. They conclude: “54% of visas were issued for occupations in which the median salary was below the £25,600 threshold”
A flaw is the CPS analysis doesn’t adjust for age. People earn more as they age. Immigrants are younger. You shouldn't compare their salaries to median salaries, you should compare them to age-adjusted median salaries. A group of native 25 year olds will also be earning below the median sectoral salary.
It's worse because the majority of those who came here under that low wage scheme are actually dependents who are also eligible for ILR/Citizenship, so we have one worker on the minimum wage and a lifetime of liabilities for up to 3 or 4 people including dependents.
Labour absolutely must extend ILR retrospectively to 10 years and raise the bar to a much higher threshold for visa renewals so all of those who came in the Boriswave have to return to their home country. Also tighten the asylum laws so that none are eligible to claim asylum after their visa renewals are rejected.
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We've had an inflow of 17 million migrants since the year 2000. Are you saying that even with those 17 million we wouldn't have enough employees/workers without additional migration?
I'm not sure what your numbers refer to. The non UK born population in 2021 was 10 million, up from 5 million in 2001. That's an increase of 5 million, and includes British citizens born overseas (like two of my children).
The 17 million is how many people came in to the UK in total, but ~12 million of them left again. It's a misleading figure used to scare.
Considering ~7-8 million have emigrated from the UK since 2000, where are you getting the data that ~12 million of those who immigrated have left again from?
If they were here long enough to be in the immigration figure, and have left, they should also be in the emigration figure and your claim massively exceeds that total emigration figure.
I was just going off the figures in the thread so far. "The non UK born population in 2021 was 10 million, up from 5 million in 2001." That implies the non-UK born population has increased by 5 million. If 17 million immigrants have come in, then we need to account for 17-5 million, which is 12 million.
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We can invest in automation to cut out unnecessary jobs and boost productivity.
If we can't afford to raise wages, then maybe the job is not productive enough and it doesn't need to be done.
That's easy to say when it's not your elderly relative lying in their own shit all day because there are no carers.
An interesting question would be at what pay rate would the middle class professionals on this board be happy to do care work? At what pay rate might they recommend it to their kids as a potential career?
And how can we raise the difference in that and current near NMW pay from taxation, insurance or private funding?
Here's the thing, with cleaning and particularly nursery work you can sort of see a link between the wages and what is paid. With care that link seems totally out of whack, the bills are universally enormous whilst the wages are appalling
Care home at £4500 per month is £150 per night. For an en suite hotel room with accessible bathroom, three meals a day, 24 hour carers and nurses either 24 hour or on call.
It's a lot of money, but it's not expensive.
Bathrooms are typically communal, not en- suite.
Not any more. They are increasingly wet rooms and mainly en-suite. I think it’s even written into the gen4 regulations
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We've had an inflow of 17 million migrants since the year 2000. Are you saying that even with those 17 million we wouldn't have enough employees/workers without additional migration?
I'm not sure what your numbers refer to. The non UK born population in 2021 was 10 million, up from 5 million in 2001. That's an increase of 5 million, and includes British citizens born overseas (like two of my children).
The 17 million is how many people came in to the UK in total, but ~12 million of them left again. It's a misleading figure used to scare.
Considering ~7-8 million have emigrated from the UK since 2000, where are you getting the data that ~12 million of those who immigrated have left again from?
If they were here long enough to be in the immigration figure, and have left, they should also be in the emigration figure and your claim massively exceeds that total emigration figure.
I was just going off the figures in the thread so far. "The non UK born population in 2021 was 10 million, up from 5 million in 2001." That implies the non-UK born population has increased by 5 million. If 17 million immigrants have come in, then we need to account for 17-5 million, which is 12 million.
Not quite.
It's perfectly possible to be UK born and be recorded as immigrating, if spent more than a year abroad. Indeed I have twice, and also been recorded as emigrating twice.l
Then of course there's those born abroad who died here.
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We can invest in automation to cut out unnecessary jobs and boost productivity.
If we can't afford to raise wages, then maybe the job is not productive enough and it doesn't need to be done.
That's easy to say when it's not your elderly relative lying in their own shit all day because there are no carers.
An interesting question would be at what pay rate would the middle class professionals on this board be happy to do care work? At what pay rate might they recommend it to their kids as a potential career?
And how can we raise the difference in that and current near NMW pay from taxation, insurance or private funding?
Here's the thing, with cleaning and particularly nursery work you can sort of see a link between the wages and what is paid. With care that link seems totally out of whack, the bills are universally enormous whilst the wages are appalling
Similar question. Why aren't the middle class professionals and entrepreneurs with access to capital on pb opening care home chains if the margins are so easy?
In reality a lot of care homes are struggling and closing.
The trouble with running a care home is the round the clock nature of it. 1 minimum wage employee for 24 hours is almost £300 in straight wages, plus NI, pensions, holidays etc.
£6.5k/month for a resident sounds like a lot of cash, but it's only about £216/day.
Take £50 of that as the "hotel" cost of the room, bedding, cleaning (that's Travellodge off peak sort of price), put £30 in for meals (£10ea), you have £136 left for caring labour and associated costs.
That £136 is around the true cost of 8hrs labour at minimum wage, so if you're averaging a inmate:staff ratio of less than 3:1 over 24hrs you're in the red.
If any of you have worked for a PE company that has underlying property assets, you'll find that the property is either hived off or 'securitised'. The drive is therefore cash to pay debts plus securitisation so if the Directors (sometimes original founders / sometimes MBI) can't cover the cash requirements the business folds. See also GP practices and Vets.
Nowt wrong with the approach and all perfectly legal but it does pit rather aggressive business types against Local Authorities who have to find the cash. It's an indirect way of milking the system (or watering if you've bought a water utility)
It's a choice the country made a while ago to privatise everything and has developed since then. Question for the young who will be carrying the tax burden of this wave of 'asset sweating' is do they want to continue to pay.
Councils would do well to consider taking services back in-house.
Yes, there will be initial capital costs, and staff costs will be higher than the private sector (which is not necessarily a bad thing here providing managers can also manage and recruit freely). However, without having to pay the profits of others - including servicing debts as noted above - it may be cheaper. Even if not, there's more control over access, management and conditions which may be worth the difference both in terms of service and in avoiding legal arguments.
“According to figures produced by the OBR, the average “low-wage migrant worker” will cost the British taxpayer £465,000 by the time they reach 81 years of age. According to analysis conducted by Karl Williams, from the Centre for Policy Studies, just 5 percent of all visas in 2022-23 were given to high-skilled migrants who are likely to be net contributors - fully 72 percent of skilled work visas went to migrants likely to be earning less than the average UK salary”
If you read that quickly, you think 3/4 of immigrants will cost us half a million each. But the article is pulling a fast one. In the 1st sentence, it references an OBR analysis on the “low-wage migrant worker”, but the 2nd sentence's 72% refers to those “likely to be earning less than the average UK salary”. These are not the same.
The OBR figure is for someone on 50% less than UK average. But lots of people will be earning less than average, but more than 50% less. Indeed, the Telegraph article linked to has 54% as being around the OBR low-wage category, not 72%. The 72% is the 54% plus a group higher than low-wage but below average.
But 54% is still high. How do we get that figure? That comes from the Centre for Policy Studies, a report co-written by Rob Jenrick, a 2nd Tory MP + Williams. It looks more partisan with all the authors!
The CPS report is clear they don’t have robust data. They criticise govt for not collecting such data. Instead, they look at people on skilled worker visas by category of occupation and then look at median earnings of people (immigrant or not) in those occupation categories. This is a brave attempt at doing something, but has huge uncertainties, as is acknowledged. They conclude: “54% of visas were issued for occupations in which the median salary was below the £25,600 threshold”
A flaw is the CPS analysis doesn’t adjust for age. People earn more as they age. Immigrants are younger. You shouldn't compare their salaries to median salaries, you should compare them to age-adjusted median salaries. A group of native 25 year olds will also be earning below the median sectoral salary.
It's worse because the majority of those who came here under that low wage scheme are actually dependents who are also eligible for ILR/Citizenship, so we have one worker on the minimum wage and a lifetime of liabilities for up to 3 or 4 people including dependents.
Labour absolutely must extend ILR retrospectively to 10 years and raise the bar to a much higher threshold for visa renewals so all of those who came in the Boriswave have to return to their home country. Also tighten the asylum laws so that none are eligible to claim asylum after their visa renewals are rejected.
But those dependents, if they are children, mean we don't need immigrants in the future, right? They are as likely to make a lifetime contribution (or not) as anyone else. If PB immigrants are anything to go by, it could be a huge contribution.
It would be preferable to boost our fertility rate back up to 2.1 but absolutely no one has a clue how to do that. It's probably a social phenomenon in the main, so I'll probably die alone and disabled in a decrepit Highland croft for want of any young people in the 2080s/90s.
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We can invest in automation to cut out unnecessary jobs and boost productivity.
If we can't afford to raise wages, then maybe the job is not productive enough and it doesn't need to be done.
That's easy to say when it's not your elderly relative lying in their own shit all day because there are no carers.
An interesting question would be at what pay rate would the middle class professionals on this board be happy to do care work? At what pay rate might they recommend it to their kids as a potential career?
And how can we raise the difference in that and current near NMW pay from taxation, insurance or private funding?
Here's the thing, with cleaning and particularly nursery work you can sort of see a link between the wages and what is paid. With care that link seems totally out of whack, the bills are universally enormous whilst the wages are appalling
Similar question. Why aren't the middle class professionals and entrepreneurs with access to capital on pb opening care home chains if the margins are so easy?
In reality a lot of care homes are struggling and closing.
The trouble with running a care home is the round the clock nature of it. 1 minimum wage employee for 24 hours is almost £300 in straight wages, plus NI, pensions, holidays etc.
£6.5k/month for a resident sounds like a lot of cash, but it's only about £216/day.
Take £50 of that as the "hotel" cost of the room, bedding, cleaning (that's Travellodge off peak sort of price), put £30 in for meals (£10ea), you have £136 left for caring labour and associated costs.
That £136 is around the true cost of 8hrs labour at minimum wage, so if you're averaging a inmate:staff ratio of less than 3:1 over 24hrs you're in the red.
If any of you have worked for a PE company that has underlying property assets, you'll find that the property is either hived off or 'securitised'. The drive is therefore cash to pay debts plus securitisation so if the Directors (sometimes original founders / sometimes MBI) can't cover the cash requirements the business folds. See also GP practices and Vets.
Nowt wrong with the approach and all perfectly legal but it does pit rather aggressive business types against Local Authorities who have to find the cash. It's an indirect way of milking the system (or watering if you've bought a water utility)
It's a choice the country made a while ago to privatise everything and has developed since then. Question for the young who will be carrying the tax burden of this wave of 'asset sweating' is do they want to continue to pay.
Councils would do well to consider taking services back in-house.
Yes, there will be initial capital costs, and staff costs will be higher than the private sector (which is not necessarily a bad thing here providing managers can also manage and recruit freely). However, without having to pay the profits of others - including servicing debts as noted above - it may be cheaper. Even if not, there's more control over access, management and conditions which may be worth the difference both in terms of service and in avoiding legal arguments.
PE funds love to exit after 3-5 years and would be willing sellers. It's just the price you have to pay to get it back. See Thames Water / Rail / Utilities. They have gone and we have spent the money.
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We can invest in automation to cut out unnecessary jobs and boost productivity.
If we can't afford to raise wages, then maybe the job is not productive enough and it doesn't need to be done.
That's easy to say when it's not your elderly relative lying in their own shit all day because there are no carers.
An interesting question would be at what pay rate would the middle class professionals on this board be happy to do care work? At what pay rate might they recommend it to their kids as a potential career?
And how can we raise the difference in that and current near NMW pay from taxation, insurance or private funding?
Here's the thing, with cleaning and particularly nursery work you can sort of see a link between the wages and what is paid. With care that link seems totally out of whack, the bills are universally enormous whilst the wages are appalling
Similar question. Why aren't the middle class professionals and entrepreneurs with access to capital on pb opening care home chains if the margins are so easy?
In reality a lot of care homes are struggling and closing.
The trouble with running a care home is the round the clock nature of it. 1 minimum wage employee for 24 hours is almost £300 in straight wages, plus NI, pensions, holidays etc.
£6.5k/month for a resident sounds like a lot of cash, but it's only about £216/day.
Take £50 of that as the "hotel" cost of the room, bedding, cleaning (that's Travellodge off peak sort of price), put £30 in for meals (£10ea), you have £136 left for caring labour and associated costs.
That £136 is around the true cost of 8hrs labour at minimum wage, so if you're averaging a inmate:staff ratio of less than 3:1 over 24hrs you're in the red.
If any of you have worked for a PE company that has underlying property assets, you'll find that the property is either hived off or 'securitised'. The drive is therefore cash to pay debts plus securitisation so if the Directors (sometimes original founders / sometimes MBI) can't cover the cash requirements the business folds. See also GP practices and Vets.
Nowt wrong with the approach and all perfectly legal but it does pit rather aggressive business types against Local Authorities who have to find the cash. It's an indirect way of milking the system (or watering if you've bought a water utility)
It's a choice the country made a while ago to privatise everything and has developed since then. Question for the young who will be carrying the tax burden of this wave of 'asset sweating' is do they want to continue to pay.
Councils would do well to consider taking services back in-house.
Yes, there will be initial capital costs, and staff costs will be higher than the private sector (which is not necessarily a bad thing here providing managers can also manage and recruit freely). However, without having to pay the profits of others - including servicing debts as noted above - it may be cheaper. Even if not, there's more control over access, management and conditions which may be worth the difference both in terms of service and in avoiding legal arguments.
My NHS Trust recently bought a 100 bed Nursing Home to help with our discharges. The business case made sense even with our deficit.
“According to figures produced by the OBR, the average “low-wage migrant worker” will cost the British taxpayer £465,000 by the time they reach 81 years of age. According to analysis conducted by Karl Williams, from the Centre for Policy Studies, just 5 percent of all visas in 2022-23 were given to high-skilled migrants who are likely to be net contributors - fully 72 percent of skilled work visas went to migrants likely to be earning less than the average UK salary”
If you read that quickly, you think 3/4 of immigrants will cost us half a million each. But the article is pulling a fast one. In the 1st sentence, it references an OBR analysis on the “low-wage migrant worker”, but the 2nd sentence's 72% refers to those “likely to be earning less than the average UK salary”. These are not the same.
The OBR figure is for someone on 50% less than UK average. But lots of people will be earning less than average, but more than 50% less. Indeed, the Telegraph article linked to has 54% as being around the OBR low-wage category, not 72%. The 72% is the 54% plus a group higher than low-wage but below average.
But 54% is still high. How do we get that figure? That comes from the Centre for Policy Studies, a report co-written by Rob Jenrick, a 2nd Tory MP + Williams. It looks more partisan with all the authors!
The CPS report is clear they don’t have robust data. They criticise govt for not collecting such data. Instead, they look at people on skilled worker visas by category of occupation and then look at median earnings of people (immigrant or not) in those occupation categories. This is a brave attempt at doing something, but has huge uncertainties, as is acknowledged. They conclude: “54% of visas were issued for occupations in which the median salary was below the £25,600 threshold”
A flaw is the CPS analysis doesn’t adjust for age. People earn more as they age. Immigrants are younger. You shouldn't compare their salaries to median salaries, you should compare them to age-adjusted median salaries. A group of native 25 year olds will also be earning below the median sectoral salary.
It's worse because the majority of those who came here under that low wage scheme are actually dependents who are also eligible for ILR/Citizenship, so we have one worker on the minimum wage and a lifetime of liabilities for up to 3 or 4 people including dependents.
Labour absolutely must extend ILR retrospectively to 10 years and raise the bar to a much higher threshold for visa renewals so all of those who came in the Boriswave have to return to their home country. Also tighten the asylum laws so that none are eligible to claim asylum after their visa renewals are rejected.
But those dependents, if they are children, mean we don't need immigrants in the future, right? They are as likely to make a lifetime contribution (or not) as anyone else. If PB immigrants are anything to go by, it could be a huge contribution.
It would be preferable to boost our fertility rate back up to 2.1 but absolutely no one has a clue how to do that. It's probably a social phenomenon in the main, so I'll probably die alone and disabled in a decrepit Highland croft for want of any young people in the 2080s/90s.
More tax deductions and subsidies for mothers would help.
More religion too, generally the more religious the parents, the more children they have
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We've had an inflow of 17 million migrants since the year 2000. Are you saying that even with those 17 million we wouldn't have enough employees/workers without additional migration?
I'm not sure what your numbers refer to. The non UK born population in 2021 was 10 million, up from 5 million in 2001. That's an increase of 5 million, and includes British citizens born overseas (like two of my children).
The 17 million is how many people came in to the UK in total, but ~12 million of them left again. It's a misleading figure used to scare.
Considering ~7-8 million have emigrated from the UK since 2000, where are you getting the data that ~12 million of those who immigrated have left again from?
If they were here long enough to be in the immigration figure, and have left, they should also be in the emigration figure and your claim massively exceeds that total emigration figure.
I was just going off the figures in the thread so far. "The non UK born population in 2021 was 10 million, up from 5 million in 2001." That implies the non-UK born population has increased by 5 million. If 17 million immigrants have come in, then we need to account for 17-5 million, which is 12 million.
Right, so that doesn't work and was illegitimate since you are comparing apples and oranges. Non UK born people could have died, or immigrated and emigrated into the UK, or even immigrated, emigrated and re-immigrated again (so would be counted as 2 immigration and 1 emigration).
Many of the original 5 million could have died or emigrated.
The like-for-like comparison with the 17 million immigration figure is the 7 million emigrated. That's based on the same measurement, which yours was not.
If you accept that Starmer is correct that mass immigration is making us an island of strangers, it is very difficult to argue Enoch Powell was mistaken in predicting we would end up feeling like strangers in our own country. Res ipsa loquitur and I am staggered that Starmer used that particular phrase.
The failure of the USN to establish anything approaching air superiority over the Houthis is interesting. And should factor into the analysis of the usefulness of our own greatly inferior carriers.
Lots of interesting takeaways from this piece, but the winner has to be "multiple US officials" confirming the Houthis nearly shot down an F-35, the most advanced aircraft ever built... https://x.com/gbrew24/status/1922077099252208114
Serious question: do the houthis have an air force? If not, what is the point of a F35? Would a navalised A-10 suffice?
They have lots of shiny toys (missiles) donated by adversaries of the US. It's a proxy war.
EDIT: An A-10 puts you nicely in the heart of the coverage of just about every SAM system ever built. With next to no electronic warfare capability and a radar cross section of a barn. In the event of an opponent who can shoot back, your life expectancy in one of those is measured in seconds.
I've come to the conclusion that fighter jets are the 21st century equivalent of post-WW2 battleships.
They're hugely expensive per unit and so vulnerable to far cheaper and accessible technology that they're no longer usable in their primary design role other than against greatly inferior enemies. They can still perform useful secondary duties as ordnance platforms but then so can other, cheaper, options.
Yougov have Reform 28%, Labour 23%, Con 18%, Lib Dem 16%, Green 9%.
I’d love to see a Lib Dem / Tory crossover, even if only briefly. It’s within touching distance.
That’s LLG 48 RefCon 46, so a slight lead for the out of touch liberal woke elites.
It’s SPLORG 59 LabCon 41
The Lib Dems did, of course, finish ahead of the Tories in the recent local elections.
As far as national polling goes, there've been two polls to have the Lib Dems just one point behind the Tories: the previous YouGov (C 17, LD 16), and the most recent FON (C 16, LD 15).
Of course the closer the Tory vote gets to the LD vote the more likely Farage becomes PM with a Reform overall majority under FPTP, as it would signal ever more direct Tory switching to Reform.
So be careful what you wish for!
I made the comment above in purely neutral terms. That said, I'm not sure I entirely agree with your assessment. The main factor would be whether it's the Tory vote declining or the LD share going up that would impact the number of Reform seats that would result - and of course the Reform share is not an independent variable, nor one guaranteed to stay at 25%+.
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We've had an inflow of 17 million migrants since the year 2000. Are you saying that even with those 17 million we wouldn't have enough employees/workers without additional migration?
I'm not sure what your numbers refer to. The non UK born population in 2021 was 10 million, up from 5 million in 2001. That's an increase of 5 million, and includes British citizens born overseas (like two of my children).
The 17 million is how many people came in to the UK in total, but ~12 million of them left again. It's a misleading figure used to scare.
Considering ~7-8 million have emigrated from the UK since 2000, where are you getting the data that ~12 million of those who immigrated have left again from?
If they were here long enough to be in the immigration figure, and have left, they should also be in the emigration figure and your claim massively exceeds that total emigration figure.
I was just going off the figures in the thread so far. "The non UK born population in 2021 was 10 million, up from 5 million in 2001." That implies the non-UK born population has increased by 5 million. If 17 million immigrants have come in, then we need to account for 17-5 million, which is 12 million.
Right, so that doesn't work and was illegitimate since you are comparing apples and oranges. Non UK born people could have died, or immigrated and emigrated into the UK, or even immigrated, emigrated and re-immigrated again (so would be counted as 2 immigration and 1 emigration).
Many of the original 5 million could have died or emigrated.
The like-for-like comparison with the 17 million immigration figure is the 7 million emigrated. That's based on the same measurement, which yours was not.
OK.
Can we agree that the 17 million figure is misleading, whereas the most useful figure is that the non-UK-born population is up 5 million?
The failure of the USN to establish anything approaching air superiority over the Houthis is interesting. And should factor into the analysis of the usefulness of our own greatly inferior carriers.
Lots of interesting takeaways from this piece, but the winner has to be "multiple US officials" confirming the Houthis nearly shot down an F-35, the most advanced aircraft ever built... https://x.com/gbrew24/status/1922077099252208114
Serious question: do the houthis have an air force? If not, what is the point of a F35? Would a navalised A-10 suffice?
They have lots of shiny toys (missiles) donated by adversaries of the US. It's a proxy war.
EDIT: An A-10 puts you nicely in the heart of the coverage of just about every SAM system ever built. With next to no electronic warfare capability and a radar cross section of a barn. In the event of an opponent who can shoot back, your life expectancy in one of those is measured in seconds.
I've come to the conclusion that fighter jets are the 21st century equivalent of post-WW2 battleships.
They're hugely expensive per unit and so vulnerable to far cheaper and accessible technology that they're no longer usable in their primary design role other than against greatly inferior enemies. They can still perform useful secondary duties as ordnance platforms but then so can other, cheaper, options.
I'm doubtful that it's worth ordering any more.
You should ask the Ukrainians about that conclusion.
If you accept that Starmer is correct that mass immigration is making us an island of strangers, it is very difficult to argue Enoch Powell was mistaken in predicting we would end up feeling like strangers in our own country. Res ipsa loquitur and I am staggered that Starmer used that particular phrase.
My guess would be that neither Starmer nor his speech-writing team know much of the Rivers of Blood speech and not just couldn't be bothered to check but would not have even entertained the possibility that he might be echoing the same thoughts in the same language.
The failure of the USN to establish anything approaching air superiority over the Houthis is interesting. And should factor into the analysis of the usefulness of our own greatly inferior carriers.
Lots of interesting takeaways from this piece, but the winner has to be "multiple US officials" confirming the Houthis nearly shot down an F-35, the most advanced aircraft ever built... https://x.com/gbrew24/status/1922077099252208114
Serious question: do the houthis have an air force? If not, what is the point of a F35? Would a navalised A-10 suffice?
They have lots of shiny toys (missiles) donated by adversaries of the US. It's a proxy war.
EDIT: An A-10 puts you nicely in the heart of the coverage of just about every SAM system ever built. With next to no electronic warfare capability and a radar cross section of a barn. In the event of an opponent who can shoot back, your life expectancy in one of those is measured in seconds.
I've come to the conclusion that fighter jets are the 21st century equivalent of post-WW2 battleships.
They're hugely expensive per unit and so vulnerable to far cheaper and accessible technology that they're no longer usable in their primary design role other than against greatly inferior enemies. They can still perform useful secondary duties as ordnance platforms but then so can other, cheaper, options.
I'm doubtful that it's worth ordering any more.
You should ask the Ukrainians about that conclusion.
The Ukraine War is a meaningful part of that conclusion. How have the Russian fighters got on?
Like I say, the aircraft aren't useless and can perform a role launching missiles from several miles up, giving them a considerably greater range. However, making a small bomber out of a £150m jet (as the F35 is) doesn't seem like the best use of the money.
If you accept that Starmer is correct that mass immigration is making us an island of strangers, it is very difficult to argue Enoch Powell was mistaken in predicting we would end up feeling like strangers in our own country. Res ipsa loquitur and I am staggered that Starmer used that particular phrase.
Maybe banking on the fact everyone only remembers a single line from Powell's speech. Or, if they remember two, the second is the "whip hand" one.
The failure of the USN to establish anything approaching air superiority over the Houthis is interesting. And should factor into the analysis of the usefulness of our own greatly inferior carriers.
Lots of interesting takeaways from this piece, but the winner has to be "multiple US officials" confirming the Houthis nearly shot down an F-35, the most advanced aircraft ever built... https://x.com/gbrew24/status/1922077099252208114
Serious question: do the houthis have an air force? If not, what is the point of a F35? Would a navalised A-10 suffice?
They have lots of shiny toys (missiles) donated by adversaries of the US. It's a proxy war.
EDIT: An A-10 puts you nicely in the heart of the coverage of just about every SAM system ever built. With next to no electronic warfare capability and a radar cross section of a barn. In the event of an opponent who can shoot back, your life expectancy in one of those is measured in seconds.
I've come to the conclusion that fighter jets are the 21st century equivalent of post-WW2 battleships.
They're hugely expensive per unit and so vulnerable to far cheaper and accessible technology that they're no longer usable in their primary design role other than against greatly inferior enemies. They can still perform useful secondary duties as ordnance platforms but then so can other, cheaper, options.
I'm doubtful that it's worth ordering any more.
Indeed. For ground attack their role can be replaced by artillery, surface to surface missiles, large drones or small drone swarms.
The failure of the USN to establish anything approaching air superiority over the Houthis is interesting. And should factor into the analysis of the usefulness of our own greatly inferior carriers.
Lots of interesting takeaways from this piece, but the winner has to be "multiple US officials" confirming the Houthis nearly shot down an F-35, the most advanced aircraft ever built... https://x.com/gbrew24/status/1922077099252208114
Serious question: do the houthis have an air force? If not, what is the point of a F35? Would a navalised A-10 suffice?
They have lots of shiny toys (missiles) donated by adversaries of the US. It's a proxy war.
EDIT: An A-10 puts you nicely in the heart of the coverage of just about every SAM system ever built. With next to no electronic warfare capability and a radar cross section of a barn. In the event of an opponent who can shoot back, your life expectancy in one of those is measured in seconds.
I've come to the conclusion that fighter jets are the 21st century equivalent of post-WW2 battleships.
They're hugely expensive per unit and so vulnerable to far cheaper and accessible technology that they're no longer usable in their primary design role other than against greatly inferior enemies. They can still perform useful secondary duties as ordnance platforms but then so can other, cheaper, options.
I'm doubtful that it's worth ordering any more.
You should ask the Ukrainians about that conclusion.
Doesn't it confirm it?
The Russians fire their glide bombs from a safe distance outside Ukraninian SAM range.
The bloody nose the Pakistan missiles gave the Indian Airforce again confirms why.
If you accept that Starmer is correct that mass immigration is making us an island of strangers, it is very difficult to argue Enoch Powell was mistaken in predicting we would end up feeling like strangers in our own country. Res ipsa loquitur and I am staggered that Starmer used that particular phrase.
My guess would be that neither Starmer nor his speech-writing team know much of the Rivers of Blood speech and not just couldn't be bothered to check but would not have even entertained the possibility that he might be echoing the same thoughts in the same language.
It's one of the most (in?)famous speeches in British political history ! Although May's "Citizens of nowhere" had even more noteworthy echoes tbh.
The failure of the USN to establish anything approaching air superiority over the Houthis is interesting. And should factor into the analysis of the usefulness of our own greatly inferior carriers.
Lots of interesting takeaways from this piece, but the winner has to be "multiple US officials" confirming the Houthis nearly shot down an F-35, the most advanced aircraft ever built... https://x.com/gbrew24/status/1922077099252208114
And 3 jets have "fallen overboard" whilst the carrier was taking evasive manouevres.
Whether any of these were actually shot down will depend on whether the regime needs to keep Hegseth in place, regardless of his uselessness.
Have you just made this shit up?
One was a blue-on-blue by the Gettysburg. The second fell off a deck elevator while they were doing fuck knows what. The last was an arrestor failure.
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We can invest in automation to cut out unnecessary jobs and boost productivity.
If we can't afford to raise wages, then maybe the job is not productive enough and it doesn't need to be done.
That's easy to say when it's not your elderly relative lying in their own shit all day because there are no carers.
An interesting question would be at what pay rate would the middle class professionals on this board be happy to do care work? At what pay rate might they recommend it to their kids as a potential career?
And how can we raise the difference in that and current near NMW pay from taxation, insurance or private funding?
Here's the thing, with cleaning and particularly nursery work you can sort of see a link between the wages and what is paid. With care that link seems totally out of whack, the bills are universally enormous whilst the wages are appalling
Similar question. Why aren't the middle class professionals and entrepreneurs with access to capital on pb opening care home chains if the margins are so easy?
In reality a lot of care homes are struggling and closing.
The trouble with running a care home is the round the clock nature of it. 1 minimum wage employee for 24 hours is almost £300 in straight wages, plus NI, pensions, holidays etc.
£6.5k/month for a resident sounds like a lot of cash, but it's only about £216/day.
Take £50 of that as the "hotel" cost of the room, bedding, cleaning (that's Travellodge off peak sort of price), put £30 in for meals (£10ea), you have £136 left for caring labour and associated costs.
That £136 is around the true cost of 8hrs labour at minimum wage, so if you're averaging a inmate:staff ratio of less than 3:1 over 24hrs you're in the red.
If any of you have worked for a PE company that has underlying property assets, you'll find that the property is either hived off or 'securitised'. The drive is therefore cash to pay debts plus securitisation so if the Directors (sometimes original founders / sometimes MBI) can't cover the cash requirements the business folds. See also GP practices and Vets.
Nowt wrong with the approach and all perfectly legal but it does pit rather aggressive business types against Local Authorities who have to find the cash. It's an indirect way of milking the system (or watering if you've bought a water utility)
It's a choice the country made a while ago to privatise everything and has developed since then. Question for the young who will be carrying the tax burden of this wave of 'asset sweating' is do they want to continue to pay.
Councils would do well to consider taking services back in-house.
Yes, there will be initial capital costs, and staff costs will be higher than the private sector (which is not necessarily a bad thing here providing managers can also manage and recruit freely). However, without having to pay the profits of others - including servicing debts as noted above - it may be cheaper. Even if not, there's more control over access, management and conditions which may be worth the difference both in terms of service and in avoiding legal arguments.
PE funds love to exit after 3-5 years and would be willing sellers. It's just the price you have to pay to get it back. See Thames Water / Rail / Utilities. They have gone and we have spent the money.
Or you build your own. But councils operate over an area large enough that care homes will come up on the open market often enough to build capacity that way. No need to overpay if you have other options.
(On Thames Water, I see no reason why the government should underwrite every penny of debt. The risk of bankruptcy, default or restructuring is an intrinsic element of lending to the private sector).
Yougov have Reform 28%, Labour 23%, Con 18%, Lib Dem 16%, Green 9%.
I’d love to see a Lib Dem / Tory crossover, even if only briefly. It’s within touching distance.
That’s LLG 48 RefCon 46, so a slight lead for the out of touch liberal woke elites.
It’s SPLORG 59 LabCon 41
The Lib Dems did, of course, finish ahead of the Tories in the recent local elections.
As far as national polling goes, there've been two polls to have the Lib Dems just one point behind the Tories: the previous YouGov (C 17, LD 16), and the most recent FON (C 16, LD 15).
Of course the closer the Tory vote gets to the LD vote the more likely Farage becomes PM with a Reform overall majority under FPTP, as it would signal ever more direct Tory switching to Reform.
So be careful what you wish for!
I made the comment above in purely neutral terms. That said, I'm not sure I entirely agree with your assessment. The main factor would be whether it's the Tory vote declining or the LD share going up that would impact the number of Reform seats that would result - and of course the Reform share is not an independent variable, nor one guaranteed to stay at 25%+.
Put simply Starmer needs the Tory voteshare to start rising as much as Kemi now.
For otherwise in seats Labour won in 2024 most of them would go Reform on current polls, certainly outside London and the inner cities whereas a more divided rightwing vote between Tory and Reform could again help Labour hold many of them under FPTP
The failure of the USN to establish anything approaching air superiority over the Houthis is interesting. And should factor into the analysis of the usefulness of our own greatly inferior carriers.
Lots of interesting takeaways from this piece, but the winner has to be "multiple US officials" confirming the Houthis nearly shot down an F-35, the most advanced aircraft ever built... https://x.com/gbrew24/status/1922077099252208114
Serious question: do the houthis have an air force? If not, what is the point of a F35? Would a navalised A-10 suffice?
They have lots of shiny toys (missiles) donated by adversaries of the US. It's a proxy war.
EDIT: An A-10 puts you nicely in the heart of the coverage of just about every SAM system ever built. With next to no electronic warfare capability and a radar cross section of a barn. In the event of an opponent who can shoot back, your life expectancy in one of those is measured in seconds.
I've come to the conclusion that fighter jets are the 21st century equivalent of post-WW2 battleships.
They're hugely expensive per unit and so vulnerable to far cheaper and accessible technology that they're no longer usable in their primary design role other than against greatly inferior enemies. They can still perform useful secondary duties as ordnance platforms but then so can other, cheaper, options.
I'm doubtful that it's worth ordering any more.
You should ask the Ukrainians about that conclusion.
The Ukraine War is a meaningful part of that conclusion. How have the Russian fighters got on?
Like I say, the aircraft aren't useless and can perform a role launching missiles from several miles up, giving them a considerably greater range. However, making a small bomber out of a £150m jet (as the F35 is) doesn't seem like the best use of the money.
You need the low observability, maneuverability and the electronic warfare systems to survive. Then you need the targeting systems. You've got most of an F35, right there.
The failure of the USN to establish anything approaching air superiority over the Houthis is interesting. And should factor into the analysis of the usefulness of our own greatly inferior carriers.
Lots of interesting takeaways from this piece, but the winner has to be "multiple US officials" confirming the Houthis nearly shot down an F-35, the most advanced aircraft ever built... https://x.com/gbrew24/status/1922077099252208114
Serious question: do the houthis have an air force? If not, what is the point of a F35? Would a navalised A-10 suffice?
They have lots of shiny toys (missiles) donated by adversaries of the US. It's a proxy war.
EDIT: An A-10 puts you nicely in the heart of the coverage of just about every SAM system ever built. With next to no electronic warfare capability and a radar cross section of a barn. In the event of an opponent who can shoot back, your life expectancy in one of those is measured in seconds.
I've come to the conclusion that fighter jets are the 21st century equivalent of post-WW2 battleships.
They're hugely expensive per unit and so vulnerable to far cheaper and accessible technology that they're no longer usable in their primary design role other than against greatly inferior enemies. They can still perform useful secondary duties as ordnance platforms but then so can other, cheaper, options.
I'm doubtful that it's worth ordering any more.
You should ask the Ukrainians about that conclusion.
Arguably they have. Ukrainian SEAD kicked Russian bottoms, and most Russian bombs delivered from the air are now launched outside Ukraine and glided in on attached wings. Expensive fighter aircraft and attack helicopters are having a very bad war.
A Conservative MP has been charged with sexual assault following incidents at the Groucho Club in London.
Frank Ferguson, the head of the CPS Special Crime and Counter Terrorism Division, said: “Following a review of the evidence provided by the Metropolitan Police Service, we have authorised two counts of sexual assault against Patrick Spencer MP.”
Spencer is the MP for Central Suffolk & North Ipswich.
“The charges follow two alleged incidents involving two separate women at the Groucho Club in central London in August 2023.
Mr Spencer, 37, will appear at Westminster magistrates’ court on
The failure of the USN to establish anything approaching air superiority over the Houthis is interesting. And should factor into the analysis of the usefulness of our own greatly inferior carriers.
Lots of interesting takeaways from this piece, but the winner has to be "multiple US officials" confirming the Houthis nearly shot down an F-35, the most advanced aircraft ever built... https://x.com/gbrew24/status/1922077099252208114
Serious question: do the houthis have an air force? If not, what is the point of a F35? Would a navalised A-10 suffice?
The failure of the USN to establish anything approaching air superiority over the Houthis is interesting. And should factor into the analysis of the usefulness of our own greatly inferior carriers.
Lots of interesting takeaways from this piece, but the winner has to be "multiple US officials" confirming the Houthis nearly shot down an F-35, the most advanced aircraft ever built... https://x.com/gbrew24/status/1922077099252208114
We will find out soon enough when it sails the Houthi gauntlet on its way to the South China Sea.
HMS PoW is currently doing fleet exercises with the Italian carrier in the Ionian Sea.
The failure of the USN to establish anything approaching air superiority over the Houthis is interesting. And should factor into the analysis of the usefulness of our own greatly inferior carriers.
Lots of interesting takeaways from this piece, but the winner has to be "multiple US officials" confirming the Houthis nearly shot down an F-35, the most advanced aircraft ever built... https://x.com/gbrew24/status/1922077099252208114
Serious question: do the houthis have an air force? If not, what is the point of a F35? Would a navalised A-10 suffice?
They have lots of shiny toys (missiles) donated by adversaries of the US. It's a proxy war.
EDIT: An A-10 puts you nicely in the heart of the coverage of just about every SAM system ever built. With next to no electronic warfare capability and a radar cross section of a barn. In the event of an opponent who can shoot back, your life expectancy in one of those is measured in seconds.
I've come to the conclusion that fighter jets are the 21st century equivalent of post-WW2 battleships.
They're hugely expensive per unit and so vulnerable to far cheaper and accessible technology that they're no longer usable in their primary design role other than against greatly inferior enemies. They can still perform useful secondary duties as ordnance platforms but then so can other, cheaper, options.
I'm doubtful that it's worth ordering any more.
You should ask the Ukrainians about that conclusion.
Doesn't it confirm it?
The Russians fire their glide bombs from a safe distance outside Ukraninian SAM range.
The bloody nose the Pakistan missiles gave the Indian Airforce again confirms why.
Neither airforce has much SEAD capability. The above is why SEAD is really useful.
The failure of the USN to establish anything approaching air superiority over the Houthis is interesting. And should factor into the analysis of the usefulness of our own greatly inferior carriers.
Lots of interesting takeaways from this piece, but the winner has to be "multiple US officials" confirming the Houthis nearly shot down an F-35, the most advanced aircraft ever built... https://x.com/gbrew24/status/1922077099252208114
Serious question: do the houthis have an air force? If not, what is the point of a F35? Would a navalised A-10 suffice?
They have lots of shiny toys (missiles) donated by adversaries of the US. It's a proxy war.
EDIT: An A-10 puts you nicely in the heart of the coverage of just about every SAM system ever built. With next to no electronic warfare capability and a radar cross section of a barn. In the event of an opponent who can shoot back, your life expectancy in one of those is measured in seconds.
A-10C has ALQ-131 and expendables. The reason it's not the answer to anything is that it's a single mission aircraft that's only useful in environments with no air-to-air threat. The USN has been divesting single mission aircraft for decades (that's why F-18 and A-18 got merged into a single platform) so maritime A-10 would be completely counter to that strategy. GBAD survivability is a minor factor and suppression of it is somebody else's problem.
If you accept that Starmer is correct that mass immigration is making us an island of strangers, it is very difficult to argue Enoch Powell was mistaken in predicting we would end up feeling like strangers in our own country. Res ipsa loquitur and I am staggered that Starmer used that particular phrase.
My guess would be that neither Starmer nor his speech-writing team know much of the Rivers of Blood speech and not just couldn't be bothered to check but would not have even entertained the possibility that he might be echoing the same thoughts in the same language.
It's one of the most (in?)famous speeches in British political history ! Although May's "Citizens of nowhere" had even more noteworthy echoes tbh.
Yes, it's an infamous speech but how many people know the detail of anything of it apart from that phrase (which isn't actually in it!).
The self-conception of Labour, and, presumably, of Team Starmer, is that they simply cannot be like Powell because he was racist and they're not. Therefore there's no point comparing the speeches because by definition they can't be similar.
If you accept that Starmer is correct that mass immigration is making us an island of strangers, it is very difficult to argue Enoch Powell was mistaken in predicting we would end up feeling like strangers in our own country. Res ipsa loquitur and I am staggered that Starmer used that particular phrase.
Starmer "I see large moving bodies of water containing a reddish serum-like fluid..."
The failure of the USN to establish anything approaching air superiority over the Houthis is interesting. And should factor into the analysis of the usefulness of our own greatly inferior carriers.
Lots of interesting takeaways from this piece, but the winner has to be "multiple US officials" confirming the Houthis nearly shot down an F-35, the most advanced aircraft ever built... https://x.com/gbrew24/status/1922077099252208114
Serious question: do the houthis have an air force? If not, what is the point of a F35? Would a navalised A-10 suffice?
They have lots of shiny toys (missiles) donated by adversaries of the US. It's a proxy war.
EDIT: An A-10 puts you nicely in the heart of the coverage of just about every SAM system ever built. With next to no electronic warfare capability and a radar cross section of a barn. In the event of an opponent who can shoot back, your life expectancy in one of those is measured in seconds.
I've come to the conclusion that fighter jets are the 21st century equivalent of post-WW2 battleships.
They're hugely expensive per unit and so vulnerable to far cheaper and accessible technology that they're no longer usable in their primary design role other than against greatly inferior enemies. They can still perform useful secondary duties as ordnance platforms but then so can other, cheaper, options.
I'm doubtful that it's worth ordering any more.
Indeed. For ground attack their role can be replaced by artillery, surface to surface missiles, large drones or small drone swarms.
Drones can also perform turns and manouevres where the g-forces would incapacitate/kill a pilot. Why spend years and huge cost training pilots when you can employ a spotty youth from his bedroom?
I'm no friend of Labour but I think it's a bit rich to criticise them for "language that echoes" something said decades ago
eg. When Starmer said "This is a Final Solution to the Immigration Problem" how could he have known someone used it in a very different way 80 years ago?
And Starmer's phrase "Like the Roman, I see the River Walbrook foaming with much blood" was just a clever reference to Boudicca - the spirit of a rebellious Britain which Starmer wants to harness
The failure of the USN to establish anything approaching air superiority over the Houthis is interesting. And should factor into the analysis of the usefulness of our own greatly inferior carriers.
Lots of interesting takeaways from this piece, but the winner has to be "multiple US officials" confirming the Houthis nearly shot down an F-35, the most advanced aircraft ever built... https://x.com/gbrew24/status/1922077099252208114
Serious question: do the houthis have an air force? If not, what is the point of a F35? Would a navalised A-10 suffice?
They have lots of shiny toys (missiles) donated by adversaries of the US. It's a proxy war.
EDIT: An A-10 puts you nicely in the heart of the coverage of just about every SAM system ever built. With next to no electronic warfare capability and a radar cross section of a barn. In the event of an opponent who can shoot back, your life expectancy in one of those is measured in seconds.
I've come to the conclusion that fighter jets are the 21st century equivalent of post-WW2 battleships.
They're hugely expensive per unit and so vulnerable to far cheaper and accessible technology that they're no longer usable in their primary design role other than against greatly inferior enemies. They can still perform useful secondary duties as ordnance platforms but then so can other, cheaper, options.
I'm doubtful that it's worth ordering any more.
Indeed. For ground attack their role can be replaced by artillery, surface to surface missiles, large drones or small drone swarms.
Drones can also perform turns and manouevres where the g-forces would incapacitate/kill a pilot. Why spend years and huge cost training pilots when you can employ a spotty youth from his bedroom?
Only if you buy an extremely expensive, high performance drone that costs of the same order as... fighter aircraft.
A Conservative MP has been charged with sexual assault following incidents at the Groucho Club in London.
Frank Ferguson, the head of the CPS Special Crime and Counter Terrorism Division, said: “Following a review of the evidence provided by the Metropolitan Police Service, we have authorised two counts of sexual assault against Patrick Spencer MP.”
Spencer is the MP for Central Suffolk & North Ipswich.
“The charges follow two alleged incidents involving two separate women at the Groucho Club in central London in August 2023.
Mr Spencer, 37, will appear at Westminster magistrates’ court on
The failure of the USN to establish anything approaching air superiority over the Houthis is interesting. And should factor into the analysis of the usefulness of our own greatly inferior carriers.
Lots of interesting takeaways from this piece, but the winner has to be "multiple US officials" confirming the Houthis nearly shot down an F-35, the most advanced aircraft ever built... https://x.com/gbrew24/status/1922077099252208114
Serious question: do the houthis have an air force? If not, what is the point of a F35? Would a navalised A-10 suffice?
They have lots of shiny toys (missiles) donated by adversaries of the US. It's a proxy war.
EDIT: An A-10 puts you nicely in the heart of the coverage of just about every SAM system ever built. With next to no electronic warfare capability and a radar cross section of a barn. In the event of an opponent who can shoot back, your life expectancy in one of those is measured in seconds.
I've come to the conclusion that fighter jets are the 21st century equivalent of post-WW2 battleships.
They're hugely expensive per unit and so vulnerable to far cheaper and accessible technology that they're no longer usable in their primary design role other than against greatly inferior enemies. They can still perform useful secondary duties as ordnance platforms but then so can other, cheaper, options.
I'm doubtful that it's worth ordering any more.
You should ask the Ukrainians about that conclusion.
The Ukraine War is a meaningful part of that conclusion. How have the Russian fighters got on?
Like I say, the aircraft aren't useless and can perform a role launching missiles from several miles up, giving them a considerably greater range. However, making a small bomber out of a £150m jet (as the F35 is) doesn't seem like the best use of the money.
Warheads on foreheads. You want to blow up a building a 100 miles away. Why attach it to a F35 in an expensive missile when you can launch it from the back of a truck?
A question nobody ever seems to ask is: if foreign workers are happy to work in care homes for the present wage/salary, why should British workers automatically assume they ought to be paid more to do the same job?
There are a lot of industries that import workers as it's a means of keeping wages lower than they otherwise would be...
A Conservative MP has been charged with sexual assault following incidents at the Groucho Club in London.
Frank Ferguson, the head of the CPS Special Crime and Counter Terrorism Division, said: “Following a review of the evidence provided by the Metropolitan Police Service, we have authorised two counts of sexual assault against Patrick Spencer MP.”
Spencer is the MP for Central Suffolk & North Ipswich.
“The charges follow two alleged incidents involving two separate women at the Groucho Club in central London in August 2023.
Mr Spencer, 37, will appear at Westminster magistrates’ court on
His father is billionaire businessman Michael Spencer so he should get top lawyers but clearly a potential by election Reform will be eyeing up if he is found guilty
The failure of the USN to establish anything approaching air superiority over the Houthis is interesting. And should factor into the analysis of the usefulness of our own greatly inferior carriers.
Lots of interesting takeaways from this piece, but the winner has to be "multiple US officials" confirming the Houthis nearly shot down an F-35, the most advanced aircraft ever built... https://x.com/gbrew24/status/1922077099252208114
Serious question: do the houthis have an air force? If not, what is the point of a F35? Would a navalised A-10 suffice?
They have lots of shiny toys (missiles) donated by adversaries of the US. It's a proxy war.
EDIT: An A-10 puts you nicely in the heart of the coverage of just about every SAM system ever built. With next to no electronic warfare capability and a radar cross section of a barn. In the event of an opponent who can shoot back, your life expectancy in one of those is measured in seconds.
I've come to the conclusion that fighter jets are the 21st century equivalent of post-WW2 battleships.
They're hugely expensive per unit and so vulnerable to far cheaper and accessible technology that they're no longer usable in their primary design role other than against greatly inferior enemies. They can still perform useful secondary duties as ordnance platforms but then so can other, cheaper, options.
I'm doubtful that it's worth ordering any more.
You should ask the Ukrainians about that conclusion.
The Ukraine War is a meaningful part of that conclusion. How have the Russian fighters got on?
Like I say, the aircraft aren't useless and can perform a role launching missiles from several miles up, giving them a considerably greater range. However, making a small bomber out of a £150m jet (as the F35 is) doesn't seem like the best use of the money.
Warheads on foreheads. You want to blow up a building a 100 miles away. Why attach it to a F35 in an expensive missile when you can launch it from the back of a truck?
Because the first stage of the missile to get it 100 miles is quite large.
Starmer is now the most right-wing nationalist PM since Blair, which is quite odd when you think of the number of Conservative PMs there have been in the interim.
Starmer is now the most right-wing nationalist PM since Blair, which is quite odd when you think of the number of Conservative PMs there have been in the interim.
Sunak was harder line on immigration as PM than Starmer's measures
The failure of the USN to establish anything approaching air superiority over the Houthis is interesting. And should factor into the analysis of the usefulness of our own greatly inferior carriers.
Lots of interesting takeaways from this piece, but the winner has to be "multiple US officials" confirming the Houthis nearly shot down an F-35, the most advanced aircraft ever built... https://x.com/gbrew24/status/1922077099252208114
Serious question: do the houthis have an air force? If not, what is the point of a F35? Would a navalised A-10 suffice?
They have lots of shiny toys (missiles) donated by adversaries of the US. It's a proxy war.
EDIT: An A-10 puts you nicely in the heart of the coverage of just about every SAM system ever built. With next to no electronic warfare capability and a radar cross section of a barn. In the event of an opponent who can shoot back, your life expectancy in one of those is measured in seconds.
I've come to the conclusion that fighter jets are the 21st century equivalent of post-WW2 battleships.
They're hugely expensive per unit and so vulnerable to far cheaper and accessible technology that they're no longer usable in their primary design role other than against greatly inferior enemies. They can still perform useful secondary duties as ordnance platforms but then so can other, cheaper, options.
I'm doubtful that it's worth ordering any more.
Indeed. For ground attack their role can be replaced by artillery, surface to surface missiles, large drones or small drone swarms.
Drones can also perform turns and manouevres where the g-forces would incapacitate/kill a pilot. Why spend years and huge cost training pilots when you can employ a spotty youth from his bedroom?
Only if you buy an extremely expensive, high performance drone that costs of the same order as... fighter aircraft.
See Optionally Manned.
The Houthis have given the US drones a hard time. "Loitering" seems a suicidal role. But fast attack drones don't have to be as expensive as something that has to protect the pilot at all (huge) cost.
Of course, Ukraine has just used converted (slow) sports planes that wend their way through a route cleared of SAMs. Returning is not required.
A Conservative MP has been charged with sexual assault following incidents at the Groucho Club in London.
Frank Ferguson, the head of the CPS Special Crime and Counter Terrorism Division, said: “Following a review of the evidence provided by the Metropolitan Police Service, we have authorised two counts of sexual assault against Patrick Spencer MP.”
Spencer is the MP for Central Suffolk & North Ipswich.
“The charges follow two alleged incidents involving two separate women at the Groucho Club in central London in August 2023.
Mr Spencer, 37, will appear at Westminster magistrates’ court on
Oooh could there be a bye-bye election ?
That'd be interesting - money on a Reform v Green battle?
I'm no friend of Labour but I think it's a bit rich to criticise them for "language that echoes" something said decades ago
eg. When Starmer said "This is a Final Solution to the Immigration Problem" how could he have known someone used it in a very different way 80 years ago?
And Starmer's phrase "Like the Roman, I see the River Walbrook foaming with much blood" was just a clever reference to Boudicca - the spirit of a rebellious Britain which Starmer wants to harness
People should grow up, frankly
Indeed.
Using the phrase "Enoch was right", anytime fir the last 30 years, would have consigned a candidate for any of the main political party to oblivion. Starmers words appear to legitimise that very statement and are so unusual a selection that I don't buy the idea it was an oversight.
Starmer is now the most right-wing nationalist PM since Blair, which is quite odd when you think of the number of Conservative PMs there have been in the interim.
Conservative PMs knew they'd be hit with the Enoch Powell label if they said what Starmer said yesterday.
The failure of the USN to establish anything approaching air superiority over the Houthis is interesting. And should factor into the analysis of the usefulness of our own greatly inferior carriers.
Lots of interesting takeaways from this piece, but the winner has to be "multiple US officials" confirming the Houthis nearly shot down an F-35, the most advanced aircraft ever built... https://x.com/gbrew24/status/1922077099252208114
Serious question: do the houthis have an air force? If not, what is the point of a F35? Would a navalised A-10 suffice?
They have lots of shiny toys (missiles) donated by adversaries of the US. It's a proxy war.
EDIT: An A-10 puts you nicely in the heart of the coverage of just about every SAM system ever built. With next to no electronic warfare capability and a radar cross section of a barn. In the event of an opponent who can shoot back, your life expectancy in one of those is measured in seconds.
I've come to the conclusion that fighter jets are the 21st century equivalent of post-WW2 battleships.
They're hugely expensive per unit and so vulnerable to far cheaper and accessible technology that they're no longer usable in their primary design role other than against greatly inferior enemies. They can still perform useful secondary duties as ordnance platforms but then so can other, cheaper, options.
I'm doubtful that it's worth ordering any more.
You should ask the Ukrainians about that conclusion.
The Ukraine War is a meaningful part of that conclusion. How have the Russian fighters got on?
Like I say, the aircraft aren't useless and can perform a role launching missiles from several miles up, giving them a considerably greater range. However, making a small bomber out of a £150m jet (as the F35 is) doesn't seem like the best use of the money.
Warheads on foreheads. You want to blow up a building a 100 miles away. Why attach it to a F35 in an expensive missile when you can launch it from the back of a truck?
I'm not sure there are many missiles that have a 100 mile range and the accuracy to hit a specific building that can be launched from the back of a truck?
But the general point is right. The aircraft in that example is a force-enhancer (even if the truck-launched version does have a 100-mile range, launch it from 50,000 feet and you can probably more than double that), rather than the fighter aircraft clearing the airspace of enemy craft.
We’re spending a few days on the Kintyre Peninsula and I have to say the weather in this part of the world of incredible. Cloudless skies and 22C min since we arrived. Not sure why the climate round here gets such a bad rap.
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We can invest in automation to cut out unnecessary jobs and boost productivity.
If we can't afford to raise wages, then maybe the job is not productive enough and it doesn't need to be done.
That's easy to say when it's not your elderly relative lying in their own shit all day because there are no carers.
Care requires zero qualifications and 81% of the UK work in the Service Sector.
Maybe if care homes paid the people cleaning the shit off your elderly relative more than a coffee shop pays a barista or a restaurant pays wait staff, then they'd be able to find people who can fill the vacancies.
Why do you think so little of the people cleaning the shit off your elderly relative that you think they have no right to any more than minimum wage?
And we can automate away barista jobs etc by investing in machinery that does the work.
I'm happy for them to get paid more, but it's taxpayers paying it so which taxes are going up or what spending is getting cut?
Cut the triple lock and pay more to people working for a living and less to people living on benefits. Pay the people looking after the elderly at least as well as the elderly themselves.
Next question?
Why can't you come up with a solution that's politically viable?
It's impossible to get elected on a manifesto commitment of ditching the triple lock so you might as well you'll pay care workers by pissing crypto.
He is obsessed with beggaring pensioners, has some sort of inbred hatred for them. Assume his granny must have beat him up as a child.
The failure of the USN to establish anything approaching air superiority over the Houthis is interesting. And should factor into the analysis of the usefulness of our own greatly inferior carriers.
Lots of interesting takeaways from this piece, but the winner has to be "multiple US officials" confirming the Houthis nearly shot down an F-35, the most advanced aircraft ever built... https://x.com/gbrew24/status/1922077099252208114
Serious question: do the houthis have an air force? If not, what is the point of a F35? Would a navalised A-10 suffice?
They have lots of shiny toys (missiles) donated by adversaries of the US. It's a proxy war.
EDIT: An A-10 puts you nicely in the heart of the coverage of just about every SAM system ever built. With next to no electronic warfare capability and a radar cross section of a barn. In the event of an opponent who can shoot back, your life expectancy in one of those is measured in seconds.
I've come to the conclusion that fighter jets are the 21st century equivalent of post-WW2 battleships.
They're hugely expensive per unit and so vulnerable to far cheaper and accessible technology that they're no longer usable in their primary design role other than against greatly inferior enemies. They can still perform useful secondary duties as ordnance platforms but then so can other, cheaper, options.
I'm doubtful that it's worth ordering any more.
You should ask the Ukrainians about that conclusion.
The Ukraine War is a meaningful part of that conclusion. How have the Russian fighters got on?
Like I say, the aircraft aren't useless and can perform a role launching missiles from several miles up, giving them a considerably greater range. However, making a small bomber out of a £150m jet (as the F35 is) doesn't seem like the best use of the money.
Warheads on foreheads. You want to blow up a building a 100 miles away. Why attach it to a F35 in an expensive missile when you can launch it from the back of a truck?
I'm not sure there are many missiles that have a 100 mile range and the accuracy to hit a specific building that can be launched from the back of a truck?
But the general point is right. The aircraft in that example is a force-enhancer (even if the truck-launched version does have a 100-mile range, launch it from 50,000 feet and you can probably more than double that), rather than the fighter aircraft clearing the airspace of enemy craft.
A Conservative MP has been charged with sexual assault following incidents at the Groucho Club in London.
Frank Ferguson, the head of the CPS Special Crime and Counter Terrorism Division, said: “Following a review of the evidence provided by the Metropolitan Police Service, we have authorised two counts of sexual assault against Patrick Spencer MP.”
Spencer is the MP for Central Suffolk & North Ipswich.
“The charges follow two alleged incidents involving two separate women at the Groucho Club in central London in August 2023.
Mr Spencer, 37, will appear at Westminster magistrates’ court on
(Update: Perhaps not) a tricky decision for Kemi Badenoch?
Suspension of the whip within the next half hour, then wait and see what happens?
That was roughly what happened with Mike Amesbury - though I'm not sure of the delay before suspension.
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We've had an inflow of 17 million migrants since the year 2000. Are you saying that even with those 17 million we wouldn't have enough employees/workers without additional migration?
We have certainly not created 17 million jobs either so something is out of kilter.
A Conservative MP has been charged with sexual assault following incidents at the Groucho Club in London.
Frank Ferguson, the head of the CPS Special Crime and Counter Terrorism Division, said: “Following a review of the evidence provided by the Metropolitan Police Service, we have authorised two counts of sexual assault against Patrick Spencer MP.”
Spencer is the MP for Central Suffolk & North Ipswich.
“The charges follow two alleged incidents involving two separate women at the Groucho Club in central London in August 2023.
Mr Spencer, 37, will appear at Westminster magistrates’ court on
A tricky decision for Kemi Badenoch?
Suspension of the whip within the next half hour, then wait and see what happens?
That was roughly what happened with Mike Amesbury - though I'm not sure of the delay before suspension.
You'd think she has to suspend. That would be in line with what usually happens in cases like this.
I'm no friend of Labour but I think it's a bit rich to criticise them for "language that echoes" something said decades ago
eg. When Starmer said "This is a Final Solution to the Immigration Problem" how could he have known someone used it in a very different way 80 years ago?
And Starmer's phrase "Like the Roman, I see the River Walbrook foaming with much blood" was just a clever reference to Boudicca - the spirit of a rebellious Britain which Starmer wants to harness
People should grow up, frankly
Indeed.
Using the phrase "Enoch was right", anytime fir the last 30 years, would have consigned a candidate for any of the main political party to oblivion. Starmers words appear to legitimise that very statement and are so unusual a selection that I don't buy the idea it was an oversight.
SKS gets the Fukker threat. It's a political movement by charlatans for consumption by lackwits but the former are well organised and there are a lot of the latter so SKS has to respond.
The right wing shits on here seem somewhat annoyed that SKS didn't stay predictably and reliably pro-immigration.
A Conservative MP has been charged with sexual assault following incidents at the Groucho Club in London.
Frank Ferguson, the head of the CPS Special Crime and Counter Terrorism Division, said: “Following a review of the evidence provided by the Metropolitan Police Service, we have authorised two counts of sexual assault against Patrick Spencer MP.”
Spencer is the MP for Central Suffolk & North Ipswich.
“The charges follow two alleged incidents involving two separate women at the Groucho Club in central London in August 2023.
Mr Spencer, 37, will appear at Westminster magistrates’ court on
A tricky decision for Kemi Badenoch?
Suspension of the whip within the next half hour, then wait and see what happens?
That was roughly what happened with Mike Amesbury - though I'm not sure of the delay before suspension.
You'd think she has to suspend. That would be in line with what usually happens in cases like this.
Yes. I agree.
What grey area is left is between allegation and charge.
Reform gain? Unless LD or Green decide to give way for the other...
The Greens would probably win this seat if they were recognised as the main centre-left party.
Not when Labour, LDs and Greens combined were under 50% in this seat even in 2024
It's a constituency where there may be a number of moderate Tories who'd vote tactically against RefUK. I don't think there are many seats where this might be the case but this could be an exception. We saw in Waveney Valley that a significant number of moderate Tories must have voted Green to elect Adrian Ramsay.
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We can invest in automation to cut out unnecessary jobs and boost productivity.
If we can't afford to raise wages, then maybe the job is not productive enough and it doesn't need to be done.
That's easy to say when it's not your elderly relative lying in their own shit all day because there are no carers.
He will not be such a smart arse when he or some of his own family are lying in their own crap.
Reform gain? Unless LD or Green decide to give way for the other...
Nailed on were there to be a by-election in current circumstances, irrespective of what LD/Grn do (which probably wouldn't be much, annoyingly).
Oddly enough, this was the seat where Labour withdrew support from their candidate in 2024 over the betting scandal.
I don't think this is nailed on for RefUK at all. It isn't textbook territory - it's wealthy Tory shire and, whilst RefUK plainly picked up councillors this month in such areas, it wasn't the core vote. If it happens, Tories start with a good tactical argument for right wing voters that they hold the seat.
I'd certainly not rule out a RefUK win, but it'd be extremely bad for the Tories if they didn't rally to hold onto a seat that would have been ultra-safe in any election bar 2024 (and even then they had a reasonable 4k majority).
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We can invest in automation to cut out unnecessary jobs and boost productivity.
If we can't afford to raise wages, then maybe the job is not productive enough and it doesn't need to be done.
That's easy to say when it's not your elderly relative lying in their own shit all day because there are no carers.
He will not be such a smart arse when he or some of his own family are lying in their own crap.
Old people lying in shit is this week's trans people going into a "loo".
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We've had an inflow of 17 million migrants since the year 2000. Are you saying that even with those 17 million we wouldn't have enough employees/workers without additional migration?
We have certainly not created 17 million jobs either so something is out of kilter.
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We can invest in automation to cut out unnecessary jobs and boost productivity.
If we can't afford to raise wages, then maybe the job is not productive enough and it doesn't need to be done.
That's easy to say when it's not your elderly relative lying in their own shit all day because there are no carers.
An interesting question would be at what pay rate would the middle class professionals on this board be happy to do care work? At what pay rate might they recommend it to their kids as a potential career?
And how can we raise the difference in that and current near NMW pay from taxation, insurance or private funding?
Here's the thing, with cleaning and particularly nursery work you can sort of see a link between the wages and what is paid. With care that link seems totally out of whack, the bills are universally enormous whilst the wages are appalling
Similar question. Why aren't the middle class professionals and entrepreneurs with access to capital on pb opening care home chains if the margins are so easy?
In reality a lot of care homes are struggling and closing.
The trouble with running a care home is the round the clock nature of it. 1 minimum wage employee for 24 hours is almost £300 in straight wages, plus NI, pensions, holidays etc.
£6.5k/month for a resident sounds like a lot of cash, but it's only about £216/day.
Take £50 of that as the "hotel" cost of the room, bedding, cleaning (that's Travellodge off peak sort of price), put £30 in for meals (£10ea), you have £136 left for caring labour and associated costs.
That £136 is around the true cost of 8hrs labour at minimum wage, so if you're averaging a inmate:staff ratio of less than 3:1 over 24hrs you're in the red.
If any of you have worked for a PE company that has underlying property assets, you'll find that the property is either hived off or 'securitised'. The drive is therefore cash to pay debts plus securitisation so if the Directors (sometimes original founders / sometimes MBI) can't cover the cash requirements the business folds. See also GP practices and Vets.
Nowt wrong with the approach and all perfectly legal but it does pit rather aggressive business types against Local Authorities who have to find the cash. It's an indirect way of milking the system (or watering if you've bought a water utility)
It's a choice the country made a while ago to privatise everything and has developed since then. Question for the young who will be carrying the tax burden of this wave of 'asset sweating' is do they want to continue to pay.
Councils would do well to consider taking services back in-house.
Yes, there will be initial capital costs, and staff costs will be higher than the private sector (which is not necessarily a bad thing here providing managers can also manage and recruit freely). However, without having to pay the profits of others - including servicing debts as noted above - it may be cheaper. Even if not, there's more control over access, management and conditions which may be worth the difference both in terms of service and in avoiding legal arguments.
PE funds love to exit after 3-5 years and would be willing sellers. It's just the price you have to pay to get it back. See Thames Water / Rail / Utilities. They have gone and we have spent the money.
Or you build your own. But councils operate over an area large enough that care homes will come up on the open market often enough to build capacity that way. No need to overpay if you have other options.
(On Thames Water, I see no reason why the government should underwrite every penny of debt. The risk of bankruptcy, default or restructuring is an intrinsic element of lending to the private sector).
I've no wish to attack your suggestions as they *are* a possible way forward. Councils, as you'll know, have had the ability to borrow to 'invest' for a number of years and have done so e.g. Croydon and Thurrock. Council local to me is going into the homebuilding business rather than selling the land it owned to a private developer. They are years late as the failed to do a comprehensive survey.
The reason to develop your idea is that there are no easy answers. To achieve some of the ideas put forward by councillors (or even some on PB) requires deep operational knowledge. And if you have that knowledge, would you work for the council? I'm betting on Reform exploding as they can only keep their policies afloat with a lot of hot air and suspect they'll be no better (and probably a lot worse) than Croydon or Thurrock et al.
Reform gain? Unless LD or Green decide to give way for the other...
The Greens would probably win this seat if they were recognised as the main centre-left party.
Con + RefUK got 52% last time. That doesn't look fertile territory for the Greens to come from 4th to win.
It's next door to Waveney Valley which went from Con to Green on a massive swing. You often get a "neighbourhood effect" where one constituency affects surrounding ones.
'A Conservative Party spokesman confirmed Spencer had been suspended.
He said in statement the party "believes in integrity and high standards".
"We have taken immediate action. Patrick Spencer MP has been suspended from the Conservative Party, and the whip withdrawn, with immediate effect.
"The Conservative Party cannot comment further on an ongoing legal case."
It is understood that Spencer was asked not to attend the parliamentary estate by the Tories' chief whip while police carried out their investigation.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0lnggjj9gko
The failure of the USN to establish anything approaching air superiority over the Houthis is interesting. And should factor into the analysis of the usefulness of our own greatly inferior carriers.
Lots of interesting takeaways from this piece, but the winner has to be "multiple US officials" confirming the Houthis nearly shot down an F-35, the most advanced aircraft ever built... https://x.com/gbrew24/status/1922077099252208114
Serious question: do the houthis have an air force? If not, what is the point of a F35? Would a navalised A-10 suffice?
They have lots of shiny toys (missiles) donated by adversaries of the US. It's a proxy war.
EDIT: An A-10 puts you nicely in the heart of the coverage of just about every SAM system ever built. With next to no electronic warfare capability and a radar cross section of a barn. In the event of an opponent who can shoot back, your life expectancy in one of those is measured in seconds.
I've come to the conclusion that fighter jets are the 21st century equivalent of post-WW2 battleships.
They're hugely expensive per unit and so vulnerable to far cheaper and accessible technology that they're no longer usable in their primary design role other than against greatly inferior enemies. They can still perform useful secondary duties as ordnance platforms but then so can other, cheaper, options.
I'm doubtful that it's worth ordering any more.
You should ask the Ukrainians about that conclusion.
The Ukraine War is a meaningful part of that conclusion. How have the Russian fighters got on?
Like I say, the aircraft aren't useless and can perform a role launching missiles from several miles up, giving them a considerably greater range. However, making a small bomber out of a £150m jet (as the F35 is) doesn't seem like the best use of the money.
Warheads on foreheads. You want to blow up a building a 100 miles away. Why attach it to a F35 in an expensive missile when you can launch it from the back of a truck?
I'm not sure there are many missiles that have a 100 mile range and the accuracy to hit a specific building that can be launched from the back of a truck?
But the general point is right. The aircraft in that example is a force-enhancer (even if the truck-launched version does have a 100-mile range, launch it from 50,000 feet and you can probably more than double that), rather than the fighter aircraft clearing the airspace of enemy craft.
Reform gain? Unless LD or Green decide to give way for the other...
The Greens would probably win this seat if they were recognised as the main centre-left party.
Con + RefUK got 52% last time. That doesn't look fertile territory for the Greens to come from 4th to win.
It's next door to Waveney Valley which went from Con to Green on a massive swing. You often get a "neighbourhood effect" where one constituency affects surrounding ones.
That is a good point.
Waveney Valley's MP is, of course, Adrian Ramsay, co-leader of the party, who is currently standing for re-election with Ellie Chowns against Zack "hypnoboob" Polanski, a contest between Greens who want to get elected in Tory seats and more edgy Greens.
The failure of the USN to establish anything approaching air superiority over the Houthis is interesting. And should factor into the analysis of the usefulness of our own greatly inferior carriers.
Lots of interesting takeaways from this piece, but the winner has to be "multiple US officials" confirming the Houthis nearly shot down an F-35, the most advanced aircraft ever built... https://x.com/gbrew24/status/1922077099252208114
Serious question: do the houthis have an air force? If not, what is the point of a F35? Would a navalised A-10 suffice?
They have lots of shiny toys (missiles) donated by adversaries of the US. It's a proxy war.
EDIT: An A-10 puts you nicely in the heart of the coverage of just about every SAM system ever built. With next to no electronic warfare capability and a radar cross section of a barn. In the event of an opponent who can shoot back, your life expectancy in one of those is measured in seconds.
I've come to the conclusion that fighter jets are the 21st century equivalent of post-WW2 battleships.
They're hugely expensive per unit and so vulnerable to far cheaper and accessible technology that they're no longer usable in their primary design role other than against greatly inferior enemies. They can still perform useful secondary duties as ordnance platforms but then so can other, cheaper, options.
I'm doubtful that it's worth ordering any more.
You should ask the Ukrainians about that conclusion.
The Ukraine War is a meaningful part of that conclusion. How have the Russian fighters got on?
Like I say, the aircraft aren't useless and can perform a role launching missiles from several miles up, giving them a considerably greater range. However, making a small bomber out of a £150m jet (as the F35 is) doesn't seem like the best use of the money.
Warheads on foreheads. You want to blow up a building a 100 miles away. Why attach it to a F35 in an expensive missile when you can launch it from the back of a truck?
I'm not sure there are many missiles that have a 100 mile range and the accuracy to hit a specific building that can be launched from the back of a truck?
But the general point is right. The aircraft in that example is a force-enhancer (even if the truck-launched version does have a 100-mile range, launch it from 50,000 feet and you can probably more than double that), rather than the fighter aircraft clearing the airspace of enemy craft.
OT: My first proper experience of an e-vehicle this morning, in a test drive of a Skoda Elroc *, a smallish SUV. The best summary is probably "mostly harmless". Suitable as a daily driver - range 225 to 350 miles, which I interpret as 190 to 300 roughly. Performance not super quick, but fine.
Interestingly the dealer was trying to sell it on cost saving - cheaper per mile, service every 2 years. I wonder what their business model will become?
I observed, but did not cause (honest), a road rage incident between someone who was driving a yoof hatchback (current version of a Nova 1.3 SR) and a full size Tesco lorry, about reluctance to merge in turn. A reet one sided shouting match from the Yoof who climbed out and had a go at the Tesco Man. It's funny how MGIF (Must Get in Front) people always have 10 minutes to stop and have a go at someone.
* These names are going to become properly annoying; it's going to be like trying to remember the names of the Goebbels children. Given the "Enyaq", is it En + "something to do with a misspelt mountain animal"?
'A Conservative Party spokesman confirmed Spencer had been suspended.
He said in statement the party "believes in integrity and high standards".
"We have taken immediate action. Patrick Spencer MP has been suspended from the Conservative Party, and the whip withdrawn, with immediate effect.
"The Conservative Party cannot comment further on an ongoing legal case."
It is understood that Spencer was asked not to attend the parliamentary estate by the Tories' chief whip while police carried out their investigation.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0lnggjj9gko
Are they going to pressure him to hang on unless he gets porridge? A by-election defeat by the Fukkers here and it's kurtains for Kemi.
The failure of the USN to establish anything approaching air superiority over the Houthis is interesting. And should factor into the analysis of the usefulness of our own greatly inferior carriers.
Lots of interesting takeaways from this piece, but the winner has to be "multiple US officials" confirming the Houthis nearly shot down an F-35, the most advanced aircraft ever built... https://x.com/gbrew24/status/1922077099252208114
Serious question: do the houthis have an air force? If not, what is the point of a F35? Would a navalised A-10 suffice?
They have lots of shiny toys (missiles) donated by adversaries of the US. It's a proxy war.
EDIT: An A-10 puts you nicely in the heart of the coverage of just about every SAM system ever built. With next to no electronic warfare capability and a radar cross section of a barn. In the event of an opponent who can shoot back, your life expectancy in one of those is measured in seconds.
I've come to the conclusion that fighter jets are the 21st century equivalent of post-WW2 battleships.
They're hugely expensive per unit and so vulnerable to far cheaper and accessible technology that they're no longer usable in their primary design role other than against greatly inferior enemies. They can still perform useful secondary duties as ordnance platforms but then so can other, cheaper, options.
I'm doubtful that it's worth ordering any more.
You should ask the Ukrainians about that conclusion.
The Ukraine War is a meaningful part of that conclusion. How have the Russian fighters got on?
Like I say, the aircraft aren't useless and can perform a role launching missiles from several miles up, giving them a considerably greater range. However, making a small bomber out of a £150m jet (as the F35 is) doesn't seem like the best use of the money.
Warheads on foreheads. You want to blow up a building a 100 miles away. Why attach it to a F35 in an expensive missile when you can launch it from the back of a truck?
I'm not sure there are many missiles that have a 100 mile range and the accuracy to hit a specific building that can be launched from the back of a truck?
But the general point is right. The aircraft in that example is a force-enhancer (even if the truck-launched version does have a 100-mile range, launch it from 50,000 feet and you can probably more than double that), rather than the fighter aircraft clearing the airspace of enemy craft.
A Conservative MP has been charged with sexual assault following incidents at the Groucho Club in London.
Frank Ferguson, the head of the CPS Special Crime and Counter Terrorism Division, said: “Following a review of the evidence provided by the Metropolitan Police Service, we have authorised two counts of sexual assault against Patrick Spencer MP.”
Spencer is the MP for Central Suffolk & North Ipswich.
“The charges follow two alleged incidents involving two separate women at the Groucho Club in central London in August 2023.
Mr Spencer, 37, will appear at Westminster magistrates’ court on
This happened prior to the last election. I know everyone has the presumption of innocence but if this was hanging over him then it begs the question why was he selected to stand ?
Central Suffolk is the seat where the Labour candidate was suspended during the general election campaign after allegations he'd placed bets on the outcome. Otherwise it's possible he may have narrowly won the seat.
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We've had an inflow of 17 million migrants since the year 2000. Are you saying that even with those 17 million we wouldn't have enough employees/workers without additional migration?
I'm not sure what your numbers refer to. The non UK born population in 2021 was 10 million, up from 5 million in 2001. That's an increase of 5 million, and includes British citizens born overseas (like two of my children).
The 17 million is how many people came in to the UK in total, but ~12 million of them left again. It's a misleading figure used to scare.
Considering ~7-8 million have emigrated from the UK since 2000, where are you getting the data that ~12 million of those who immigrated have left again from?
If they were here long enough to be in the immigration figure, and have left, they should also be in the emigration figure and your claim massively exceeds that total emigration figure.
A lot of people arrive and a lot of people leave the UK every year: the vast majority of people on working holiday visas leave, as (historically) have most of those on student visas. There are lots of people on inter-corporate transfer visas who come to the UK for period from six months to a few years. Unless they fall in love and marry a Brit while they're here, then they end up leaving.
Lots of young EU workers came, spent two or three years to improve their English and their long-term job prospects, and then returned.
So, I think you do need to look at net numbers rather than gross.
I also think it would be helpful if the UK followed the example of the US (and most other countries) and broke down visas into immigrant and non-immigrant visas. Some visas are immigrant visas with a path to permanent residence (and citizenship). Other visas allow you to work for a single employer for a limited period, and have no path to residency.
I'm in the US on a non-immigrant visas. I can work for my company (the one I founded), but I couldn't work anywhere else. There is no path to citizenship for me.
A Conservative MP has been charged with sexual assault following incidents at the Groucho Club in London.
Frank Ferguson, the head of the CPS Special Crime and Counter Terrorism Division, said: “Following a review of the evidence provided by the Metropolitan Police Service, we have authorised two counts of sexual assault against Patrick Spencer MP.”
Spencer is the MP for Central Suffolk & North Ipswich.
“The charges follow two alleged incidents involving two separate women at the Groucho Club in central London in August 2023.
Mr Spencer, 37, will appear at Westminster magistrates’ court on
This happened prior to the last election. I know everyone has the presumption of innocence but if this was hanging over him then it begs the question why was he selected to stand ?
It wasn't hanging over him at the time - he met the police on 13 March 2025.
Reform gain? Unless LD or Green decide to give way for the other...
The Greens would probably win this seat if they were recognised as the main centre-left party.
Con + RefUK got 52% last time. That doesn't look fertile territory for the Greens to come from 4th to win.
It's next door to Waveney Valley which went from Con to Green on a massive swing. You often get a "neighbourhood effect" where one constituency affects surrounding ones.
It's also interesting to note the result of the recent by-election in what was previously one of the Green's least profitable wards in the seat. In the East Suffolk District ward of Rushmere St Andrew the result in the ward in May 2023 was Con 582, Lab 405, Grn 256. At the by-election in Feb of this year the Tories held it... by 4 votes. [Con 377, Grn 373, RefUK 347, Lab 166].
Would I put Reform as favourites - Yes. Would I be tempted to bet on Green - Yes, assuming that the odds are long enough, and certainly more than any other competitor.
A Conservative MP has been charged with sexual assault following incidents at the Groucho Club in London.
Frank Ferguson, the head of the CPS Special Crime and Counter Terrorism Division, said: “Following a review of the evidence provided by the Metropolitan Police Service, we have authorised two counts of sexual assault against Patrick Spencer MP.”
Spencer is the MP for Central Suffolk & North Ipswich.
“The charges follow two alleged incidents involving two separate women at the Groucho Club in central London in August 2023.
Mr Spencer, 37, will appear at Westminster magistrates’ court on
A Conservative MP has been charged with sexual assault following incidents at the Groucho Club in London.
Frank Ferguson, the head of the CPS Special Crime and Counter Terrorism Division, said: “Following a review of the evidence provided by the Metropolitan Police Service, we have authorised two counts of sexual assault against Patrick Spencer MP.”
Spencer is the MP for Central Suffolk & North Ipswich.
“The charges follow two alleged incidents involving two separate women at the Groucho Club in central London in August 2023.
Mr Spencer, 37, will appear at Westminster magistrates’ court on
This happened prior to the last election. I know everyone has the presumption of innocence but if this was hanging over him then it begs the question why was he selected to stand ?
When was this reported to the police? When was an arrest first made?
Most people don't realise that Sir Keir Starmer's father was a toolmaker, and owned a factory. Even fewer people know that a young BBC reporter* - now quite famous - used to work there. That's how incestuous the links are between Labour and the BBC
The now famous BBC reporter has a German-like name, and apparently the young Keir Starmer, who was a bit of a busybody - helping to run his father's factory (his father was a toolmaker, who owned a factory), used to catch the BBC kid slacking, and - mistakenly thinking the BBC kid was actually German - Starmer would demand the guy work harder by shouting at him "Arbeit, Matt Frei!"
*Yes I know I have told a version of this joke before, but as Sting said about tunes, when you find a good tune, use it at least three different ways
Comments
Nowt wrong with the approach and all perfectly legal but it does pit rather aggressive business types against Local Authorities who have to find the cash. It's an indirect way of milking the system (or watering if you've bought a water utility)
It's a choice the country made a while ago to privatise everything and has developed since then. Question for the young who will be carrying the tax burden of this wave of 'asset sweating' is do they want to continue to pay.
If they were here long enough to be in the immigration figure, and have left, they should also be in the emigration figure and your claim massively exceeds that total emigration figure.
It gave us the Easter holidays.
Labour absolutely must extend ILR retrospectively to 10 years and raise the bar to a much higher threshold for visa renewals so all of those who came in the Boriswave have to return to their home country. Also tighten the asylum laws so that none are eligible to claim asylum after their visa renewals are rejected.
It's perfectly possible to be UK born and be recorded as immigrating, if spent more than a year abroad. Indeed I have twice, and also been recorded as emigrating twice.l
Then of course there's those born abroad who died here.
Yes, there will be initial capital costs, and staff costs will be higher than the private sector (which is not necessarily a bad thing here providing managers can also manage and recruit freely). However, without having to pay the profits of others - including servicing debts as noted above - it may be cheaper. Even if not, there's more control over access, management and conditions which may be worth the difference both in terms of service and in avoiding legal arguments.
Funniest thing I've heard in a long time. Episode of Who Wants To Be A Millionaire from 2007.
"Richard used to live and work in Leicester but witnessed too many people burn out on fast city living."
At 7 mins 10 secs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdaaRYH2Vnc
It would be preferable to boost our fertility rate back up to 2.1 but absolutely no one has a clue how to do that. It's probably a social phenomenon in the main, so I'll probably die alone and disabled in a decrepit Highland croft for want of any young people in the 2080s/90s.
More religion too, generally the more religious the parents, the more children they have
Many of the original 5 million could have died or emigrated.
The like-for-like comparison with the 17 million immigration figure is the 7 million emigrated. That's based on the same measurement, which yours was not.
They're hugely expensive per unit and so vulnerable to far cheaper and accessible technology that they're no longer usable in their primary design role other than against greatly inferior enemies. They can still perform useful secondary duties as ordnance platforms but then so can other, cheaper, options.
I'm doubtful that it's worth ordering any more.
https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/VotingIntention_MRP_250512_w.pdf
At present on today's Yougov Reform are on 310 MPs, most seats but just short of a majority.
If Reform squeeze the Tory vote any further then Farage would get an overall majority most likely and effectively have complete power
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=N&CON=18&LAB=23&LIB=16&Reform=28&Green=9&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=&SCOTLAB=&SCOTLIB=&SCOTReform=&SCOTGreen=&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2024base
Can we agree that the 17 million figure is misleading, whereas the most useful figure is that the non-UK-born population is up 5 million?
Like I say, the aircraft aren't useless and can perform a role launching missiles from several miles up, giving them a considerably greater range. However, making a small bomber out of a £150m jet (as the F35 is) doesn't seem like the best use of the money.
The Russians fire their glide bombs from a safe distance outside Ukraninian SAM range.
The bloody nose the Pakistan missiles gave the Indian Airforce again confirms why.
(On Thames Water, I see no reason why the government should underwrite every penny of debt. The risk of bankruptcy, default or restructuring is an intrinsic element of lending to the private sector).
For otherwise in seats Labour won in 2024 most of them would go Reform on current polls, certainly outside London and the inner cities whereas a more divided rightwing vote between Tory and Reform could again help Labour hold many of them under FPTP
Then you need the targeting systems.
You've got most of an F35, right there.
A Conservative MP has been charged with sexual assault following incidents at the Groucho Club in London.
Frank Ferguson, the head of the CPS Special Crime and Counter Terrorism Division, said: “Following a review of the evidence provided by the Metropolitan Police Service, we have authorised two counts of sexual assault against Patrick Spencer MP.”
Spencer is the MP for Central Suffolk & North Ipswich.
“The charges follow two alleged incidents involving two separate women at the Groucho Club in central London in August 2023.
Mr Spencer, 37, will appear at Westminster magistrates’ court on
Houthis shoot down growing number of US drones
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/houthis-shoot-growing-number-us-drones/story?id=121099082
HMS PoW is currently doing fleet exercises with the Italian carrier in the Ionian Sea.
The self-conception of Labour, and, presumably, of Team Starmer, is that they simply cannot be like Powell because he was racist and they're not. Therefore there's no point comparing the speeches because by definition they can't be similar.
eg. When Starmer said "This is a Final Solution to the Immigration Problem" how could he have known someone used it in a very different way 80 years ago?
And Starmer's phrase "Like the Roman, I see the River Walbrook foaming with much blood" was just a clever reference to Boudicca - the spirit of a rebellious Britain which Starmer wants to harness
People should grow up, frankly
See Optionally Manned.
Reform gain? Unless LD or Green decide to give way for the other...
And expensive.
Of course, Ukraine has just used converted (slow) sports planes that wend their way through a route cleared of SAMs. Returning is not required.
Using the phrase "Enoch was right", anytime fir the last 30 years, would have consigned a candidate for any of the main political party to oblivion. Starmers words appear to legitimise that very statement and are so unusual a selection that I don't buy the idea it was an oversight.
https://bsky.app/profile/coachfinstock.bsky.social/post/3lp2m5xf4n22i
But the general point is right. The aircraft in that example is a force-enhancer (even if the truck-launched version does have a 100-mile range, launch it from 50,000 feet and you can probably more than double that), rather than the fighter aircraft clearing the airspace of enemy craft.
And many, many others.
Suspension of the whip within the next half hour, then wait and see what happens?
That was roughly what happened with Mike Amesbury - though I'm not sure of the delay before suspension.
The right wing shits on here seem somewhat annoyed that SKS didn't stay predictably and reliably pro-immigration.
What grey area is left is between allegation and charge.
I don't think this is nailed on for RefUK at all. It isn't textbook territory - it's wealthy Tory shire and, whilst RefUK plainly picked up councillors this month in such areas, it wasn't the core vote. If it happens, Tories start with a good tactical argument for right wing voters that they hold the seat.
I'd certainly not rule out a RefUK win, but it'd be extremely bad for the Tories if they didn't rally to hold onto a seat that would have been ultra-safe in any election bar 2024 (and even then they had a reasonable 4k majority).
https://insidecroydon.com/2023/07/07/brick-by-bricks-losses-pile-up-even-after-selling-89m-of-homes/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-68099217
The reason to develop your idea is that there are no easy answers. To achieve some of the ideas put forward by councillors (or even some on PB) requires deep operational knowledge. And if you have that knowledge, would you work for the council? I'm betting on Reform exploding as they can only keep their policies afloat with a lot of hot air and suspect they'll be no better (and probably a lot worse) than Croydon or Thurrock et al.
But it keeps us all here at PB amused.
He said in statement the party "believes in integrity and high standards".
"We have taken immediate action. Patrick Spencer MP has been suspended from the Conservative Party, and the whip withdrawn, with immediate effect.
"The Conservative Party cannot comment further on an ongoing legal case."
It is understood that Spencer was asked not to attend the parliamentary estate by the Tories' chief whip while police carried out their investigation.'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0lnggjj9gko
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archer_artillery_system
Although to be fair, its range is only 50 miles
Waveney Valley's MP is, of course, Adrian Ramsay, co-leader of the party, who is currently standing for re-election with Ellie Chowns against Zack "hypnoboob" Polanski, a contest between Greens who want to get elected in Tory seats and more edgy Greens.
Such cost/ton on target numbers have been done many, many times.
Interestingly the dealer was trying to sell it on cost saving - cheaper per mile, service every 2 years. I wonder what their business model will become?
I observed, but did not cause (honest), a road rage incident between someone who was driving a yoof hatchback (current version of a Nova 1.3 SR) and a full size Tesco lorry, about reluctance to merge in turn. A reet one sided shouting match from the Yoof who climbed out and had a go at the Tesco Man. It's funny how MGIF (Must Get in Front) people always have 10 minutes to stop and have a go at someone.
* These names are going to become properly annoying; it's going to be like trying to remember the names of the Goebbels children. Given the "Enyaq", is it En + "something to do with a misspelt mountain animal"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATACMS
Lots of young EU workers came, spent two or three years to improve their English and their long-term job prospects, and then returned.
So, I think you do need to look at net numbers rather than gross.
I also think it would be helpful if the UK followed the example of the US (and most other countries) and broke down visas into immigrant and non-immigrant visas. Some visas are immigrant visas with a path to permanent residence (and citizenship). Other visas allow you to work for a single employer for a limited period, and have no path to residency.
I'm in the US on a non-immigrant visas. I can work for my company (the one I founded), but I couldn't work anywhere else. There is no path to citizenship for me.
Would I put Reform as favourites - Yes. Would I be tempted to bet on Green - Yes, assuming that the odds are long enough, and certainly more than any other competitor.
https://metro.co.uk/video/2024-tory-mp-patrick-spencer-promises-tackle-crime-campaign-video-3434625/
Voters can't say they weren't warned.
The now famous BBC reporter has a German-like name, and apparently the young Keir Starmer, who was a bit of a busybody - helping to run his father's factory (his father was a toolmaker, who owned a factory), used to catch the BBC kid slacking, and - mistakenly thinking the BBC kid was actually German - Starmer would demand the guy work harder by shouting at him "Arbeit, Matt Frei!"
*Yes I know I have told a version of this joke before, but as Sting said about tunes, when you find a good tune, use it at least three different ways