Seems Farage is to announce he will reinstate the WFP in full and abolish the 2 child cap
No wonder Starmer is in a panic
Cynical and clever. If he gets that out before SKS he simply cannot reverse the 2 child cap or he looks pathetic with Nigel leading him by the nose ring
Farage is simultaneously shameless and cunning, a dangerous politician indeed
I disagree with Farage on both of these topics but maybe it's good politics.
It's very clever (and I also disagree). Outflank Starmer on the right and the left
As things stand Farage is going to win in 2028 quite easily
I will vote for Farage because his stance on immigration is the only way to save the UK from a much worse fate
Suella Braverman is also in favour of lifting the cap. It doesn't seem sensible in an era when we're concerned about plunging birth rates to penalise those who want large families.
On the other hand, it also makes it a bit more likely that people you wouldn't really want to have larger families do so.
I think I'm broadly in favour of scrapping the cap.
We've gone from helping those who can work to work to Helping those who can fuck to fuck
Seems Farage is to announce he will reinstate the WFP in full and abolish the 2 child cap
No wonder Starmer is in a panic
Cynical and clever. If he gets that out before SKS he simply cannot reverse the 2 child cap or he looks pathetic with Nigel leading him by the nose ring
Farage is simultaneously shameless and cunning, a dangerous politician indeed
I disagree with Farage on both of these topics but maybe it's good politics.
It's very clever (and I also disagree). Outflank Starmer on the right and the left
As things stand Farage is going to win in 2028 quite easily
I will vote for Farage because his stance on immigration is the only way to save the UK from a much worse fate
Suella Braverman is also in favour of lifting the cap. It doesn't seem sensible in an era when we're concerned about plunging birth rates to penalise those who want large families.
On the other hand, it also makes it a bit more likely that people you wouldn't really want to have larger families do so.
I think I'm broadly in favour of scrapping the cap.
It is the rest of us who are penalised by paying taxes to subsidise them if the cap is lifted.
Seems Farage is to announce he will reinstate the WFP in full and abolish the 2 child cap
No wonder Starmer is in a panic
Cynical and clever. If he gets that out before SKS he simply cannot reverse the 2 child cap or he looks pathetic with Nigel leading him by the nose ring
Farage is simultaneously shameless and cunning, a dangerous politician indeed
I disagree with Farage on both of these topics but maybe it's good politics.
It's very clever (and I also disagree). Outflank Starmer on the right and the left
As things stand Farage is going to win in 2028 quite easily
I will vote for Farage because his stance on immigration is the only way to save the UK from a much worse fate
Suella Braverman is also in favour of lifting the cap. It doesn't seem sensible in an era when we're concerned about plunging birth rates to penalise those who want large families.
On the other hand, it also makes it a bit more likely that people you wouldn't really want to have larger families do so.
I think I'm broadly in favour of scrapping the cap.
Do people really plan families around benefit levels?
Seems Farage is to announce he will reinstate the WFP in full and abolish the 2 child cap
No wonder Starmer is in a panic
Cynical and clever. If he gets that out before SKS he simply cannot reverse the 2 child cap or he looks pathetic with Nigel leading him by the nose ring
Farage is simultaneously shameless and cunning, a dangerous politician indeed
I disagree with Farage on both of these topics but maybe it's good politics.
It's very clever (and I also disagree). Outflank Starmer on the right and the left
As things stand Farage is going to win in 2028 quite easily
I will vote for Farage because his stance on immigration is the only way to save the UK from a much worse fate
Suella Braverman is also in favour of lifting the cap. It doesn't seem sensible in an era when we're concerned about plunging birth rates to penalise those who want large families.
On the other hand, it also makes it a bit more likely that people you wouldn't really want to have larger families do so.
I think I'm broadly in favour of scrapping the cap.
The immigration emergency is more immediate, to my mind, than the birth rate (which is also important, of course)
So Farage knows he's got the votes of people like me. Ergo he can now go fishing in leftier waters
Ian Austin talking absolute bollocks laced with things we already know
There must be something going on behind the scenes
Starmer wins a landslide in July 24 and looks in trouble less than a year later
Who would have predicted that ?
I mean it's not even a secret Big G, she's launched. The interventions that keep popping up from grandees, the Welsh leader, etc etc. It's happening. It's just not acknowledged. Both the Starmer govt and the tories are in a blind panic. It's all starting to fall apart, everywhere
That's a bit over dramatic. We're moving into the "silly season" - we didn't have one last year because we were in an election but this year we will.
I supect both Badenoch and Starmer will still be leaders at their respective Conferences.
I know there are two things keeping Badenoch safe until next year.
1) Nobody wants to take responsibility for the shellacking that happens next year (particularly the devolved elections) so better Badenoch takes the rap for that.
2) About 90% of the PCP want her gone but 75% of the PCP don't want Jenrick so they are trying to arrange a coronation for either Cleverly or Hunt. Cleverly wants to be Mayor of London and thinks he could win it on 22% of the vote.
What is the spread of local councils up for election next year in England? I suspect that will set a lot of the media mood-music.
All of Londons councils are up, 1/3s of the metropolitan districts, the delayed counties? Some of the districts in 1/3s, Wales and Scotland parliaments.
It will be bad for Tories but not as bad as this year as they aren't defending 75% of the seats up for grabs but Wales and Scotland will be horror shows Labour will get trounced
The metros that are up in full primarily due to boundary changes:
Tyne and Wear: Newcastle, Gateshead, South Tyneside, Sunderland West Yorkshire: Wakefield, Bradford, Kirklees, Calderdale Barnsley Sefton, St Helens West Midlands: Walsall, Sandwell, Birmingham, Solihull, Coventry
If next year’s results mirror this year’s Reform should take Sunderland, Barnsley, Calderdale, Wakefield, St. Helen’s, Walsall, Sandwell.
I wonder if another potential win on Tyneside and whether they'll fall just a little short in Calderdale.
I can see a very, very messy split of seats here in Kirklees: around a dozen each of LD, Greens and Left / Independents, possibly slightly more Reform and a few rump Conservatives, Labour and genuine Independents. Who runs the council from that is anyone's guess.
Because today I went through a suburban village called "Tingley" and I thought, my God, what a shit-hole, it looks like something you USED to see in Eastern Europe
I'm kinda hoping it is one of the worst areas of Leeds otherwise, Eeek
Seems Farage is to announce he will reinstate the WFP in full and abolish the 2 child cap
No wonder Starmer is in a panic
Cynical and clever. If he gets that out before SKS he simply cannot reverse the 2 child cap or he looks pathetic with Nigel leading him by the nose ring
Farage is simultaneously shameless and cunning, a dangerous politician indeed
I disagree with Farage on both of these topics but maybe it's good politics.
It's very clever (and I also disagree). Outflank Starmer on the right and the left
As things stand Farage is going to win in 2028 quite easily
I will vote for Farage because his stance on immigration is the only way to save the UK from a much worse fate
Suella Braverman is also in favour of lifting the cap. It doesn't seem sensible in an era when we're concerned about plunging birth rates to penalise those who want large families.
On the other hand, it also makes it a bit more likely that people you wouldn't really want to have larger families do so.
I think I'm broadly in favour of scrapping the cap.
Do people really plan families around benefit levels?
@jeremycorbyn has said "I hear the call for a new political party. I fully understand that, and that political party needs to be well-informed and effective".
Because today I went through a suburban village called "Tingley" and I thought, my God, what a shit-hole, it looks like something you USED to see in Eastern Europe
I'm kinda hoping it is one of the worst areas of Leeds otherwise, Eeek
Don't try and drive through Leeds centre is all i can say, the entire redesign and road system was the product of a Blue Peter competition
Don't go see the latest Mission: Impossible film, it will trigger you.
Apparently there's a Trafalgar Square tube station.
The Northern Line and Bakerloo Line parts of present Charing Cross station were originally opened as two separate stations but were combined when the Jubilee Line was opened.
The Bakerloo Line platforms were opened as ‘Trafalgar Square’ by the Baker Street & Waterloo Railway.
You are trainsplaining to the God Of Trains. Brave move, sir.
[Edit. I thought @Sunil_Prasannan had written it. Turns out @TheScreamingEagles had written it. For the joke to work I promote @TSE to the Demigod Of Trains for the moment. As the Anti-God Of Trains I have the authority to do that. All Hail Beeching.]
I am the God of trains.
I use them a lot on a regular basis.
How much of the British railway network have you covered?
All of it I feel.
I once did the Penzance to Aberdeen service which has now closed.
I've done the whole of the "everyday" National Rail network, along with a fair amount of "rare" track, along with all of the London Underground, London Overground*, Elizabeth Line*, Docklands Light Rail, Tramlink (Croydon etc.), West Midlands Metro, Nottingham Express Transit, Sheffield Supertram, Merseyrail*, Manchester Metrolink, Blackpool Trams, Tyne & Wear Metro, Glasgow Subway, and the Edinburgh Trams. And I've visited every station in Greater London (612 by my calculations).
[* can be considered part of National Rail.]
What have you done, TSE? You've done Nothing!
[shrieking] NOTHING!!!
Merseyrail is not "considered" part of National Rail. It is part of National Rail!
Anyhow, you'll have to pop up to Yorkshire to visit the new Platform Zero at Bradford Forster Square.
But it is pretty much PHYSICALLY segregated FROM National Rail, as a visit to Headbolt Lane or Ormskirk can confirm!
And I don't know they can't just add 1 to the highest number platform at a given station instead of this "Platform Zero" bollocks! KIng's Cross is bad enough!
In all cases, it is because the station has been extended on the Platform 1 side. Going 3-2-1-4 would be daft.
Catch the right service, and you can go from P0 at Bradford to P0 at Leeds. Or the other way round.
Platform Zero = "platform nothing", which doesn't make a lot of metaphysical sense!
Ian Austin talking absolute bollocks laced with things we already know
There must be something going on behind the scenes
Starmer wins a landslide in July 24 and looks in trouble less than a year later
Who would have predicted that ?
I mean it's not even a secret Big G, she's launched. The interventions that keep popping up from grandees, the Welsh leader, etc etc. It's happening. It's just not acknowledged. Both the Starmer govt and the tories are in a blind panic. It's all starting to fall apart, everywhere
That's a bit over dramatic. We're moving into the "silly season" - we didn't have one last year because we were in an election but this year we will.
I supect both Badenoch and Starmer will still be leaders at their respective Conferences.
I know there are two things keeping Badenoch safe until next year.
1) Nobody wants to take responsibility for the shellacking that happens next year (particularly the devolved elections) so better Badenoch takes the rap for that.
2) About 90% of the PCP want her gone but 75% of the PCP don't want Jenrick so they are trying to arrange a coronation for either Cleverly or Hunt. Cleverly wants to be Mayor of London and thinks he could win it on 22% of the vote.
What is the spread of local councils up for election next year in England? I suspect that will set a lot of the media mood-music.
All of Londons councils are up, 1/3s of the metropolitan districts, the delayed counties? Some of the districts in 1/3s, Wales and Scotland parliaments.
It will be bad for Tories but not as bad as this year as they aren't defending 75% of the seats up for grabs but Wales and Scotland will be horror shows Labour will get trounced
The metros that are up in full primarily due to boundary changes:
Tyne and Wear: Newcastle, Gateshead, South Tyneside, Sunderland West Yorkshire: Wakefield, Bradford, Kirklees, Calderdale Barnsley Sefton, St Helens West Midlands: Walsall, Sandwell, Birmingham, Solihull, Coventry
If next year’s results mirror this year’s Reform should take Sunderland, Barnsley, Calderdale, Wakefield, St. Helen’s, Walsall, Sandwell.
I wonder if another potential win on Tyneside and whether they'll fall just a little short in Calderdale.
I can see a very, very messy split of seats here in Kirklees: around a dozen each of LD, Greens and Left / Independents, possibly slightly more Reform and a few rump Conservatives, Labour and genuine Independents. Who runs the council from that is anyone's guess.
Seems Farage is to announce he will reinstate the WFP in full and abolish the 2 child cap
No wonder Starmer is in a panic
Cynical and clever. If he gets that out before SKS he simply cannot reverse the 2 child cap or he looks pathetic with Nigel leading him by the nose ring
Farage is simultaneously shameless and cunning, a dangerous politician indeed
I disagree with Farage on both of these topics but maybe it's good politics.
It's very clever (and I also disagree). Outflank Starmer on the right and the left
As things stand Farage is going to win in 2028 quite easily
I will vote for Farage because his stance on immigration is the only way to save the UK from a much worse fate
Suella Braverman is also in favour of lifting the cap. It doesn't seem sensible in an era when we're concerned about plunging birth rates to penalise those who want large families.
On the other hand, it also makes it a bit more likely that people you wouldn't really want to have larger families do so.
I think I'm broadly in favour of scrapping the cap.
Do people really plan families around benefit levels?
The birthrate has been falling since about 2012, so a few years before the benefit cap. Can't have helped, though.
(Points to a wider issue of young people not wanting kids until they have settled into adulthood and not being able to afford to feel settled.)
Because today I went through a suburban village called "Tingley" and I thought, my God, what a shit-hole, it looks like something you USED to see in Eastern Europe
I'm kinda hoping it is one of the worst areas of Leeds otherwise, Eeek
There are plenty of shite areas around Leeds. South Leeds in particular. But there are also plenty of very desirable suburbs, and a city centre with lots going on, and plenty of well paid jobs. And there are apartment blocks going up at a rapid rate, adding to those already well established for those who want urban living.
Seems Farage is to announce he will reinstate the WFP in full and abolish the 2 child cap
No wonder Starmer is in a panic
Cynical and clever. If he gets that out before SKS he simply cannot reverse the 2 child cap or he looks pathetic with Nigel leading him by the nose ring
Farage is simultaneously shameless and cunning, a dangerous politician indeed
I disagree with Farage on both of these topics but maybe it's good politics.
It's very clever (and I also disagree). Outflank Starmer on the right and the left
As things stand Farage is going to win in 2028 quite easily
I will vote for Farage because his stance on immigration is the only way to save the UK from a much worse fate
Suella Braverman is also in favour of lifting the cap. It doesn't seem sensible in an era when we're concerned about plunging birth rates to penalise those who want large families.
On the other hand, it also makes it a bit more likely that people you wouldn't really want to have larger families do so.
I think I'm broadly in favour of scrapping the cap.
It isn't penalizing people who want large families it is giving them a free handout at the expense of the taxpayer. I didn't think you were in favour of the Government doing this sort of stuff.
If people want lots of children then they shouldn't expect others to pay for them. What next? A contribution from the taxpayer for a yacht?
I would appreciate if Moonrabbit would answer my question as to whether the Chagos Deal makes the Falklands more or less secure.
Regarding the header, this is simply a measure of awareness. There is no such thing as being aware of this deal and liking it. It's not like welfare where some are in receipt and some are paying, or a tax increase, assisted dying, or the NHS - there are no winners and losers or ideological fault lines. There are just losers.
Those who are in favour are just being reflexively pro-Labour (it's about equal with their poll rating) and are either ignorant about the deal or are acting from partisan loyalty.
My mind is still open on your question. persuade me. 🙂
I would answer, argument it’s less secure is based on precedent has been set by this case. But has a precedent been set, if each situation is unique? Put more specifically, when inhabitants have chosen, have there been instances UN and courts ruled against the choice of inhabitants? That would set a precedent making UK sovereignty of Falklands more insecure, our enemies like Moscow, would line up to game the UN workings, throwing their weight behind a claimant.
I’m not in favour of this Governments Chagos deal. My header was sharing my understanding they chose this option wanting to be seen as a fair and responsible power, rather than simply claiming land outright without international support, on basis this approach brings more leverage to our diplomacy, more influence, friends, more security deals and trade. Which actually is not new - it’s identical reasoning in 1898 British Empire chose to sign a lease on something else. They thought they would get more of the good stuff doing it that way.
I know you disagree. the other day you fully signed up to 1 million years BC diplomacy, Raquel Welch in Faun skins and a club in her hand. Perhaps one day we should have a simple header IS IT BETTER TO BE FEARED OR LOVED? and debate it out underneath. I’m certain it’s not as open and shut as you sure it is.
My personal preference is neither sovereignty or the deal. With either sovereignty or lease, UK gets absolutely nothing in defence and security that isn’t also pooled with others. Let US and India deal and pay this time.. But is that realistic? Was it ever an option?
Two things you unrealistically dismiss Lucky. Keeping sovereignty WILL come with brickbats and loss of influence. When it went into court, no one in the world turned up for us, apart from USA and some little places slipped a backhander to vote with us. No NATO allies, no Canada, no Australia. No one in the Indian Ocean or South China Sea, as India had used our Imperial Squat to whip them all up against doing any business with us.
Secondly, when UK got into base talks back in 1960s, it came hand in hand with interlocking UK defence and security with the US catalogue of expensive kit. Are we in any position to decouple? Seriously?
I don’t mind Reform making same glib mistakes as you, but fear Conservative front bench making the same and being unrealistic about what options actually were. in government or opposition, Lab & Con have been as one in agreement being interlocked with US equipment and security since 1960s. Today in opposition Tories attacking the deal as far too favourable to the US. What exactly is Kemi saying, what exactly is her policy, on interlocked with US on security and key bits of equipment?
Thanks for the time taken to answer.
It is not about being feared or loved. It is a far simpler calculation of positive and negative consequences on the part of those whose interests clash with ours. We have sent a HUGE signal up not only that we are in giveaway mode even when there is no legal compulsion or military threat, but that we will even bankroll our own disgrace. AND that we don't give a flying fuck about the wishes of the peoples' of the islands and their democratic wishes. The positives of taking on the UK have just become massively more attractive than the perceived downsides, for anyone.
I am happy for the UK be loved - I am not in favour of flouncing around taking delight in upsetting foreign Governments. But we MUST be consistent in defence of our own legitimate interests. We are not being celebrated on the streets of Calcutta with this deal - we were already loathed for the Raj; we have simply added a layer of being despised for being weak and in terminal decline.
Time and again Labour have made the foolish error of thinking that British Governments (usually Tory ones) didn't get anywhere in negotiations with overseas powers because they weren’t being 'nice' enough. It led to Blair giving away much of our EU rebate for a non-existent reform of the CAP, it has led to Starmer giving away 12 years of fishing rights for fuck all, it now leads to this.
In the bigger picture - and if you don’t agree with this please correct me - for the last 100 years, the US has been on a relentless mission to expunge all influence UK has in the world. They usurped UK good and proper in Middle East, even drew up plans in the forties to kick us out of Hong Kong. India has joined in with glee. UK pressured into this deal by India, steering everyone in the region away from the old evil empire for not being fair to Mauritius. There’s the clearer story of being hauled into court on Chagos. Not China driving it, but India. (I put all this in the header btw)
And what’s UK been doing whilst “friends” have been burying the British Empire, expunging last traces of it, clipping away at our influence around the region like a back street vet neutering a dog? We’ve interlocked ourselves into the expensive catalogue of US weaponry. We’ve got the hit of ethnic cleansing the Chagos, and the ongoing mess from that we saw outside a court house last week. And we brought both India and US into the negotiating room to help write this lease agreement.
When PBers post “we should have kept sovereignty, simples” I put it to you - isn’t that the preferred option Washington wanted in the first place? their bitch to keep the sovereignty, carry on doing the dirty work, until India’s campaign against us made it all the more difficult?
When you look at this bigger picture, from sixties to now, what the word Chagos should mean in the English language is “the UK have been mugs” all these years doing the heavy lifting for others, and getting what back exactly? Keeping the sovereignty as you say, I say naively, thoughtlessly, glibly,, artlessly you keep insisting we should have kept the sovereignty, we would have carried on as the bitch, carried on being the mug.
In my opinion we should be trying to decouple ourselves from the donkey work for others we have got ourselves into over in Chagos.
At least a lease on an island may be far less complicated to legally transfer on at some point, than sovereignty.
I understand your arguments, and I agree with much of what you say, but the Chagos deal is not the remedy for any of it.
In my heart, I don't want the US there at all. However, I appreciate that telling them to do one is an abject impossibility. From where we are (or where we were a year ago), the sensible middle road was simply to retain sovereignty. It wouldn't have delighted anyone, but neither would it have burned bridges or badly damaged any relationships.
If this deal goes through, we will be in a new situation. From where we will be then the best course of action will be to terminate the deal. There are numerous ways this could be achieved, and providing that none of them come with a 99 year rent, I'm up for whichever one causes with least hassle - though I accept that, as with the EU deal, Labour have left us with a signficant amount of lasting hassle, cleaning up their dirty protest of a Government.
Personally I think we should have given the Chagos Islands back to the Chagosians decades ago and could have used some of that money we are using to bribe Mauritius to actually support the Chagosians rebuilding their lives.
Two things are wrong/bad about the Chagos deal (ignoring the fact that Mauritius had no claim in the first place) and I think will come back to haunt us.
Firstly we have simply ignored the prople who actually inhabited the islands and should have been the ones we were returning them to.
And secondly we are going to see the utter detrsuction of the one of the largest marine reserves in the world.
These two combined make this a 'bad' decision.
We treated the Chagossians badly. However, the problem with giving the island to them is that it’s highly questionable that they would form a viable, independent state.
Surely that is for them to decide not us. The idea that these islanders are not capable of ruling themselves is one of the those colonial arguments that got us into this mess in the first place.
I’m not questioning their ability to rule themselves. Duh.
It’s a small population on a remote island: it’s difficult for states like that to be financially independent.
Because today I went through a suburban village called "Tingley" and I thought, my God, what a shit-hole, it looks like something you USED to see in Eastern Europe
I'm kinda hoping it is one of the worst areas of Leeds otherwise, Eeek
There are plenty of shite areas around Leeds. South Leeds in particular. But there are also plenty of very desirable suburbs, and a city centre with lots going on, and plenty of well paid jobs. And there are apartment blocks going up at a rapid rate, adding to those already well established for those who want urban living.
Thanks
But Tingley in particular, is that south Leeds? Is it known to be bad? There were literally burned out ex-council houses on the main road. It all seemed quite desperate to a visitor
He's now officially (according to me) the worst PM of my lifetime. By a country mile. Worse than Brown, worse than Heath. Worse than Mary Elizabeth Truss by 2 country miles
Who would you have as Prime Minister?
Seriously, he's not that bad - for me, Heath was the worst followed by Truss. The best? For me, first term Blair.
Churchill, Thatcher and Blair for me
Wasn't Churchill a bit Joe Biden during his post war premiership?
Post war until today I'd give a nod to Attlee, Supermac and of course Harold. I don't dislike Ted. His wisdom in joining the Common Market gave us an amazing 44 years of stability within Europe.
Johnson head and shoulders the worst PM followed by Truss. Home was a bit useless,but nice enough, too.
Actually Johnson was OK with Ukraine and covid, but Truss is on a scale of her own in being our worst PM
Bozo initiated the first lockdown to late, resulting in thousands of unnecessary deaths. Then went along with Rishi's "Eat out to catch Covid" nonsense to precipitate a second wave. And then set a shining example by ignoring his own rules, then lying about it. But otherwise, yes, he was OK with Covid.
That’s one version of events. I tend to agree about the first lockdown, but eat out to help out did not start the second wave, that started with opening up travel overseas again. And as for ignoring the rules, well yes he did, a bit, as did millions of others.
Don't go see the latest Mission: Impossible film, it will trigger you.
Apparently there's a Trafalgar Square tube station.
The Northern Line and Bakerloo Line parts of present Charing Cross station were originally opened as two separate stations but were combined when the Jubilee Line was opened.
The Bakerloo Line platforms were opened as ‘Trafalgar Square’ by the Baker Street & Waterloo Railway.
You are trainsplaining to the God Of Trains. Brave move, sir.
[Edit. I thought @Sunil_Prasannan had written it. Turns out @TheScreamingEagles had written it. For the joke to work I promote @TSE to the Demigod Of Trains for the moment. As the Anti-God Of Trains I have the authority to do that. All Hail Beeching.]
I am the God of trains.
I use them a lot on a regular basis.
How much of the British railway network have you covered?
All of it I feel.
I once did the Penzance to Aberdeen service which has now closed.
I've done the whole of the "everyday" National Rail network, along with a fair amount of "rare" track, along with all of the London Underground, London Overground*, Elizabeth Line*, Docklands Light Rail, Tramlink (Croydon etc.), West Midlands Metro, Nottingham Express Transit, Sheffield Supertram, Merseyrail*, Manchester Metrolink, Blackpool Trams, Tyne & Wear Metro, Glasgow Subway, and the Edinburgh Trams. And I've visited every station in Greater London (612 by my calculations).
[* can be considered part of National Rail.]
What have you done, TSE? You've done Nothing!
[shrieking] NOTHING!!!
Merseyrail is not "considered" part of National Rail. It is part of National Rail!
Anyhow, you'll have to pop up to Yorkshire to visit the new Platform Zero at Bradford Forster Square.
But it is pretty much PHYSICALLY segregated FROM National Rail, as a visit to Headbolt Lane or Ormskirk can confirm!
And I don't know they can't just add 1 to the highest number platform at a given station instead of this "Platform Zero" bollocks! KIng's Cross is bad enough!
In all cases, it is because the station has been extended on the Platform 1 side. Going 3-2-1-4 would be daft.
Catch the right service, and you can go from P0 at Bradford to P0 at Leeds. Or the other way round.
Platform Zero = "platform nothing", which doesn't make a lot of metaphysical sense!
In physics, you have the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics. Added when someone realised you needed something ahead of the First Law.
Seems Farage is to announce he will reinstate the WFP in full and abolish the 2 child cap
No wonder Starmer is in a panic
Cynical and clever. If he gets that out before SKS he simply cannot reverse the 2 child cap or he looks pathetic with Nigel leading him by the nose ring
Farage is simultaneously shameless and cunning, a dangerous politician indeed
I disagree with Farage on both of these topics but maybe it's good politics.
It's very clever (and I also disagree). Outflank Starmer on the right and the left
As things stand Farage is going to win in 2028 quite easily
I will vote for Farage because his stance on immigration is the only way to save the UK from a much worse fate
Suella Braverman is also in favour of lifting the cap. It doesn't seem sensible in an era when we're concerned about plunging birth rates to penalise those who want large families.
On the other hand, it also makes it a bit more likely that people you wouldn't really want to have larger families do so.
I think I'm broadly in favour of scrapping the cap.
It isn't penalizing people who want large families it is giving them a free handout at the expense of the taxpayer. I didn't think you were in favour of the Government doing this sort of stuff.
If people want lots of children then they shouldn't expect others to pay for them. What next? A contribution from the taxpayer for a yacht?
Because today I went through a suburban village called "Tingley" and I thought, my God, what a shit-hole, it looks like something you USED to see in Eastern Europe
I'm kinda hoping it is one of the worst areas of Leeds otherwise, Eeek
There are plenty of shite areas around Leeds. South Leeds in particular. But there are also plenty of very desirable suburbs, and a city centre with lots going on, and plenty of well paid jobs. And there are apartment blocks going up at a rapid rate, adding to those already well established for those who want urban living.
Thanks
But Tingley in particular, is that south Leeds? Is it known to be bad? There were literally burned out ex-council houses on the main road. It all seemed quite desperate to a visitor
Well it's not really Leeds. Too far out to be considered part of the city. Dropping into streetview, it does have some decent areas.
Don't go see the latest Mission: Impossible film, it will trigger you.
Apparently there's a Trafalgar Square tube station.
The Northern Line and Bakerloo Line parts of present Charing Cross station were originally opened as two separate stations but were combined when the Jubilee Line was opened.
The Bakerloo Line platforms were opened as ‘Trafalgar Square’ by the Baker Street & Waterloo Railway.
You are trainsplaining to the God Of Trains. Brave move, sir.
[Edit. I thought @Sunil_Prasannan had written it. Turns out @TheScreamingEagles had written it. For the joke to work I promote @TSE to the Demigod Of Trains for the moment. As the Anti-God Of Trains I have the authority to do that. All Hail Beeching.]
I am the God of trains.
I use them a lot on a regular basis.
How much of the British railway network have you covered?
All of it I feel.
I once did the Penzance to Aberdeen service which has now closed.
I've done the whole of the "everyday" National Rail network, along with a fair amount of "rare" track, along with all of the London Underground, London Overground*, Elizabeth Line*, Docklands Light Rail, Tramlink (Croydon etc.), West Midlands Metro, Nottingham Express Transit, Sheffield Supertram, Merseyrail*, Manchester Metrolink, Blackpool Trams, Tyne & Wear Metro, Glasgow Subway, and the Edinburgh Trams. And I've visited every station in Greater London (612 by my calculations).
[* can be considered part of National Rail.]
What have you done, TSE? You've done Nothing!
[shrieking] NOTHING!!!
Merseyrail is not "considered" part of National Rail. It is part of National Rail!
Anyhow, you'll have to pop up to Yorkshire to visit the new Platform Zero at Bradford Forster Square.
But it is pretty much PHYSICALLY segregated FROM National Rail, as a visit to Headbolt Lane or Ormskirk can confirm!
And I don't know they can't just add 1 to the highest number platform at a given station instead of this "Platform Zero" bollocks! KIng's Cross is bad enough!
In all cases, it is because the station has been extended on the Platform 1 side. Going 3-2-1-4 would be daft.
Catch the right service, and you can go from P0 at Bradford to P0 at Leeds. Or the other way round.
Platform Zero = "platform nothing", which doesn't make a lot of metaphysical sense!
In physics, you have the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics. Added when someone realised you needed something ahead of the First Law.
Seems Farage is to announce he will reinstate the WFP in full and abolish the 2 child cap
No wonder Starmer is in a panic
Cynical and clever. If he gets that out before SKS he simply cannot reverse the 2 child cap or he looks pathetic with Nigel leading him by the nose ring
Farage is simultaneously shameless and cunning, a dangerous politician indeed
I disagree with Farage on both of these topics but maybe it's good politics.
It's very clever (and I also disagree). Outflank Starmer on the right and the left
As things stand Farage is going to win in 2028 quite easily
I will vote for Farage because his stance on immigration is the only way to save the UK from a much worse fate
Suella Braverman is also in favour of lifting the cap. It doesn't seem sensible in an era when we're concerned about plunging birth rates to penalise those who want large families.
On the other hand, it also makes it a bit more likely that people you wouldn't really want to have larger families do so.
I think I'm broadly in favour of scrapping the cap.
It isn't penalizing people who want large families it is giving them a free handout at the expense of the taxpayer. I didn't think you were in favour of the Government doing this sort of stuff.
If people want lots of children then they shouldn't expect others to pay for them. What next? A contribution from the taxpayer for a yacht?
I am undecided about the issue.
Why are you undecided though? It seems to go against everything you appear to stand for. I'm sort of ok with child benefit for the less well off up to a limited number of children (say 2), but I would have imagined you were more against this sort of benefit than me. I am only in favour because of the welfare of the children, otherwise I would argue the state should not be involved and it is a personal decision.
I would appreciate if Moonrabbit would answer my question as to whether the Chagos Deal makes the Falklands more or less secure.
Regarding the header, this is simply a measure of awareness. There is no such thing as being aware of this deal and liking it. It's not like welfare where some are in receipt and some are paying, or a tax increase, assisted dying, or the NHS - there are no winners and losers or ideological fault lines. There are just losers.
Those who are in favour are just being reflexively pro-Labour (it's about equal with their poll rating) and are either ignorant about the deal or are acting from partisan loyalty.
My mind is still open on your question. persuade me. 🙂
I would answer, argument it’s less secure is based on precedent has been set by this case. But has a precedent been set, if each situation is unique? Put more specifically, when inhabitants have chosen, have there been instances UN and courts ruled against the choice of inhabitants? That would set a precedent making UK sovereignty of Falklands more insecure, our enemies like Moscow, would line up to game the UN workings, throwing their weight behind a claimant.
I’m not in favour of this Governments Chagos deal. My header was sharing my understanding they chose this option wanting to be seen as a fair and responsible power, rather than simply claiming land outright without international support, on basis this approach brings more leverage to our diplomacy, more influence, friends, more security deals and trade. Which actually is not new - it’s identical reasoning in 1898 British Empire chose to sign a lease on something else. They thought they would get more of the good stuff doing it that way.
I know you disagree. the other day you fully signed up to 1 million years BC diplomacy, Raquel Welch in Faun skins and a club in her hand. Perhaps one day we should have a simple header IS IT BETTER TO BE FEARED OR LOVED? and debate it out underneath. I’m certain it’s not as open and shut as you sure it is.
My personal preference is neither sovereignty or the deal. With either sovereignty or lease, UK gets absolutely nothing in defence and security that isn’t also pooled with others. Let US and India deal and pay this time.. But is that realistic? Was it ever an option?
Two things you unrealistically dismiss Lucky. Keeping sovereignty WILL come with brickbats and loss of influence. When it went into court, no one in the world turned up for us, apart from USA and some little places slipped a backhander to vote with us. No NATO allies, no Canada, no Australia. No one in the Indian Ocean or South China Sea, as India had used our Imperial Squat to whip them all up against doing any business with us.
Secondly, when UK got into base talks back in 1960s, it came hand in hand with interlocking UK defence and security with the US catalogue of expensive kit. Are we in any position to decouple? Seriously?
I don’t mind Reform making same glib mistakes as you, but fear Conservative front bench making the same and being unrealistic about what options actually were. in government or opposition, Lab & Con have been as one in agreement being interlocked with US equipment and security since 1960s. Today in opposition Tories attacking the deal as far too favourable to the US. What exactly is Kemi saying, what exactly is her policy, on interlocked with US on security and key bits of equipment?
Thanks for the time taken to answer.
It is not about being feared or loved. It is a far simpler calculation of positive and negative consequences on the part of those whose interests clash with ours. We have sent a HUGE signal up not only that we are in giveaway mode even when there is no legal compulsion or military threat, but that we will even bankroll our own disgrace. AND that we don't give a flying fuck about the wishes of the peoples' of the islands and their democratic wishes. The positives of taking on the UK have just become massively more attractive than the perceived downsides, for anyone.
I am happy for the UK be loved - I am not in favour of flouncing around taking delight in upsetting foreign Governments. But we MUST be consistent in defence of our own legitimate interests. We are not being celebrated on the streets of Calcutta with this deal - we were already loathed for the Raj; we have simply added a layer of being despised for being weak and in terminal decline.
Time and again Labour have made the foolish error of thinking that British Governments (usually Tory ones) didn't get anywhere in negotiations with overseas powers because they weren’t being 'nice' enough. It led to Blair giving away much of our EU rebate for a non-existent reform of the CAP, it has led to Starmer giving away 12 years of fishing rights for fuck all, it now leads to this.
In the bigger picture - and if you don’t agree with this please correct me - for the last 100 years, the US has been on a relentless mission to expunge all influence UK has in the world. They usurped UK good and proper in Middle East, even drew up plans in the forties to kick us out of Hong Kong. India has joined in with glee. UK pressured into this deal by India, steering everyone in the region away from the old evil empire for not being fair to Mauritius. There’s the clearer story of being hauled into court on Chagos. Not China driving it, but India. (I put all this in the header btw)
And what’s UK been doing whilst “friends” have been burying the British Empire, expunging last traces of it, clipping away at our influence around the region like a back street vet neutering a dog? We’ve interlocked ourselves into the expensive catalogue of US weaponry. We’ve got the hit of ethnic cleansing the Chagos, and the ongoing mess from that we saw outside a court house last week. And we brought both India and US into the negotiating room to help write this lease agreement.
When PBers post “we should have kept sovereignty, simples” I put it to you - isn’t that the preferred option Washington wanted in the first place? their bitch to keep the sovereignty, carry on doing the dirty work, until India’s campaign against us made it all the more difficult?
When you look at this bigger picture, from sixties to now, what the word Chagos should mean in the English language is “the UK have been mugs” all these years doing the heavy lifting for others, and getting what back exactly? Keeping the sovereignty as you say, I say naively, thoughtlessly, glibly,, artlessly you keep insisting we should have kept the sovereignty, we would have carried on as the bitch, carried on being the mug.
In my opinion we should be trying to decouple ourselves from the donkey work for others we have got ourselves into over in Chagos.
At least a lease on an island may be far less complicated to legally transfer on at some point, than sovereignty.
I understand your arguments, and I agree with much of what you say, but the Chagos deal is not the remedy for any of it.
In my heart, I don't want the US there at all. However, I appreciate that telling them to do one is an abject impossibility. From where we are (or where we were a year ago), the sensible middle road was simply to retain sovereignty. It wouldn't have delighted anyone, but neither would it have burned bridges or badly damaged any relationships.
If this deal goes through, we will be in a new situation. From where we will be then the best course of action will be to terminate the deal. There are numerous ways this could be achieved, and providing that none of them come with a 99 year rent, I'm up for whichever one causes with least hassle - though I accept that, as with the EU deal, Labour have left us with a signficant amount of lasting hassle, cleaning up their dirty protest of a Government.
Personally I think we should have given the Chagos Islands back to the Chagosians decades ago and could have used some of that money we are using to bribe Mauritius to actually support the Chagosians rebuilding their lives.
Two things are wrong/bad about the Chagos deal (ignoring the fact that Mauritius had no claim in the first place) and I think will come back to haunt us.
Firstly we have simply ignored the prople who actually inhabited the islands and should have been the ones we were returning them to.
And secondly we are going to see the utter detrsuction of the one of the largest marine reserves in the world.
These two combined make this a 'bad' decision.
We treated the Chagossians badly. However, the problem with giving the island to them is that it’s highly questionable that they would form a viable, independent state.
Surely that is for them to decide not us. The idea that these islanders are not capable of ruling themselves is one of the those colonial arguments that got us into this mess in the first place.
I’m not questioning their ability to rule themselves. Duh.
It’s a small population on a remote island: it’s difficult for states like that to be financially independent.
Most microstates don't have a ready made cash cow on their doorstep.
Don't go see the latest Mission: Impossible film, it will trigger you.
Apparently there's a Trafalgar Square tube station.
The Northern Line and Bakerloo Line parts of present Charing Cross station were originally opened as two separate stations but were combined when the Jubilee Line was opened.
The Bakerloo Line platforms were opened as ‘Trafalgar Square’ by the Baker Street & Waterloo Railway.
You are trainsplaining to the God Of Trains. Brave move, sir.
[Edit. I thought @Sunil_Prasannan had written it. Turns out @TheScreamingEagles had written it. For the joke to work I promote @TSE to the Demigod Of Trains for the moment. As the Anti-God Of Trains I have the authority to do that. All Hail Beeching.]
I am the God of trains.
I use them a lot on a regular basis.
How much of the British railway network have you covered?
All of it I feel.
I once did the Penzance to Aberdeen service which has now closed.
I've done the whole of the "everyday" National Rail network, along with a fair amount of "rare" track, along with all of the London Underground, London Overground*, Elizabeth Line*, Docklands Light Rail, Tramlink (Croydon etc.), West Midlands Metro, Nottingham Express Transit, Sheffield Supertram, Merseyrail*, Manchester Metrolink, Blackpool Trams, Tyne & Wear Metro, Glasgow Subway, and the Edinburgh Trams. And I've visited every station in Greater London (612 by my calculations).
[* can be considered part of National Rail.]
What have you done, TSE? You've done Nothing!
[shrieking] NOTHING!!!
Merseyrail is not "considered" part of National Rail. It is part of National Rail!
Anyhow, you'll have to pop up to Yorkshire to visit the new Platform Zero at Bradford Forster Square.
But it is pretty much PHYSICALLY segregated FROM National Rail, as a visit to Headbolt Lane or Ormskirk can confirm!
And I don't know they can't just add 1 to the highest number platform at a given station instead of this "Platform Zero" bollocks! KIng's Cross is bad enough!
In all cases, it is because the station has been extended on the Platform 1 side. Going 3-2-1-4 would be daft.
Catch the right service, and you can go from P0 at Bradford to P0 at Leeds. Or the other way round.
Platform Zero = "platform nothing", which doesn't make a lot of metaphysical sense!
In physics, you have the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics. Added when someone realised you needed something ahead of the First Law.
@jeremycorbyn has said "I hear the call for a new political party. I fully understand that, and that political party needs to be well-informed and effective".
Don't go see the latest Mission: Impossible film, it will trigger you.
Apparently there's a Trafalgar Square tube station.
The Northern Line and Bakerloo Line parts of present Charing Cross station were originally opened as two separate stations but were combined when the Jubilee Line was opened.
The Bakerloo Line platforms were opened as ‘Trafalgar Square’ by the Baker Street & Waterloo Railway.
You are trainsplaining to the God Of Trains. Brave move, sir.
[Edit. I thought @Sunil_Prasannan had written it. Turns out @TheScreamingEagles had written it. For the joke to work I promote @TSE to the Demigod Of Trains for the moment. As the Anti-God Of Trains I have the authority to do that. All Hail Beeching.]
I am the God of trains.
I use them a lot on a regular basis.
How much of the British railway network have you covered?
All of it I feel.
I once did the Penzance to Aberdeen service which has now closed.
I've done the whole of the "everyday" National Rail network, along with a fair amount of "rare" track, along with all of the London Underground, London Overground*, Elizabeth Line*, Docklands Light Rail, Tramlink (Croydon etc.), West Midlands Metro, Nottingham Express Transit, Sheffield Supertram, Merseyrail*, Manchester Metrolink, Blackpool Trams, Tyne & Wear Metro, Glasgow Subway, and the Edinburgh Trams. And I've visited every station in Greater London (612 by my calculations).
[* can be considered part of National Rail.]
What have you done, TSE? You've done Nothing!
[shrieking] NOTHING!!!
Merseyrail is not "considered" part of National Rail. It is part of National Rail!
Anyhow, you'll have to pop up to Yorkshire to visit the new Platform Zero at Bradford Forster Square.
But it is pretty much PHYSICALLY segregated FROM National Rail, as a visit to Headbolt Lane or Ormskirk can confirm!
And I don't know they can't just add 1 to the highest number platform at a given station instead of this "Platform Zero" bollocks! KIng's Cross is bad enough!
In all cases, it is because the station has been extended on the Platform 1 side. Going 3-2-1-4 would be daft.
Catch the right service, and you can go from P0 at Bradford to P0 at Leeds. Or the other way round.
Platform Zero = "platform nothing", which doesn't make a lot of metaphysical sense!
In physics, you have the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics. Added when someone realised you needed something ahead of the First Law.
Did it need a law to confirm that if A = C and B = C, then A = B?
Because today I went through a suburban village called "Tingley" and I thought, my God, what a shit-hole, it looks like something you USED to see in Eastern Europe
I'm kinda hoping it is one of the worst areas of Leeds otherwise, Eeek
There are plenty of shite areas around Leeds. South Leeds in particular. But there are also plenty of very desirable suburbs, and a city centre with lots going on, and plenty of well paid jobs. And there are apartment blocks going up at a rapid rate, adding to those already well established for those who want urban living.
Thanks
But Tingley in particular, is that south Leeds? Is it known to be bad? There were literally burned out ex-council houses on the main road. It all seemed quite desperate to a visitor
Well it's not really Leeds. Too far out to be considered part of the city. Dropping into streetview, it does have some decent areas.
Looked at it on Google Maps and it seems okay. Part of the constituency which Andrea Jenkyns used to represent.
@jeremycorbyn has said "I hear the call for a new political party. I fully understand that, and that political party needs to be well-informed and effective".
Observer reporting Labour will scrap the two child benefit cap. Starmer and Lammy also recently criticising Israel on Gaza. It feels like maybe they're having a reset? Oh and WFA changes also...
A Chav's Charter to churn out yet more feral, delinquent kids. Marvellous.
Excessive numbers of children are not a problem, right now.
Tell that to the people whose lives are blighted by the toerags.
Children who will be a drain on society throughout their lives benefit nobody.
Edit: Except their parents, who receive the cash handouts.
I'm just adoring this oh-so-edifying side to you tonight. I wish I had the natural compassion to be a lefty.
Because today I went through a suburban village called "Tingley" and I thought, my God, what a shit-hole, it looks like something you USED to see in Eastern Europe
I'm kinda hoping it is one of the worst areas of Leeds otherwise, Eeek
There are plenty of shite areas around Leeds. South Leeds in particular. But there are also plenty of very desirable suburbs, and a city centre with lots going on, and plenty of well paid jobs. And there are apartment blocks going up at a rapid rate, adding to those already well established for those who want urban living.
Thanks
But Tingley in particular, is that south Leeds? Is it known to be bad? There were literally burned out ex-council houses on the main road. It all seemed quite desperate to a visitor
Well it's not really Leeds. Too far out to be considered part of the city. Dropping into streetview, it does have some decent areas.
I'm currently reading Ghost Signs by Stu Hennigan; his experience as a volunteer food distributor during covid in Leeds. He was normally employed as a librarian by the council.
The deprivation he describes would make Orwell blanche.
Ian Austin talking absolute bollocks laced with things we already know
There must be something going on behind the scenes
Starmer wins a landslide in July 24 and looks in trouble less than a year later
Who would have predicted that ?
I mean it's not even a secret Big G, she's launched. The interventions that keep popping up from grandees, the Welsh leader, etc etc. It's happening. It's just not acknowledged. Both the Starmer govt and the tories are in a blind panic. It's all starting to fall apart, everywhere
That's a bit over dramatic. We're moving into the "silly season" - we didn't have one last year because we were in an election but this year we will.
I supect both Badenoch and Starmer will still be leaders at their respective Conferences.
I know there are two things keeping Badenoch safe until next year.
1) Nobody wants to take responsibility for the shellacking that happens next year (particularly the devolved elections) so better Badenoch takes the rap for that.
2) About 90% of the PCP want her gone but 75% of the PCP don't want Jenrick so they are trying to arrange a coronation for either Cleverly or Hunt. Cleverly wants to be Mayor of London and thinks he could win it on 22% of the vote.
What is the spread of local councils up for election next year in England? I suspect that will set a lot of the media mood-music.
All of Londons councils are up, 1/3s of the metropolitan districts, the delayed counties? Some of the districts in 1/3s, Wales and Scotland parliaments.
It will be bad for Tories but not as bad as this year as they aren't defending 75% of the seats up for grabs but Wales and Scotland will be horror shows Labour will get trounced
The metros that are up in full primarily due to boundary changes:
Tyne and Wear: Newcastle, Gateshead, South Tyneside, Sunderland West Yorkshire: Wakefield, Bradford, Kirklees, Calderdale Barnsley Sefton, St Helens West Midlands: Walsall, Sandwell, Birmingham, Solihull, Coventry
If next year’s results mirror this year’s Reform should take Sunderland, Barnsley, Calderdale, Wakefield, St. Helen’s, Walsall, Sandwell.
I wonder if another potential win on Tyneside and whether they'll fall just a little short in Calderdale.
I can see a very, very messy split of seats here in Kirklees: around a dozen each of LD, Greens and Left / Independents, possibly slightly more Reform and a few rump Conservatives, Labour and genuine Independents. Who runs the council from that is anyone's guess.
A Reform/Gaza coalition here in Bradford.
Not even that neat. OK, totted up my (current) guess for Kirklees, it's something like (35 for a majority):
17 Reform (+17) 13 Left/Gaza (+8) 12 Lib Dem (+2) 12 Green (+8) 8 Conservative (-6) 6 Labour (-29) 1 Independent (-)
Nigel Farage's party is in talks to get a SEVEN FIGURE donation from a US donor.
(And it's not Elon Musk)
Urghhhhh.
I can't think of many American billionaires that I want the British Government to be in the pocket of. They didn’t get to be billionaires by being prone to acts of no strings altruism.
Seems Farage is to announce he will reinstate the WFP in full and abolish the 2 child cap
No wonder Starmer is in a panic
Cynical and clever. If he gets that out before SKS he simply cannot reverse the 2 child cap or he looks pathetic with Nigel leading him by the nose ring
Farage is simultaneously shameless and cunning, a dangerous politician indeed
I disagree with Farage on both of these topics but maybe it's good politics.
It's very clever (and I also disagree). Outflank Starmer on the right and the left
As things stand Farage is going to win in 2028 quite easily
I will vote for Farage because his stance on immigration is the only way to save the UK from a much worse fate
Suella Braverman is also in favour of lifting the cap. It doesn't seem sensible in an era when we're concerned about plunging birth rates to penalise those who want large families.
On the other hand, it also makes it a bit more likely that people you wouldn't really want to have larger families do so.
I think I'm broadly in favour of scrapping the cap.
The immigration emergency is more immediate, to my mind, than the birth rate (which is also important, of course)
So Farage knows he's got the votes of people like me. Ergo he can now go fishing in leftier waters
Logic fail. When immigration was double what it is now Farage did not have your vote.
Nigel Farage's party is in talks to get a SEVEN FIGURE donation from a US donor.
(And it's not Elon Musk)
Urghhhhh.
I can't think of many American billionaires that I want the British Government to be in the pocket of. They didn’t get to be billionaires by being prone to acts of no strings altruism.
Nigel Farage's party is in talks to get a SEVEN FIGURE donation from a US donor.
(And it's not Elon Musk)
Urghhhhh.
I can't think of many American billionaires that I want the British Government to be in the pocket of. They didn’t get to be billionaires by being prone to acts of no strings altruism.
Labour need to highlight the s**t Republicans are doing to the US working class Reform will do the same to the working class here.
Yep.
Although the damage is yet to properly hit, so maybe Lab keeping their powder dry?
Is it?
Trump is obviously pivoting to the White vote. See his overt bid for White South Africans to come to the USA - the actual number is tiny, it's all about the optics
He is betting that the US is racially and finally polarising between Whites, blacks, hispanics, etc, and by posing as the protector of Whites he can win elections for the GOP for the foreseeable, as Whites are still a majority, for now
It might not work. Many Whites will find it repugnant. But many will not
Nigel Farage's party is in talks to get a SEVEN FIGURE donation from a US donor.
(And it's not Elon Musk)
Urghhhhh.
I can't think of many American billionaires that I want the British Government to be in the pocket of. They didn’t get to be billionaires by being prone to acts of no strings altruism.
I'd be ok if it was Taylor Swift or Beyonce.
I wouldn't.
Well it won't be either of them. Not if it's Reform. It'll be some sinister guy with far right political views.
Labour need to highlight the s**t Republicans are doing to the US working class Reform will do the same to the working class here.
Yep.
Although the damage is yet to properly hit, so maybe Lab keeping their powder dry?
Is it?
Trump is obviously pivoting to the White vote. See his overt bid for White South Africans to come to the USA - the actual number is tiny, it's all about the optics
He is betting that the US is racially and finally polarising between Whites, blacks, hispanics, etc, and by posing as the protector of Whites he can win elections for the GOP for the foreseeable, as Whites are still a majority, for now
It might not work. Many Whites will find it repugnant. But many will not
Nigel Farage's party is in talks to get a SEVEN FIGURE donation from a US donor.
(And it's not Elon Musk)
Urghhhhh.
I can't think of many American billionaires that I want the British Government to be in the pocket of. They didn’t get to be billionaires by being prone to acts of no strings altruism.
I'd be ok if it was Taylor Swift or Beyonce.
I wouldn't.
Well it won't be either of them. Not if it's Reform. It'll be some sinister guy with far right political views.
Labour need to highlight the s**t Republicans are doing to the US working class Reform will do the same to the working class here.
Yep.
Although the damage is yet to properly hit, so maybe Lab keeping their powder dry?
Is it?
Trump is obviously pivoting to the White vote. See his overt bid for White South Africans to come to the USA - the actual number is tiny, it's all about the optics
He is betting that the US is racially and finally polarising between Whites, blacks, hispanics, etc, and by posing as the protector of Whites he can win elections for the GOP for the foreseeable, as Whites are still a majority, for now
It might not work. Many Whites will find it repugnant. But many will not
The damage is coming. 7 or 8 million about to lose health insurance for a start.
Now whether their lives being made shitter and poorer is enough to break the Cult and/or white racism is another matter and will partly depend on whether the Dems get back to talking about economics and not pronouns and have leaders who aren't 105 years old.
And the white majority includes post-high school educated who don't and won't vote for Trump.
Labour need to highlight the s**t Republicans are doing to the US working class Reform will do the same to the working class here.
Yep.
Although the damage is yet to properly hit, so maybe Lab keeping their powder dry?
Taking medicaid away from people so the richest members of the society can get tax cuts. Laughable that Leon, isam, and Luckyguy etc. think the populist right care about the WWC.
Ian Austin talking absolute bollocks laced with things we already know
There must be something going on behind the scenes
Starmer wins a landslide in July 24 and looks in trouble less than a year later
Who would have predicted that ?
I mean it's not even a secret Big G, she's launched. The interventions that keep popping up from grandees, the Welsh leader, etc etc. It's happening. It's just not acknowledged. Both the Starmer govt and the tories are in a blind panic. It's all starting to fall apart, everywhere
That's a bit over dramatic. We're moving into the "silly season" - we didn't have one last year because we were in an election but this year we will.
I supect both Badenoch and Starmer will still be leaders at their respective Conferences.
I know there are two things keeping Badenoch safe until next year.
1) Nobody wants to take responsibility for the shellacking that happens next year (particularly the devolved elections) so better Badenoch takes the rap for that.
2) About 90% of the PCP want her gone but 75% of the PCP don't want Jenrick so they are trying to arrange a coronation for either Cleverly or Hunt. Cleverly wants to be Mayor of London and thinks he could win it on 22% of the vote.
What is the spread of local councils up for election next year in England? I suspect that will set a lot of the media mood-music.
All of Londons councils are up, 1/3s of the metropolitan districts, the delayed counties? Some of the districts in 1/3s, Wales and Scotland parliaments.
It will be bad for Tories but not as bad as this year as they aren't defending 75% of the seats up for grabs but Wales and Scotland will be horror shows Labour will get trounced
The metros that are up in full primarily due to boundary changes:
Tyne and Wear: Newcastle, Gateshead, South Tyneside, Sunderland West Yorkshire: Wakefield, Bradford, Kirklees, Calderdale Barnsley Sefton, St Helens West Midlands: Walsall, Sandwell, Birmingham, Solihull, Coventry
If next year’s results mirror this year’s Reform should take Sunderland, Barnsley, Calderdale, Wakefield, St. Helen’s, Walsall, Sandwell.
I wonder if another potential win on Tyneside and whether they'll fall just a little short in Calderdale.
I can see a very, very messy split of seats here in Kirklees: around a dozen each of LD, Greens and Left / Independents, possibly slightly more Reform and a few rump Conservatives, Labour and genuine Independents. Who runs the council from that is anyone's guess.
A Reform/Gaza coalition here in Bradford.
Not even that neat. OK, totted up my (current) guess for Kirklees, it's something like (35 for a majority):
17 Reform (+17) 13 Left/Gaza (+8) 12 Lib Dem (+2) 12 Green (+8) 8 Conservative (-6) 6 Labour (-29) 1 Independent (-)
LD/Green/Con/Lab administration. 'The establishments last stand'
Labour need to highlight the s**t Republicans are doing to the US working class Reform will do the same to the working class here.
Yep.
Although the damage is yet to properly hit, so maybe Lab keeping their powder dry?
Is it?
Trump is obviously pivoting to the White vote. See his overt bid for White South Africans to come to the USA - the actual number is tiny, it's all about the optics
He is betting that the US is racially and finally polarising between Whites, blacks, hispanics, etc, and by posing as the protector of Whites he can win elections for the GOP for the foreseeable, as Whites are still a majority, for now
It might not work. Many Whites will find it repugnant. But many will not
Oh lovely.
It's a paradox, but perhaps Scandinavian-style social democracy is only possible in a de facto ethnostate.
Nigel Farage's party is in talks to get a SEVEN FIGURE donation from a US donor.
(And it's not Elon Musk)
Urghhhhh.
I can't think of many American billionaires that I want the British Government to be in the pocket of. They didn’t get to be billionaires by being prone to acts of no strings altruism.
I'd be ok if it was Taylor Swift or Beyonce.
I wouldn't.
Well it won't be either of them. Not if it's Reform. It'll be some sinister guy with far right political views.
Labour need to highlight the s**t Republicans are doing to the US working class Reform will do the same to the working class here.
Yep.
Although the damage is yet to properly hit, so maybe Lab keeping their powder dry?
Is it?
Trump is obviously pivoting to the White vote. See his overt bid for White South Africans to come to the USA - the actual number is tiny, it's all about the optics
He is betting that the US is racially and finally polarising between Whites, blacks, hispanics, etc, and by posing as the protector of Whites he can win elections for the GOP for the foreseeable, as Whites are still a majority, for now
It might not work. Many Whites will find it repugnant. But many will not
Again, taking medicaid away to pay for the 1% getting tax cuts. You know what... kind of hope Farage gets in now. He'll make Starmer (as of now) seem as beloved as Blair was in 1997 when he starts enacting his economic policies.
Labour need to highlight the s**t Republicans are doing to the US working class Reform will do the same to the working class here.
Yep.
Although the damage is yet to properly hit, so maybe Lab keeping their powder dry?
Taking medicaid away from people so the richest members of the society can get tax cuts. Laughable that Leon, isam, and Luckyguy etc. think the populist right care about the WWC.
Nigel Farage's party is in talks to get a SEVEN FIGURE donation from a US donor.
(And it's not Elon Musk)
Urghhhhh.
I can't think of many American billionaires that I want the British Government to be in the pocket of. They didn’t get to be billionaires by being prone to acts of no strings altruism.
I'd be ok if it was Taylor Swift or Beyonce.
I wouldn't.
Well it won't be either of them. Not if it's Reform. It'll be some sinister guy with far right political views.
Thank you, but I'm still not fully reassured.
Well that's you and me both.
How is this donor a "permissible" donor under electoral law?
Labour need to highlight the s**t Republicans are doing to the US working class Reform will do the same to the working class here.
Yep.
Although the damage is yet to properly hit, so maybe Lab keeping their powder dry?
Is it?
Trump is obviously pivoting to the White vote. See his overt bid for White South Africans to come to the USA - the actual number is tiny, it's all about the optics
He is betting that the US is racially and finally polarising between Whites, blacks, hispanics, etc, and by posing as the protector of Whites he can win elections for the GOP for the foreseeable, as Whites are still a majority, for now
It might not work. Many Whites will find it repugnant. But many will not
Oh lovely.
It's a paradox, but perhaps Scandinavian-style social democracy is only possible in a de facto ethnostate.
I don't think there's any such thing as a common white interest or identity, so that shouldn't be the case.
Labour need to highlight the s**t Republicans are doing to the US working class Reform will do the same to the working class here.
Yep.
Although the damage is yet to properly hit, so maybe Lab keeping their powder dry?
Is it?
Trump is obviously pivoting to the White vote. See his overt bid for White South Africans to come to the USA - the actual number is tiny, it's all about the optics
He is betting that the US is racially and finally polarising between Whites, blacks, hispanics, etc, and by posing as the protector of Whites he can win elections for the GOP for the foreseeable, as Whites are still a majority, for now
It might not work. Many Whites will find it repugnant. But many will not
Oh lovely.
It's a paradox, but perhaps Scandinavian-style social democracy is only possible in a de facto ethnostate.
It's not an IF it's a fact. Research proves that people are only willing to pay high taxes for a welfare state and their fellow citizens IF they feel a genetic link to them. "My people", "my tribe", etc. This makes Darwinian sense
Multiracial societies tend to be low tax, and quite often low trust - each to his own - unless the taxes/laws are enforced by a dictatorial or authoritarian centre
Labour need to highlight the s**t Republicans are doing to the US working class Reform will do the same to the working class here.
Yep.
Although the damage is yet to properly hit, so maybe Lab keeping their powder dry?
Taking medicaid away from people so the richest members of the society can get tax cuts. Laughable that Leon, isam, and Luckyguy etc. think the populist right care about the WWC.
It's the first W in focus, I think.
Kind of the hope they get in now for the inevitable schadenfreude and Leon and Luckyguy trying to explain why PM Farage is ok when everyone loathes and despises him in 2030.
Labour need to highlight the s**t Republicans are doing to the US working class Reform will do the same to the working class here.
Yep.
Although the damage is yet to properly hit, so maybe Lab keeping their powder dry?
Is it?
Trump is obviously pivoting to the White vote. See his overt bid for White South Africans to come to the USA - the actual number is tiny, it's all about the optics
He is betting that the US is racially and finally polarising between Whites, blacks, hispanics, etc, and by posing as the protector of Whites he can win elections for the GOP for the foreseeable, as Whites are still a majority, for now
It might not work. Many Whites will find it repugnant. But many will not
Oh lovely.
It's a paradox, but perhaps Scandinavian-style social democracy is only possible in a de facto ethnostate.
It's not a paradox. But having said that, Oslo seems to be doing quite well with about 30% of the population from EMs when I was there in November.
Nigel Farage's party is in talks to get a SEVEN FIGURE donation from a US donor.
(And it's not Elon Musk)
Urghhhhh.
I can't think of many American billionaires that I want the British Government to be in the pocket of. They didn’t get to be billionaires by being prone to acts of no strings altruism.
Labour need to highlight the s**t Republicans are doing to the US working class Reform will do the same to the working class here.
Yep.
Although the damage is yet to properly hit, so maybe Lab keeping their powder dry?
Is it?
Trump is obviously pivoting to the White vote. See his overt bid for White South Africans to come to the USA - the actual number is tiny, it's all about the optics
He is betting that the US is racially and finally polarising between Whites, blacks, hispanics, etc, and by posing as the protector of Whites he can win elections for the GOP for the foreseeable, as Whites are still a majority, for now
It might not work. Many Whites will find it repugnant. But many will not
From the bloke who bragged about getting the Latino male vote last time around?
Labour need to highlight the s**t Republicans are doing to the US working class Reform will do the same to the working class here.
Yep.
Although the damage is yet to properly hit, so maybe Lab keeping their powder dry?
Is it?
Trump is obviously pivoting to the White vote. See his overt bid for White South Africans to come to the USA - the actual number is tiny, it's all about the optics
He is betting that the US is racially and finally polarising between Whites, blacks, hispanics, etc, and by posing as the protector of Whites he can win elections for the GOP for the foreseeable, as Whites are still a majority, for now
It might not work. Many Whites will find it repugnant. But many will not
The damage is coming. 7 or 8 million about to lose health insurance for a start.
Now whether their lives being made shitter and poorer is enough to break the Cult and/or white racism is another matter and will partly depend on whether the Dems get back to talking about economics and not pronouns and have leaders who aren't 105 years old.
And the white majority includes post-high school educated who don't and won't vote for Trump.
Yes, it's a risk for Trump. But if you read the thinking behind it, this is what they are doing. Go after the White vote, overtly, as the Dems have gone after the blacks, hispanics, latinos before - remember Kamala Harris and her promise to black American voters - make weed legal etc
"In outreach to Black men, Harris to vow to legalize weed, protect crypto
Vice President Kamala Harris is pledging Monday to legalize recreational marijuana, protect cryptocurrency assets and give 1 million loans to Black entrepreneurs, as part of her efforts to court Black voters who may be pivotal in the presidential race."
Labour need to highlight the s**t Republicans are doing to the US working class Reform will do the same to the working class here.
Yep.
Although the damage is yet to properly hit, so maybe Lab keeping their powder dry?
Is it?
Trump is obviously pivoting to the White vote. See his overt bid for White South Africans to come to the USA - the actual number is tiny, it's all about the optics
He is betting that the US is racially and finally polarising between Whites, blacks, hispanics, etc, and by posing as the protector of Whites he can win elections for the GOP for the foreseeable, as Whites are still a majority, for now
It might not work. Many Whites will find it repugnant. But many will not
Oh lovely.
It's a paradox, but perhaps Scandinavian-style social democracy is only possible in a de facto ethnostate.
I don't think there's any such thing as a common white interest or identity, so that shouldn't be the case.
That's not what the claim is though. Nobody is saying that all the white people should join together in their own state (although arguably the EU is such a project), just that certain types of politics are only possible in states that are somewhat homogeneous.
Labour need to highlight the s**t Republicans are doing to the US working class Reform will do the same to the working class here.
Yep.
Although the damage is yet to properly hit, so maybe Lab keeping their powder dry?
Is it?
Trump is obviously pivoting to the White vote. See his overt bid for White South Africans to come to the USA - the actual number is tiny, it's all about the optics
He is betting that the US is racially and finally polarising between Whites, blacks, hispanics, etc, and by posing as the protector of Whites he can win elections for the GOP for the foreseeable, as Whites are still a majority, for now
It might not work. Many Whites will find it repugnant. But many will not
Oh lovely.
It's a paradox, but perhaps Scandinavian-style social democracy is only possible in a de facto ethnostate.
It's not an IF it's a fact. Research proves that people are only willing to pay high taxes for a welfare state and their fellow citizens IF they feel a genetic link to them. "My people", "my tribe", etc. This makes Darwinian sense
Multiracial societies tend to be low tax, and quite often low trust - each to his own - unless the taxes/laws are enforced by a dictatorial or authoritarian centre
Total and utter cod and chips. I require no such feeling of "genetic link" to be willing to pay enough tax to fund welfare and public services in this country that I live in.
Labour need to highlight the s**t Republicans are doing to the US working class Reform will do the same to the working class here.
Yep.
Although the damage is yet to properly hit, so maybe Lab keeping their powder dry?
Is it?
Trump is obviously pivoting to the White vote. See his overt bid for White South Africans to come to the USA - the actual number is tiny, it's all about the optics
He is betting that the US is racially and finally polarising between Whites, blacks, hispanics, etc, and by posing as the protector of Whites he can win elections for the GOP for the foreseeable, as Whites are still a majority, for now
It might not work. Many Whites will find it repugnant. But many will not
Oh lovely.
It's a paradox, but perhaps Scandinavian-style social democracy is only possible in a de facto ethnostate.
It's not an IF it's a fact. Research proves that people are only willing to pay high taxes for a welfare state and their fellow citizens IF they feel a genetic link to them. "My people", "my tribe", etc. This makes Darwinian sense
Multiracial societies tend to be low tax, and quite often low trust - each to his own - unless the taxes/laws are enforced by a dictatorial or authoritarian centre
Example of this: until about 10 years ago you didn't need to show ID to check in to most London hotels. Now you do with the majority of them. (An exception is Premier Inn Heathrow where they just ask for the postcode you used to make the booking).
Labour need to highlight the s**t Republicans are doing to the US working class Reform will do the same to the working class here.
Yep.
Although the damage is yet to properly hit, so maybe Lab keeping their powder dry?
Is it?
Trump is obviously pivoting to the White vote. See his overt bid for White South Africans to come to the USA - the actual number is tiny, it's all about the optics
He is betting that the US is racially and finally polarising between Whites, blacks, hispanics, etc, and by posing as the protector of Whites he can win elections for the GOP for the foreseeable, as Whites are still a majority, for now
It might not work. Many Whites will find it repugnant. But many will not
Oh lovely.
It's a paradox, but perhaps Scandinavian-style social democracy is only possible in a de facto ethnostate.
I don't think there's any such thing as a common white interest or identity, so that shouldn't be the case.
That's not what the claim is though. Nobody is saying that all the white people should join together in their own state (although arguably the EU is such a project), just that certain types of politics are only possible in states that are somewhat homogeneous.
The centre left Danish PM
“If we get too many people working for very low wages then we destroy the labour market for unskilled Danes, who wouldn’t be able to make a normal living,” he said. “And that’s what we really are concerned about.”
How Denmark’s centre-left leaders got tough on migration
Labour need to highlight the s**t Republicans are doing to the US working class Reform will do the same to the working class here.
Yep.
Although the damage is yet to properly hit, so maybe Lab keeping their powder dry?
Is it?
Trump is obviously pivoting to the White vote. See his overt bid for White South Africans to come to the USA - the actual number is tiny, it's all about the optics
He is betting that the US is racially and finally polarising between Whites, blacks, hispanics, etc, and by posing as the protector of Whites he can win elections for the GOP for the foreseeable, as Whites are still a majority, for now
It might not work. Many Whites will find it repugnant. But many will not
Oh lovely.
It's a paradox, but perhaps Scandinavian-style social democracy is only possible in a de facto ethnostate.
I don't think there's any such thing as a common white interest or identity, so that shouldn't be the case.
That's not what the claim is though. Nobody is saying that all the white people should join together in their own state (although arguably the EU is such a project), just that certain types of politics are only possible in states that are somewhat homogeneous.
Labour need to highlight the s**t Republicans are doing to the US working class Reform will do the same to the working class here.
Yep.
Although the damage is yet to properly hit, so maybe Lab keeping their powder dry?
Is it?
Trump is obviously pivoting to the White vote. See his overt bid for White South Africans to come to the USA - the actual number is tiny, it's all about the optics
He is betting that the US is racially and finally polarising between Whites, blacks, hispanics, etc, and by posing as the protector of Whites he can win elections for the GOP for the foreseeable, as Whites are still a majority, for now
It might not work. Many Whites will find it repugnant. But many will not
Oh lovely.
It's a paradox, but perhaps Scandinavian-style social democracy is only possible in a de facto ethnostate.
I don't think there's any such thing as a common white interest or identity, so that shouldn't be the case.
That's not what the claim is though. Nobody is saying that all the white people should join together in their own state (although arguably the EU is such a project), just that certain types of politics are only possible in states that are somewhat homogeneous.
The centre left Danish PM
“If we get too many people working for very low wages then we destroy the labour market for unskilled Danes, who wouldn’t be able to make a normal living,” he said. “And that’s what we really are concerned about.”
How Denmark’s centre-left leaders got tough on migration
Labour need to highlight the s**t Republicans are doing to the US working class Reform will do the same to the working class here.
Yep.
Although the damage is yet to properly hit, so maybe Lab keeping their powder dry?
Is it?
Trump is obviously pivoting to the White vote. See his overt bid for White South Africans to come to the USA - the actual number is tiny, it's all about the optics
He is betting that the US is racially and finally polarising between Whites, blacks, hispanics, etc, and by posing as the protector of Whites he can win elections for the GOP for the foreseeable, as Whites are still a majority, for now
It might not work. Many Whites will find it repugnant. But many will not
Oh lovely.
It's a paradox, but perhaps Scandinavian-style social democracy is only possible in a de facto ethnostate.
I don't think there's any such thing as a common white interest or identity, so that shouldn't be the case.
That's not what the claim is though. Nobody is saying that all the white people should join together in their own state (although arguably the EU is such a project), just that certain types of politics are only possible in states that are somewhat homogeneous.
Our ability to fund ourselves depends on our finances not on how "homogeneous" the population is.
Labour need to highlight the s**t Republicans are doing to the US working class Reform will do the same to the working class here.
Yep.
Although the damage is yet to properly hit, so maybe Lab keeping their powder dry?
Is it?
Trump is obviously pivoting to the White vote. See his overt bid for White South Africans to come to the USA - the actual number is tiny, it's all about the optics
He is betting that the US is racially and finally polarising between Whites, blacks, hispanics, etc, and by posing as the protector of Whites he can win elections for the GOP for the foreseeable, as Whites are still a majority, for now
It might not work. Many Whites will find it repugnant. But many will not
Oh lovely.
It's a paradox, but perhaps Scandinavian-style social democracy is only possible in a de facto ethnostate.
It's not an IF it's a fact. Research proves that people are only willing to pay high taxes for a welfare state and their fellow citizens IF they feel a genetic link to them. "My people", "my tribe", etc. This makes Darwinian sense
Multiracial societies tend to be low tax, and quite often low trust - each to his own - unless the taxes/laws are enforced by a dictatorial or authoritarian centre
Total and utter cod and chips. I require no such feeling of "genetic link" to be willing to pay enough tax to fund welfare and public services in this country that I live in.
"Migration flows have diversified western societies, challenging the political viability of inclusive welfare states. This is very clear in research on perceptions of deservingness to social benefits, which consistently shows that immigrants are considered as less deserving of collective help than natives"
The more diverse a society gets, and the larger the influx of immigrants, the less willing "natives" will be to the idea of handing out taxes to the incomers, especially in the form of social benefits
Frankly. this should be bloody obvious. It's basic human nature. Even Angela Rayner gets it
The public finances are in a worse state than they were 6 and 12 months ago.
Long article from Laura K on how ugly the Spending Review is going to be (link below).
And yet Starmer is going to spend £3.5bn handing out more welfare in a move completely contrary to what the public supports. And of course the more welfare that is handed out to working age people, the less incentive to work.
Plus £1.5bn to reverse Winter Fuel.
How on earth is it all going to add up?
He surely isn't going to put up NI again - and tinkering with a few minor taxes here or there isn't going to cut it.
Labour need to highlight the s**t Republicans are doing to the US working class Reform will do the same to the working class here.
Yep.
Although the damage is yet to properly hit, so maybe Lab keeping their powder dry?
Is it?
Trump is obviously pivoting to the White vote. See his overt bid for White South Africans to come to the USA - the actual number is tiny, it's all about the optics
He is betting that the US is racially and finally polarising between Whites, blacks, hispanics, etc, and by posing as the protector of Whites he can win elections for the GOP for the foreseeable, as Whites are still a majority, for now
It might not work. Many Whites will find it repugnant. But many will not
Oh lovely.
It's a paradox, but perhaps Scandinavian-style social democracy is only possible in a de facto ethnostate.
I don't think there's any such thing as a common white interest or identity, so that shouldn't be the case.
That's not what the claim is though. Nobody is saying that all the white people should join together in their own state (although arguably the EU is such a project), just that certain types of politics are only possible in states that are somewhat homogeneous.
Our ability to fund ourselves depends on our finances not on how "homogeneous" the population is.
It is very sad that the world is not as @kinabalu wishes it to be, but such is reality
Homogenous societies are much more willing to fund welfare states, this is a known phenomenon. When the homogeneity is seriously challenged, the social contract falls apart as the "natives" (however you define it) see the welfare going to incomers who are culturally very different and who have made no longterm contribution
This is not logically disputable
However it should not be a counsel of despair. We can maintain a UK welfare state, we just need to make it contributory. If you have lived and worked in the UK all your life, you are more entitled to benefits/healthcare/housing than someone who arrived last week. How hard is that?
The public finances are in a worse state than they were 6 and 12 months ago.
Long article from Laura K on how ugly the Spending Review is going to be (link below).
And yet Starmer is going to spend £3.5bn handing out more welfare in a move completely contrary to what the public supports. And of course the more welfare that is handed out to working age people, the less incentive to work.
Plus £1.5bn to reverse Winter Fuel.
How on earth is it all going to add up?
He surely isn't going to put up NI again - and tinkering with a few minor taxes here or there isn't going to cut it.
Labour need to highlight the s**t Republicans are doing to the US working class Reform will do the same to the working class here.
Yep.
Although the damage is yet to properly hit, so maybe Lab keeping their powder dry?
Is it?
Trump is obviously pivoting to the White vote. See his overt bid for White South Africans to come to the USA - the actual number is tiny, it's all about the optics
He is betting that the US is racially and finally polarising between Whites, blacks, hispanics, etc, and by posing as the protector of Whites he can win elections for the GOP for the foreseeable, as Whites are still a majority, for now
It might not work. Many Whites will find it repugnant. But many will not
Oh lovely.
It's a paradox, but perhaps Scandinavian-style social democracy is only possible in a de facto ethnostate.
I don't think there's any such thing as a common white interest or identity, so that shouldn't be the case.
Queuing. The ability to politely wait in a queue. That is what marks us out, genetically. Want to pull a locket of hair of the decapitated King's head? Wait in the queue. Want your UBI? Wait in the queue. It's our Homo Sapien USP.
The public finances are in a worse state than they were 6 and 12 months ago.
Long article from Laura K on how ugly the Spending Review is going to be (link below).
And yet Starmer is going to spend £3.5bn handing out more welfare in a move completely contrary to what the public supports. And of course the more welfare that is handed out to working age people, the less incentive to work.
Plus £1.5bn to reverse Winter Fuel.
How on earth is it all going to add up?
He surely isn't going to put up NI again - and tinkering with a few minor taxes here or there isn't going to cut it.
Labour need to highlight the s**t Republicans are doing to the US working class Reform will do the same to the working class here.
Yep.
Although the damage is yet to properly hit, so maybe Lab keeping their powder dry?
Is it?
Trump is obviously pivoting to the White vote. See his overt bid for White South Africans to come to the USA - the actual number is tiny, it's all about the optics
He is betting that the US is racially and finally polarising between Whites, blacks, hispanics, etc, and by posing as the protector of Whites he can win elections for the GOP for the foreseeable, as Whites are still a majority, for now
It might not work. Many Whites will find it repugnant. But many will not
Oh lovely.
It's a paradox, but perhaps Scandinavian-style social democracy is only possible in a de facto ethnostate.
It's not an IF it's a fact. Research proves that people are only willing to pay high taxes for a welfare state and their fellow citizens IF they feel a genetic link to them. "My people", "my tribe", etc. This makes Darwinian sense
Multiracial societies tend to be low tax, and quite often low trust - each to his own - unless the taxes/laws are enforced by a dictatorial or authoritarian centre
Total and utter cod and chips. I require no such feeling of "genetic link" to be willing to pay enough tax to fund welfare and public services in this country that I live in.
"Migration flows have diversified western societies, challenging the political viability of inclusive welfare states. This is very clear in research on perceptions of deservingness to social benefits, which consistently shows that immigrants are considered as less deserving of collective help than natives"
The more diverse a society gets, and the larger the influx of immigrants, the less willing "natives" will be to the idea of handing out taxes to the incomers, especially in the form of social benefits
Frankly. this should be bloody obvious. It's basic human nature. Even Angela Rayner gets it
It's certainly "basic". But no, the further back a person can trace their British ancestry, the more deserving they are of state help with their lives - I don't think this (racist) view is a majority one.
Labour need to highlight the s**t Republicans are doing to the US working class Reform will do the same to the working class here.
Yep.
Although the damage is yet to properly hit, so maybe Lab keeping their powder dry?
Is it?
Trump is obviously pivoting to the White vote. See his overt bid for White South Africans to come to the USA - the actual number is tiny, it's all about the optics
He is betting that the US is racially and finally polarising between Whites, blacks, hispanics, etc, and by posing as the protector of Whites he can win elections for the GOP for the foreseeable, as Whites are still a majority, for now
It might not work. Many Whites will find it repugnant. But many will not
Oh lovely.
It's a paradox, but perhaps Scandinavian-style social democracy is only possible in a de facto ethnostate.
It's not an IF it's a fact. Research proves that people are only willing to pay high taxes for a welfare state and their fellow citizens IF they feel a genetic link to them. "My people", "my tribe", etc. This makes Darwinian sense
Multiracial societies tend to be low tax, and quite often low trust - each to his own - unless the taxes/laws are enforced by a dictatorial or authoritarian centre
Total and utter cod and chips. I require no such feeling of "genetic link" to be willing to pay enough tax to fund welfare and public services in this country that I live in.
"Migration flows have diversified western societies, challenging the political viability of inclusive welfare states. This is very clear in research on perceptions of deservingness to social benefits, which consistently shows that immigrants are considered as less deserving of collective help than natives"
The more diverse a society gets, and the larger the influx of immigrants, the less willing "natives" will be to the idea of handing out taxes to the incomers, especially in the form of social benefits
Frankly. this should be bloody obvious. It's basic human nature. Even Angela Rayner gets it
It's certainly "basic". But no, the further back a person can trace their British ancestry, the more deserving they are of state help with their lives - I don't think this (racist) view is a majority one.
How can that be a racist view if we've been diverse forever?
Labour need to highlight the s**t Republicans are doing to the US working class Reform will do the same to the working class here.
Yep.
Although the damage is yet to properly hit, so maybe Lab keeping their powder dry?
Is it?
Trump is obviously pivoting to the White vote. See his overt bid for White South Africans to come to the USA - the actual number is tiny, it's all about the optics
He is betting that the US is racially and finally polarising between Whites, blacks, hispanics, etc, and by posing as the protector of Whites he can win elections for the GOP for the foreseeable, as Whites are still a majority, for now
It might not work. Many Whites will find it repugnant. But many will not
Oh lovely.
It's a paradox, but perhaps Scandinavian-style social democracy is only possible in a de facto ethnostate.
It's not an IF it's a fact. Research proves that people are only willing to pay high taxes for a welfare state and their fellow citizens IF they feel a genetic link to them. "My people", "my tribe", etc. This makes Darwinian sense
Multiracial societies tend to be low tax, and quite often low trust - each to his own - unless the taxes/laws are enforced by a dictatorial or authoritarian centre
Total and utter cod and chips. I require no such feeling of "genetic link" to be willing to pay enough tax to fund welfare and public services in this country that I live in.
"Migration flows have diversified western societies, challenging the political viability of inclusive welfare states. This is very clear in research on perceptions of deservingness to social benefits, which consistently shows that immigrants are considered as less deserving of collective help than natives"
The more diverse a society gets, and the larger the influx of immigrants, the less willing "natives" will be to the idea of handing out taxes to the incomers, especially in the form of social benefits
Frankly. this should be bloody obvious. It's basic human nature. Even Angela Rayner gets it
It's certainly "basic". But no, the further back a person can trace their British ancestry, the more deserving they are of state help with their lives - I don't think this (racist) view is a majority one.
So, a family arriving in the UK last week should be as entitled to social housing as a family that has lived and worked and paid taxes in Britain for an entire generation or two?
I've no doubt you believe this, in your Woke purism, I also know this kind of belief is one reason the social democratic left is being completely destroyed across Europe
Labour need to highlight the s**t Republicans are doing to the US working class Reform will do the same to the working class here.
Yep.
Although the damage is yet to properly hit, so maybe Lab keeping their powder dry?
Is it?
Trump is obviously pivoting to the White vote. See his overt bid for White South Africans to come to the USA - the actual number is tiny, it's all about the optics
He is betting that the US is racially and finally polarising between Whites, blacks, hispanics, etc, and by posing as the protector of Whites he can win elections for the GOP for the foreseeable, as Whites are still a majority, for now
It might not work. Many Whites will find it repugnant. But many will not
Oh lovely.
It's a paradox, but perhaps Scandinavian-style social democracy is only possible in a de facto ethnostate.
I don't think there's any such thing as a common white interest or identity, so that shouldn't be the case.
Queuing. The ability to politely wait in a queue. That is what marks us out, genetically. Want to pull a locket of hair of the decapitated King's head? Wait in the queue. Want your UBI? Wait in the queue. It's our Homo Sapien USP.
The public finances are in a worse state than they were 6 and 12 months ago.
Long article from Laura K on how ugly the Spending Review is going to be (link below).
And yet Starmer is going to spend £3.5bn handing out more welfare in a move completely contrary to what the public supports. And of course the more welfare that is handed out to working age people, the less incentive to work.
Plus £1.5bn to reverse Winter Fuel.
How on earth is it all going to add up?
He surely isn't going to put up NI again - and tinkering with a few minor taxes here or there isn't going to cut it.
Before I log off to watch Eternauts, I note that HMRC is very keen to test people's "attachments" to the UK to see if they are liable for tax. How long you've lived here, how long you've owned or used a home here, do you have kids here, do you use the UK as your main base, were you born here, etc. All these are taken into account when the Inland Revenue comes for your income tax (and fair enough, if you or your kids or relatives are benefiting from the welfare state, you should pay your way)
And yet we apparently do NOT look at the same criteria when handing out benefits? Why not? If you arrived last week or five years ago you should be much less eligible for help - in housing or health - than someone who has lived here all her life and has kids born here etc
This is, I think, the only way to keep the UK health, welfare and pension system from collapse. We have no choice
Labour need to highlight the s**t Republicans are doing to the US working class Reform will do the same to the working class here.
Yep.
Although the damage is yet to properly hit, so maybe Lab keeping their powder dry?
Is it?
Trump is obviously pivoting to the White vote. See his overt bid for White South Africans to come to the USA - the actual number is tiny, it's all about the optics
He is betting that the US is racially and finally polarising between Whites, blacks, hispanics, etc, and by posing as the protector of Whites he can win elections for the GOP for the foreseeable, as Whites are still a majority, for now
It might not work. Many Whites will find it repugnant. But many will not
Oh lovely.
It's a paradox, but perhaps Scandinavian-style social democracy is only possible in a de facto ethnostate.
It's not an IF it's a fact. Research proves that people are only willing to pay high taxes for a welfare state and their fellow citizens IF they feel a genetic link to them. "My people", "my tribe", etc. This makes Darwinian sense
Multiracial societies tend to be low tax, and quite often low trust - each to his own - unless the taxes/laws are enforced by a dictatorial or authoritarian centre
Total and utter cod and chips. I require no such feeling of "genetic link" to be willing to pay enough tax to fund welfare and public services in this country that I live in.
"Migration flows have diversified western societies, challenging the political viability of inclusive welfare states. This is very clear in research on perceptions of deservingness to social benefits, which consistently shows that immigrants are considered as less deserving of collective help than natives"
The more diverse a society gets, and the larger the influx of immigrants, the less willing "natives" will be to the idea of handing out taxes to the incomers, especially in the form of social benefits
Frankly. this should be bloody obvious. It's basic human nature. Even Angela Rayner gets it
It's certainly "basic". But no, the further back a person can trace their British ancestry, the more deserving they are of state help with their lives - I don't think this (racist) view is a majority one.
How can that be a racist view if we've been diverse forever?
If we've been diverse forever why do racists have a problem with diversity?
Labour need to highlight the s**t Republicans are doing to the US working class Reform will do the same to the working class here.
Yep.
Although the damage is yet to properly hit, so maybe Lab keeping their powder dry?
Is it?
Trump is obviously pivoting to the White vote. See his overt bid for White South Africans to come to the USA - the actual number is tiny, it's all about the optics
He is betting that the US is racially and finally polarising between Whites, blacks, hispanics, etc, and by posing as the protector of Whites he can win elections for the GOP for the foreseeable, as Whites are still a majority, for now
It might not work. Many Whites will find it repugnant. But many will not
Oh lovely.
It's a paradox, but perhaps Scandinavian-style social democracy is only possible in a de facto ethnostate.
I don't think there's any such thing as a common white interest or identity, so that shouldn't be the case.
That's not what the claim is though. Nobody is saying that all the white people should join together in their own state (although arguably the EU is such a project), just that certain types of politics are only possible in states that are somewhat homogeneous.
I missed the bit where everyone in the EU is white.
Labour need to highlight the s**t Republicans are doing to the US working class Reform will do the same to the working class here.
Yep.
Although the damage is yet to properly hit, so maybe Lab keeping their powder dry?
Is it?
Trump is obviously pivoting to the White vote. See his overt bid for White South Africans to come to the USA - the actual number is tiny, it's all about the optics
He is betting that the US is racially and finally polarising between Whites, blacks, hispanics, etc, and by posing as the protector of Whites he can win elections for the GOP for the foreseeable, as Whites are still a majority, for now
It might not work. Many Whites will find it repugnant. But many will not
Oh lovely.
It's a paradox, but perhaps Scandinavian-style social democracy is only possible in a de facto ethnostate.
It's not an IF it's a fact. Research proves that people are only willing to pay high taxes for a welfare state and their fellow citizens IF they feel a genetic link to them. "My people", "my tribe", etc. This makes Darwinian sense
Multiracial societies tend to be low tax, and quite often low trust - each to his own - unless the taxes/laws are enforced by a dictatorial or authoritarian centre
Total and utter cod and chips. I require no such feeling of "genetic link" to be willing to pay enough tax to fund welfare and public services in this country that I live in.
"Migration flows have diversified western societies, challenging the political viability of inclusive welfare states. This is very clear in research on perceptions of deservingness to social benefits, which consistently shows that immigrants are considered as less deserving of collective help than natives"
The more diverse a society gets, and the larger the influx of immigrants, the less willing "natives" will be to the idea of handing out taxes to the incomers, especially in the form of social benefits
Frankly. this should be bloody obvious. It's basic human nature. Even Angela Rayner gets it
It's certainly "basic". But no, the further back a person can trace their British ancestry, the more deserving they are of state help with their lives - I don't think this (racist) view is a majority one.
So, a family arriving in the UK last week should be as entitled to social housing as a family that has lived and worked and paid taxes in Britain for an entire generation or two?
I've no doubt you believe this, in your Woke purism, I also know this kind of belief is one reason the social democratic left is being completely destroyed across Europe
It depends. Naunce and balance come into play on the details of how all this should work. But the guiding principle should be need not creed.
Labour need to highlight the s**t Republicans are doing to the US working class Reform will do the same to the working class here.
Yep.
Although the damage is yet to properly hit, so maybe Lab keeping their powder dry?
Is it?
Trump is obviously pivoting to the White vote. See his overt bid for White South Africans to come to the USA - the actual number is tiny, it's all about the optics
He is betting that the US is racially and finally polarising between Whites, blacks, hispanics, etc, and by posing as the protector of Whites he can win elections for the GOP for the foreseeable, as Whites are still a majority, for now
It might not work. Many Whites will find it repugnant. But many will not
Oh lovely.
It's a paradox, but perhaps Scandinavian-style social democracy is only possible in a de facto ethnostate.
It's not an IF it's a fact. Research proves that people are only willing to pay high taxes for a welfare state and their fellow citizens IF they feel a genetic link to them. "My people", "my tribe", etc. This makes Darwinian sense
Multiracial societies tend to be low tax, and quite often low trust - each to his own - unless the taxes/laws are enforced by a dictatorial or authoritarian centre
Total and utter cod and chips. I require no such feeling of "genetic link" to be willing to pay enough tax to fund welfare and public services in this country that I live in.
"Migration flows have diversified western societies, challenging the political viability of inclusive welfare states. This is very clear in research on perceptions of deservingness to social benefits, which consistently shows that immigrants are considered as less deserving of collective help than natives"
The more diverse a society gets, and the larger the influx of immigrants, the less willing "natives" will be to the idea of handing out taxes to the incomers, especially in the form of social benefits
Frankly. this should be bloody obvious. It's basic human nature. Even Angela Rayner gets it
It's certainly "basic". But no, the further back a person can trace their British ancestry, the more deserving they are of state help with their lives - I don't think this (racist) view is a majority one.
So, a family arriving in the UK last week should be as entitled to social housing as a family that has lived and worked and paid taxes in Britain for an entire generation or two?
I've no doubt you believe this, in your Woke purism, I also know this kind of belief is one reason the social democratic left is being completely destroyed across Europe
It depends. Naunce and balance come into play on the details of how all this should work. But the guiding principle should be need not creed.
There are billions of people around the world who would qualify if need is the main criteria.
Seems Farage is to announce he will reinstate the WFP in full and abolish the 2 child cap
No wonder Starmer is in a panic
Cynical and clever. If he gets that out before SKS he simply cannot reverse the 2 child cap or he looks pathetic with Nigel leading him by the nose ring
Farage is simultaneously shameless and cunning, a dangerous politician indeed
I disagree with Farage on both of these topics but maybe it's good politics.
It's very clever (and I also disagree). Outflank Starmer on the right and the left
As things stand Farage is going to win in 2028 quite easily
I will vote for Farage because his stance on immigration is the only way to save the UK from a much worse fate
Suella Braverman is also in favour of lifting the cap. It doesn't seem sensible in an era when we're concerned about plunging birth rates to penalise those who want large families.
On the other hand, it also makes it a bit more likely that people you wouldn't really want to have larger families do so.
I think I'm broadly in favour of scrapping the cap.
It isn't penalizing people who want large families it is giving them a free handout at the expense of the taxpayer. I didn't think you were in favour of the Government doing this sort of stuff.
If people want lots of children then they shouldn't expect others to pay for them. What next? A contribution from the taxpayer for a yacht?
I am undecided about the issue.
Why are you undecided though? It seems to go against everything you appear to stand for. I'm sort of ok with child benefit for the less well off up to a limited number of children (say 2), but I would have imagined you were more against this sort of benefit than me. I am only in favour because of the welfare of the children, otherwise I would argue the state should not be involved and it is a personal decision.
The 2 child benefit cap is not about child benefit !
Labour need to highlight the s**t Republicans are doing to the US working class Reform will do the same to the working class here.
Yep.
Although the damage is yet to properly hit, so maybe Lab keeping their powder dry?
Is it?
Trump is obviously pivoting to the White vote. See his overt bid for White South Africans to come to the USA - the actual number is tiny, it's all about the optics
He is betting that the US is racially and finally polarising between Whites, blacks, hispanics, etc, and by posing as the protector of Whites he can win elections for the GOP for the foreseeable, as Whites are still a majority, for now
It might not work. Many Whites will find it repugnant. But many will not
Oh lovely.
It's a paradox, but perhaps Scandinavian-style social democracy is only possible in a de facto ethnostate.
It's not an IF it's a fact. Research proves that people are only willing to pay high taxes for a welfare state and their fellow citizens IF they feel a genetic link to them. "My people", "my tribe", etc. This makes Darwinian sense
Multiracial societies tend to be low tax, and quite often low trust - each to his own - unless the taxes/laws are enforced by a dictatorial or authoritarian centre
Total and utter cod and chips. I require no such feeling of "genetic link" to be willing to pay enough tax to fund welfare and public services in this country that I live in.
"Migration flows have diversified western societies, challenging the political viability of inclusive welfare states. This is very clear in research on perceptions of deservingness to social benefits, which consistently shows that immigrants are considered as less deserving of collective help than natives"
The more diverse a society gets, and the larger the influx of immigrants, the less willing "natives" will be to the idea of handing out taxes to the incomers, especially in the form of social benefits
Frankly. this should be bloody obvious. It's basic human nature. Even Angela Rayner gets it
It's certainly "basic". But no, the further back a person can trace their British ancestry, the more deserving they are of state help with their lives - I don't think this (racist) view is a majority one.
So, a family arriving in the UK last week should be as entitled to social housing as a family that has lived and worked and paid taxes in Britain for an entire generation or two?
I've no doubt you believe this, in your Woke purism, I also know this kind of belief is one reason the social democratic left is being completely destroyed across Europe
It depends. Naunce and balance come into play on the details of how all this should work. But the guiding principle should be need not creed.
There are billions of people around the world who would qualify if need is the main criteria.
Yes, but we don't have a World Welfare State. Maybe one day.
Farage has retweeted the Telegraph article about restoring the WFA & scrapping the two child cap… so looks like it’s true
He must be calculating that the Tories are in such a mess at the moment that economically right-wing RefUK voters aren't going to back to them.
Yes reversing the 2 child benefit cap is not designed to appeal to southern economic Thatcherites nor is reinstating WFA in full to all pensioners (even Kemi wants to means test it at a higher threshold).
Farage's proposals may appeal to social conservatives and low income parents and pensioners in the redwall though which is no doubt his target audience
Comments
Helping those who can fuck to fuck
So Farage knows he's got the votes of people like me. Ergo he can now go fishing in leftier waters
I can see a very, very messy split of seats here in Kirklees: around a dozen each of LD, Greens and Left / Independents, possibly slightly more Reform and a few rump Conservatives, Labour and genuine Independents. Who runs the council from that is anyone's guess.
Because today I went through a suburban village called "Tingley" and I thought, my God, what a shit-hole, it looks like something you USED to see in Eastern Europe
I'm kinda hoping it is one of the worst areas of Leeds otherwise, Eeek
Dr Alaa al-Najjar was on duty at Nasser hospital in Khan Younis when she received her children’s bodies
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/24/israeli-airstrike-kills-nine-of-gaza-doctors-10-children-reports-say
(Points to a wider issue of young people not wanting kids until they have settled into adulthood and not being able to afford to feel settled.)
Let's remember everyone... the populist right think the working class who for vote them are fools.
If people want lots of children then they shouldn't expect others to pay for them. What next? A contribution from the taxpayer for a yacht?
It’s a small population on a remote island: it’s difficult for states like that to be financially independent.
But Tingley in particular, is that south Leeds? Is it known to be bad? There were literally burned out ex-council houses on the main road. It all seemed quite desperate to a visitor
And as for ignoring the rules, well yes he did, a bit, as did millions of others.
https://x.com/thechiefnerd/status/1925531709698605416?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Why not just lift the cap from two to three?
The deprivation he describes would make Orwell blanche.
17 Reform (+17)
13 Left/Gaza (+8)
12 Lib Dem (+2)
12 Green (+8)
8 Conservative (-6)
6 Labour (-29)
1 Independent (-)
Nigel Farage's party is in talks to get a SEVEN FIGURE donation from a US donor.
(And it's not Elon Musk)
I can't think of many American billionaires that I want the British Government to be in the pocket of. They didn’t get to be billionaires by being prone to acts of no strings altruism.
Although the damage is yet to properly hit, so maybe Lab keeping their powder dry?
Trump is obviously pivoting to the White vote. See his overt bid for White South Africans to come to the USA - the actual number is tiny, it's all about the optics
He is betting that the US is racially and finally polarising between Whites, blacks, hispanics, etc, and by posing as the protector of Whites he can win elections for the GOP for the foreseeable, as Whites are still a majority, for now
It might not work. Many Whites will find it repugnant. But many will not
Now whether their lives being made shitter and poorer is enough to break the Cult and/or white racism is another matter and will partly depend on whether the Dems get back to talking about economics and not pronouns and have leaders who aren't 105 years old.
And the white majority includes post-high school educated who don't and won't vote for Trump.
You know what... kind of hope Farage gets in now. He'll make Starmer (as of now) seem as beloved as Blair was in 1997 when he starts enacting his economic policies.
Multiracial societies tend to be low tax, and quite often low trust - each to his own - unless the taxes/laws are enforced by a dictatorial or authoritarian centre
"In outreach to Black men, Harris to vow to legalize weed, protect crypto
Vice President Kamala Harris is pledging Monday to legalize recreational marijuana, protect cryptocurrency assets and give 1 million loans to Black entrepreneurs, as part of her efforts to court Black voters who may be pivotal in the presidential race."
https://www.npr.org/2024/10/13/nx-s1-5151968/harris-weed-crypto
“If we get too many people working for very low wages then we destroy the labour market for unskilled Danes, who wouldn’t be able to make a normal living,” he said. “And that’s what we really are concerned about.”
How Denmark’s centre-left leaders got tough on migration
https://www.thetimes.com/article/e628abe2-d70b-4656-96cb-8468a6af12a8?shareToken=f8df47412d2ae2d6e3061ba9071db7b0
https://bristoluniversitypressdigital.com/view/journals/pp/52/2/article-p156.xml
The more diverse a society gets, and the larger the influx of immigrants, the less willing "natives" will be to the idea of handing out taxes to the incomers, especially in the form of social benefits
Frankly. this should be bloody obvious. It's basic human nature. Even Angela Rayner gets it
Long article from Laura K on how ugly the Spending Review is going to be (link below).
And yet Starmer is going to spend £3.5bn handing out more welfare in a move completely contrary to what the public supports. And of course the more welfare that is handed out to working age people, the less incentive to work.
Plus £1.5bn to reverse Winter Fuel.
How on earth is it all going to add up?
He surely isn't going to put up NI again - and tinkering with a few minor taxes here or there isn't going to cut it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0eqp9ejjvdo
Homogenous societies are much more willing to fund welfare states, this is a known phenomenon. When the homogeneity is seriously challenged, the social contract falls apart as the "natives" (however you define it) see the welfare going to incomers who are culturally very different and who have made no longterm contribution
This is not logically disputable
However it should not be a counsel of despair. We can maintain a UK welfare state, we just need to make it contributory. If you have lived and worked in the UK all your life, you are more entitled to benefits/healthcare/housing than someone who arrived last week. How hard is that?
Again, I wonder if he is some double agent designed to destroy the Labour party forever, or perhaps he is weirdly compromised
Because that is the only thing that explains his worse-than-incompetence. He is doing this mad self harming shit on purpose
I've no doubt you believe this, in your Woke purism, I also know this kind of belief is one reason the social democratic left is being completely destroyed across Europe
Standard Treasury costing
And yet we apparently do NOT look at the same criteria when handing out benefits? Why not? If you arrived last week or five years ago you should be much less eligible for help - in housing or health - than someone who has lived here all her life and has kids born here etc
This is, I think, the only way to keep the UK health, welfare and pension system from collapse. We have no choice
Good night PB, good night
Farage's proposals may appeal to social conservatives and low income parents and pensioners in the redwall though which is no doubt his target audience