Warning by CPS about publishing anything about the Liverpool outrage
I assume the same warning will apply to PB
No speculation at all
If you want some quality speculation check out Andrew Bridgen ex MP on the details behind the Ukrainian male models and the fire attacks. Gold. Pure gold.
He's gone full .... something.
Andrew Bridgen @ABridgen May 28 This shockingly demonstrates what those who rule over us think of unborn children. It will be the same in the UK, Why do you think there is so much legislation and enforcement of ‘protected zones’ around abortion clinics ? Because there is so much money to be made from selling the body parts. Do you really think these same rulers would not force you to take an untested experimental medication ? Luciferians ? https://x.com/ABridgen/status/1927644311543324981
Is there something in the water in the UK? I'm planning on returning for the summer, and am seriously concerned about what might happen to my brain if I drink the tapwater.
JENRICKVISION closing in on 5 MILLION views on X (dunno about elsewhere)
He's the only Brit politician - other than Farage - who really gets social media, esp in the TikTok age
You need short, clicky videos, with a plain but compelling narrative. Lots of movement, telling detail, end well
I have just seen the video and full marks to him
Time the London mayor got a grip on this unacceptable behaviour
I agree. Jenrick needs to be admonished.
Do you really support fare dodging ?
Jenrick broke Tfl rules.
How
Officially you're supposed to ask permission before filming, but there are probably millions of videos on YouTube of the London Underground where 95% of people haven't asked for it.
It's all coming together as David Betz has been predicting. Civil strife within the next few years as the Brits finally revolt
I see Big Dom Cummings is harping on the same theme
And Robert Jenrick's video on X now has nearly 3m views
I despise Jenrick, he is a vile, oily oik, but hats off to the boy, his media and social media campaign over the last week has been superb. Not a message I would promote but the anti immigration punters love it.
Honest question, why do you "despise" him?
I get that he comes across as an Alan B'stard type - and quite possibly he IS that, he certainly has some dodgy stuff on his CV - but "despise" is a really strong word. Care to elaborate?
This is not a gotcha, am curious to know
It's the painting over the Disney mural and the Dirty Desmond deal, as JohnO noted, if he as a councillor had down what Jenrick did JohnO would be up in front of the rozzers and likely spending time at His Majesty's pleasure
Those are reprehensible, but I find it hard to work up a emotion as visceral as "despise", more wearied annoyance
BUT, that is probably because I agree with his politics. It works the other way, I despise some lefties for reasons that are valid - to me - but which would only cause irritation in fellow lefties
Remember Jenrick was pure Cameroon until he was radicalised by Brexit.
So? Hitler was an average art student, for years, until the right moment came along
PEOPLE CAN CHANGE, there is ALWAYS hope
What I like about Jenrick's schtick on the tube is he implies that knife crime and fare dodging is a phenomenan that has only occurred since July 2024.
Who has been London mayor since 2016 ?
Well quite.
tbh I did wonder if this is not Jenrick pitching for Kemi's job but for Cleverly's as London Mayoral candidate presumptive.
JENRICKVISION closing in on 5 MILLION views on X (dunno about elsewhere)
He's the only Brit politician - other than Farage - who really gets social media, esp in the TikTok age
You need short, clicky videos, with a plain but compelling narrative. Lots of movement, telling detail, end well
I have just seen the video and full marks to him
Time the London mayor got a grip on this unacceptable behaviour
I agree. Jenrick needs to be admonished.
Do you really support fare dodging ?
Jenrick broke Tfl rules.
How
The bigger issue is what was Jenrick doing whilst in Government when all this bad behaviour was going on. It's a stunt, but quite a clever, if disingenuous one.
Warning by CPS about publishing anything about the Liverpool outrage
I assume the same warning will apply to PB
No speculation at all
If you want some quality speculation check out Andrew Bridgen ex MP on the details behind the Ukrainian male models and the fire attacks. Gold. Pure gold.
He's gone full .... something.
Andrew Bridgen @ABridgen May 28 This shockingly demonstrates what those who rule over us think of unborn children. It will be the same in the UK, Why do you think there is so much legislation and enforcement of ‘protected zones’ around abortion clinics ? Because there is so much money to be made from selling the body parts. Do you really think these same rulers would not force you to take an untested experimental medication ? Luciferians ? https://x.com/ABridgen/status/1927644311543324981
Is there something in the water in the UK? I'm planning on returning for the summer, and am seriously concerned about what might happen to my brain if I drink the tapwater.
I think that if we lock you in a room with him and David Icke, you would still find it comparatively saner than Trumpistan.
Warning by CPS about publishing anything about the Liverpool outrage
I assume the same warning will apply to PB
No speculation at all
If you want some quality speculation check out Andrew Bridgen ex MP on the details behind the Ukrainian male models and the fire attacks. Gold. Pure gold.
He's gone full .... something.
Andrew Bridgen @ABridgen May 28 This shockingly demonstrates what those who rule over us think of unborn children. It will be the same in the UK, Why do you think there is so much legislation and enforcement of ‘protected zones’ around abortion clinics ? Because there is so much money to be made from selling the body parts. Do you really think these same rulers would not force you to take an untested experimental medication ? Luciferians ? https://x.com/ABridgen/status/1927644311543324981
Is there something in the water in the UK? I'm planning on returning for the summer, and am seriously concerned about what might happen to my brain if I drink the tapwater.
You could drink bottled water.
But then the micro-plastics will happen to your brain...
JENRICKVISION closing in on 5 MILLION views on X (dunno about elsewhere)
He's the only Brit politician - other than Farage - who really gets social media, esp in the TikTok age
You need short, clicky videos, with a plain but compelling narrative. Lots of movement, telling detail, end well
I have just seen the video and full marks to him
Time the London mayor got a grip on this unacceptable behaviour
I agree. Jenrick needs to be admonished.
Do you really support fare dodging ?
Jenrick broke Tfl rules.
How
The bigger issue is what was Jenrick doing whilst in Government when all this bad behaviour was going on. It's a stunt, but quite a clever, if disingenuous one.
The even bigger question is what has Sadiq Khan done as he is the person responsible
It certainly seems to have triggered Labour supporters
JENRICKVISION closing in on 5 MILLION views on X (dunno about elsewhere)
He's the only Brit politician - other than Farage - who really gets social media, esp in the TikTok age
You need short, clicky videos, with a plain but compelling narrative. Lots of movement, telling detail, end well
I have just seen the video and full marks to him
Time the London mayor got a grip on this unacceptable behaviour
I agree. Jenrick needs to be admonished.
Do you really support fare dodging ?
Jenrick broke Tfl rules.
How
The bigger issue is what was Jenrick doing whilst in Government when all this bad behaviour was going on. It's a stunt, but quite a clever, if disingenuous one.
Warning by CPS about publishing anything about the Liverpool outrage
I assume the same warning will apply to PB
No speculation at all
If you want some quality speculation check out Andrew Bridgen ex MP on the details behind the Ukrainian male models and the fire attacks. Gold. Pure gold.
He's gone full .... something.
Andrew Bridgen @ABridgen May 28 This shockingly demonstrates what those who rule over us think of unborn children. It will be the same in the UK, Why do you think there is so much legislation and enforcement of ‘protected zones’ around abortion clinics ? Because there is so much money to be made from selling the body parts. Do you really think these same rulers would not force you to take an untested experimental medication ? Luciferians ? https://x.com/ABridgen/status/1927644311543324981
Is there something in the water in the UK? I'm planning on returning for the summer, and am seriously concerned about what might happen to my brain if I drink the tapwater.
You could drink bottled water.
But then the micro-plastics will happen to your brain...
I do that anyway in London. The tap water is disgusting.
Public split on whether Nigel is Elizabeth with a cigarette
The difference between Farage and Truss is that Reform don't even pretend that the rhetoric of today will make it into their fully costed, fiscally worked out (and despite all that completly bogus) manifesto.
At the moment they are drumming up support, to the point where they are a possible government. They know that their manifesto in four years time ('Rome was not built in a day') will have to appear rational. Just like all the other parties' bogus manifestos.
The Tories should have told the pensioners to fuck off and funded law and order and defence properly instead of stuffing their mouths with gold.
I doubt many would have gone for Ed Miliband instead.
I was having lunch with somebody adjacent to British politics, their view, Tories should support Kim Leadbeter's bill today so we can have mandatory euthanasia for poor pensioners.
JENRICKVISION closing in on 5 MILLION views on X (dunno about elsewhere)
He's the only Brit politician - other than Farage - who really gets social media, esp in the TikTok age
You need short, clicky videos, with a plain but compelling narrative. Lots of movement, telling detail, end well
I have just seen the video and full marks to him
Time the London mayor got a grip on this unacceptable behaviour
I agree. Jenrick needs to be admonished.
Do you really support fare dodging ?
Jenrick broke Tfl rules.
How
The bigger issue is what was Jenrick doing whilst in Government when all this bad behaviour was going on. It's a stunt, but quite a clever, if disingenuous one.
What was Jenrick doing whilst in Government when all this bad behaviour was going on?
He was stealing £45 million from the London public. Rather more than any of these fare dodgers.
The Tories should have told the pensioners to fuck off and funded law and order and defence properly instead of stuffing their mouths with gold.
I doubt many would have gone for Ed Miliband instead.
Indeed: it's hard to think of any area which has a more negative impact on civil society than the persistent underfunding of criminal justice. What's worse is that when you need to turn it around - as needs to happen now - you end up having to spend 2 or 3 times as much money as if you'd funded it properly at the start.
It's a little bit like medicine: prevention is better (and cheaper) than cure. We'll end up needing to lock up large numbers of people, because we failed to clamp down on crime earlier. The damage is myriad: it's in terms of people feeling safe on the streets, it's the lives of victims, it's our pocketbooks in having to mop up after the fact, and it's even damage to the criminals themselves - because if they'd been caught and punished earlier they probably would never have graduated to more serious crimes.
Mrs Thatcher and Tony Blair both got this. But the Cameron government, and Boris Johnson and his successors certainly did not.
Warning by CPS about publishing anything about the Liverpool outrage
I assume the same warning will apply to PB
No speculation at all
If you want some quality speculation check out Andrew Bridgen ex MP on the details behind the Ukrainian male models and the fire attacks. Gold. Pure gold.
He's gone full .... something.
Andrew Bridgen @ABridgen May 28 This shockingly demonstrates what those who rule over us think of unborn children. It will be the same in the UK, Why do you think there is so much legislation and enforcement of ‘protected zones’ around abortion clinics ? Because there is so much money to be made from selling the body parts. Do you really think these same rulers would not force you to take an untested experimental medication ? Luciferians ? https://x.com/ABridgen/status/1927644311543324981
Is there something in the water in the UK? I'm planning on returning for the summer, and am seriously concerned about what might happen to my brain if I drink the tapwater.
JENRICKVISION closing in on 5 MILLION views on X (dunno about elsewhere)
He's the only Brit politician - other than Farage - who really gets social media, esp in the TikTok age
You need short, clicky videos, with a plain but compelling narrative. Lots of movement, telling detail, end well
I have just seen the video and full marks to him
Time the London mayor got a grip on this unacceptable behaviour
I agree. Jenrick needs to be admonished.
Do you really support fare dodging ?
Jenrick broke Tfl rules.
How
Officially you're supposed to ask permission before filming, but there are probably millions of videos on YouTube of the London Underground where 95% of people haven't asked for it.
Given it was for a broadcast, they could probably send him an invoice.
I wonder if Jenrick had a ticket and had swiped in when he followed them into the station .
The cost looks to be around £1000, which would pay for ~20 (?) hours of police time to catch fare dodgers.
JENRICKVISION closing in on 5 MILLION views on X (dunno about elsewhere)
He's the only Brit politician - other than Farage - who really gets social media, esp in the TikTok age
You need short, clicky videos, with a plain but compelling narrative. Lots of movement, telling detail, end well
I have just seen the video and full marks to him
Time the London mayor got a grip on this unacceptable behaviour
I agree. Jenrick needs to be admonished.
Do you really support fare dodging ?
I suppose the question is whether fare dodging is a) new, b) getting better/worse, or c) if this is newsworthy because it's more visible. To which I suspect the answers are a) of course not, b) flip knows, c) it's probably a visibility thing rather than a numberical thing.
The nearest I could find to hard data is this FOI request;
The pandemic clearly plays merry hell with the stats, but fare dodging looks like it's been at a steady level for ages. Even when that bloke before Sadiq was Mayor- whatever became of him?
JENRICKVISION closing in on 5 MILLION views on X (dunno about elsewhere)
He's the only Brit politician - other than Farage - who really gets social media, esp in the TikTok age
You need short, clicky videos, with a plain but compelling narrative. Lots of movement, telling detail, end well
I have just seen the video and full marks to him
Time the London mayor got a grip on this unacceptable behaviour
I agree. Jenrick needs to be admonished.
Do you really support fare dodging ?
I suppose the question is whether fare dodging is a) new, b) getting better/worse, or c) if this is newsworthy because it's more visible. To which I suspect the answers are a) of course not, b) flip knows, c) it's probably a visibility thing rather than a numberical thing.
The nearest I could find to hard data is this FOI request;
The pandemic clearly plays merry hell with the stats, but fare dodging looks like it's been at a steady level for ages. Even when that bloke before Sadiq was Mayor- whatever became of him?
The rail link up to Bedford (both Thameslink and the other one) have put a massive amount of effort into clamping down on fare dodging, and it's been very effective. It's also - I suspect - been a net positive for the financials of the railway companies: if they lost 10% of fare income historically, then a few staff is a very cheap way of boosting revenues.
It's all coming together as David Betz has been predicting. Civil strife within the next few years as the Brits finally revolt
I see Big Dom Cummings is harping on the same theme
And Robert Jenrick's video on X now has nearly 3m views
HRH His holiness the Lord Sir Grant Shapps has joined the adoring Jenners throng. Stick a fork in Clevers and Boris, they're done
I did predict this, when I saw Jenrick's video from Birmingham on the rubbish problem, months back
I said:
He's good to camera He totally gets the grittier issues He's got a skilled editorial team He knows how to use social media REALLY well
And here we are
The problem the Conservative Party has is that the massive underfunding of the criminal justice system happened on their watch.
During their period in government, hundreds of police stations were closed down across the US. Hampstead, for example, lost its police station. Simultaneously, the courts were underfunded, so that even if you do get caught, your chance of having a timely trial is very low.
So: I agree that lawlessness (particularly stuff like endemic shoplifting) is a serious problem. But the problem was caused by cuts from the party of law and order.
Mostly happened under the Cameron and Clegg coalition (Hampstead police station shut in 2013), so the LDs cannot escape blame for police stations closing and legal aid and court cuts either.
Boris and Rishi to be fair to them increased police funding
Here's the problem. In the 2019 parliament so many of your MPs and thus ministers were wazzocks. Insincerely repeating the party line about how many extra police you were adding. Problem is that people knew that you'd taken an axe to police numbers and they could see it. So it sounded like a lie - it WAS a lie as your increase was a decrease.
Whatever happened to the party of Law and Order btw? No police, rampant crime, criminal justice system ground to a halt and the prisons full.
You need to look at police per 100k of the population not the absolute numbers. Again the issue comes down the 8m immigrants we've had sine 2005 not generating enough economic output to fund the extra public services that are required to have them here including the NHS, education and policing. They are a net drag on the nation and the Tories or Reform will need to start sending the non-citizens who don't meet a minimum earnings threshold home.
I think it's more complicated than that, and isn't solely about police numbers.
Since 2010, the number of police stations in England and Wales has fallen by two thirds. In London, it's been three quarters.
So, take the example of shop lifting. In the old days, if the miscreants were apprehended, then the police would have a 10 minute trek to the nearest nick. Now it might be more like 45 minutes. So if they arrest someone they're going to be out of commission not for an hour and a half, but maybe two to three hours.
And the underfunding of the court system means that - in the event said miscreant is prosecuted - then the police officer is out of action for a whole day, and the trial might end up getting deferred anyway, because they were unable to find a barrister willing to act for said miscreant.
It's hard to think of an area of government spending with a better cost-benefit analysis than the criminal justice system: police, courts, prisons and the like. We all benefit from a law abiding society, and the best way to ensure that we live in a law abiding society is for there to be a meaningful prospect of apprehension and punishment if you offend. We don't have that today.
We don't just need more police, though. Because there's no point in arresting someone if they won't be prosecuted. We need to fund the entire chain. And that means we need to fund Legal Aid too, because right now a staggering number of cases end up being dismissed or deferred because of lack of legal representation.
But again the point I'm making is that we've added 8m people to the population in 20 years and on average they've not expanded GDP by enough to cover the additional public service expenditure they require. It's meant larger deficits, less money to go around and increasing tax as a proportion of GDP reducing long term trend growth. Uncontrolled immigration has been an unmitigated disaster for the UK economy. Realistically a migrant care worker or cleaner is never going to contribute enough in tax over their lifetime to cover their healthcare or pension let alone education, policing, defence, transport infrastructure etc...
Expanding the population at such a rapid rate with such low skilled workers for the last 20 years is why we are where we are. Every low skill migrant reduces our GDP per capita and their dependents reduce it further and the taxpayer is on the hook to provide them with housing, healthcare, welfare, pensions, education and the rest of it. It's just not feasible and we need to go through a long period of net emigration of low skill and unskilled migrants plus their dependents if we ever hope to have a high yield economy that can fund proper public services and infrastructure while maintaining a relatively balanced budget. We've had a 20 year failed experiment of increasing absolute GDP at the expense of GDP per capita, well maybe the focus should always have been on per capita GDP rather than the headline figure which is absolutely useless.
These are -candidly- separate issues.
Even if there hadn't been any immigration in the last 15 years, the cuts to our criminal justice system would still have had a very serious impact on the lives of citizens.
That's my point. And it's not just - or even mainly - about police numbers. It's about the fact that the legal system is so underfunded we don't prosecute people. It's about the fact that there's not a local police station that people can go to.
Now, has immigration made things worse: probably. It's just not the sole factor here, and may even not be the dominant one. (I.e. if you think about police stations per person in London, then the biggest factor is the drop in the number of police stations, not the increase in the number of people. And the same is true with the dramatic reduction in the number of duty solicitors.)
They aren't separate issues, immigration of the nature we've had for 20 years has directly resulted in lower GDP per capita than we would otherwise have had. That has led to a series of cuts in public services such as policing and justice because there's not enough GDP being generated per capita.
Those cuts to police stations and duty solicitors are because of budget cuts and those budget cuts are a direct result of there just not being enough GDP being generated to tax at a reasonable rate.
The population rose by 8m people since 2005, a 13% increase.
Nominal GDP has increased from £1.49tn to £3.08tn, an increase of 106%.
Nominal GDP per capita has increased from £29,314 to £47,322 an increase of 61%.
Simply, there was more funding per person available for public services on 2005 than we have today because uncontrolled immigration has reduced GDP per capita to such an extent that if it had kept up the government at 35% tax would have an extra £300bn to spend this year than it does currently.
Obviously this is a simplified view, I'm sure if I still had a team to look into it and adjust for inflation and wages the story would be pretty similar.
Falling GDP per capita due to uncontrolled immigration is the root cause of failing public services. On average each migrant worker and their dependents lowers our GDP per capita and now the effect has reached levels where the state can no longer be properly funded without stiflingly high tax rates.
As I said, we need a prolonged period of net emigration for low skilled and unskilled workers and their dependents. They will never contribute enough to the economy or in tax to cover the spending they will require currently and in the future.
It's all coming together as David Betz has been predicting. Civil strife within the next few years as the Brits finally revolt
I see Big Dom Cummings is harping on the same theme
And Robert Jenrick's video on X now has nearly 3m views
HRH His holiness the Lord Sir Grant Shapps has joined the adoring Jenners throng. Stick a fork in Clevers and Boris, they're done
I did predict this, when I saw Jenrick's video from Birmingham on the rubbish problem, months back
I said:
He's good to camera He totally gets the grittier issues He's got a skilled editorial team He knows how to use social media REALLY well
And here we are
The problem the Conservative Party has is that the massive underfunding of the criminal justice system happened on their watch.
During their period in government, hundreds of police stations were closed down across the US. Hampstead, for example, lost its police station. Simultaneously, the courts were underfunded, so that even if you do get caught, your chance of having a timely trial is very low.
So: I agree that lawlessness (particularly stuff like endemic shoplifting) is a serious problem. But the problem was caused by cuts from the party of law and order.
Mostly happened under the Cameron and Clegg coalition (Hampstead police station shut in 2013), so the LDs cannot escape blame for police stations closing and legal aid and court cuts either.
Boris and Rishi to be fair to them increased police funding
Here's the problem. In the 2019 parliament so many of your MPs and thus ministers were wazzocks. Insincerely repeating the party line about how many extra police you were adding. Problem is that people knew that you'd taken an axe to police numbers and they could see it. So it sounded like a lie - it WAS a lie as your increase was a decrease.
Whatever happened to the party of Law and Order btw? No police, rampant crime, criminal justice system ground to a halt and the prisons full.
You need to look at police per 100k of the population not the absolute numbers. Again the issue comes down the 8m immigrants we've had sine 2005 not generating enough economic output to fund the extra public services that are required to have them here including the NHS, education and policing. They are a net drag on the nation and the Tories or Reform will need to start sending the non-citizens who don't meet a minimum earnings threshold home.
I think it's more complicated than that, and isn't solely about police numbers.
Since 2010, the number of police stations in England and Wales has fallen by two thirds. In London, it's been three quarters.
So, take the example of shop lifting. In the old days, if the miscreants were apprehended, then the police would have a 10 minute trek to the nearest nick. Now it might be more like 45 minutes. So if they arrest someone they're going to be out of commission not for an hour and a half, but maybe two to three hours.
And the underfunding of the court system means that - in the event said miscreant is prosecuted - then the police officer is out of action for a whole day, and the trial might end up getting deferred anyway, because they were unable to find a barrister willing to act for said miscreant.
It's hard to think of an area of government spending with a better cost-benefit analysis than the criminal justice system: police, courts, prisons and the like. We all benefit from a law abiding society, and the best way to ensure that we live in a law abiding society is for there to be a meaningful prospect of apprehension and punishment if you offend. We don't have that today.
We don't just need more police, though. Because there's no point in arresting someone if they won't be prosecuted. We need to fund the entire chain. And that means we need to fund Legal Aid too, because right now a staggering number of cases end up being dismissed or deferred because of lack of legal representation.
But again the point I'm making is that we've added 8m people to the population in 20 years and on average they've not expanded GDP by enough to cover the additional public service expenditure they require. It's meant larger deficits, less money to go around and increasing tax as a proportion of GDP reducing long term trend growth. Uncontrolled immigration has been an unmitigated disaster for the UK economy. Realistically a migrant care worker or cleaner is never going to contribute enough in tax over their lifetime to cover their healthcare or pension let alone education, policing, defence, transport infrastructure etc...
Expanding the population at such a rapid rate with such low skilled workers for the last 20 years is why we are where we are. Every low skill migrant reduces our GDP per capita and their dependents reduce it further and the taxpayer is on the hook to provide them with housing, healthcare, welfare, pensions, education and the rest of it. It's just not feasible and we need to go through a long period of net emigration of low skill and unskilled migrants plus their dependents if we ever hope to have a high yield economy that can fund proper public services and infrastructure while maintaining a relatively balanced budget. We've had a 20 year failed experiment of increasing absolute GDP at the expense of GDP per capita, well maybe the focus should always have been on per capita GDP rather than the headline figure which is absolutely useless.
These are -candidly- separate issues.
Even if there hadn't been any immigration in the last 15 years, the cuts to our criminal justice system would still have had a very serious impact on the lives of citizens.
That's my point. And it's not just - or even mainly - about police numbers. It's about the fact that the legal system is so underfunded we don't prosecute people. It's about the fact that there's not a local police station that people can go to.
Now, has immigration made things worse: probably. It's just not the sole factor here, and may even not be the dominant one. (I.e. if you think about police stations per person in London, then the biggest factor is the drop in the number of police stations, not the increase in the number of people. And the same is true with the dramatic reduction in the number of duty solicitors.)
They aren't separate issues, immigration of the nature we've had for 20 years has directly resulted in lower GDP per capita than we would otherwise have had. That has led to a series of cuts in public services such as policing and justice because there's not enough GDP being generated per capita.
Those cuts to police stations and duty solicitors are because of budget cuts and those budget cuts are a direct result of there just not being enough GDP being generated to tax at a reasonable rate.
The population rose by 8m people since 2005, a 13% increase.
Nominal GDP has increased from £1.49tn to £3.08tn, an increase of 106%.
Nominal GDP per capita has increased from £29,314 to £47,322 an increase of 61%.
Simply, there was more funding per person available for public services on 2005 than we have today because uncontrolled immigration has reduced GDP per capita to such an extent that if it had kept up the government at 35% tax would have an extra £300bn to spend this year than it does currently.
Obviously this is a simplified view, I'm sure if I still had a team to look into it and adjust for inflation and wages the story would be pretty similar.
Falling GDP per capita due to uncontrolled immigration is the root cause of failing public services. On average each migrant worker and their dependents lowers our GDP per capita and now the effect has reached levels where the state can no longer be properly funded without stiflingly high tax rates.
As I said, we need a prolonged period of net emigration for low skilled and unskilled workers and their dependents. They will never contribute enough to the economy or in tax to cover the spending they will require currently and in the future.
Dude:
I am sympathetic to your concerns. Indeed, I probably largely agree with you about what needs to be done.
But that isn't why we had cuts to the criminal justice system. The coalition government - which happened *before* the vast bulk of the immigration happened - enacted a massive reduction in spend as part of austerity.
It's all coming together as David Betz has been predicting. Civil strife within the next few years as the Brits finally revolt
I see Big Dom Cummings is harping on the same theme
And Robert Jenrick's video on X now has nearly 3m views
HRH His holiness the Lord Sir Grant Shapps has joined the adoring Jenners throng. Stick a fork in Clevers and Boris, they're done
I did predict this, when I saw Jenrick's video from Birmingham on the rubbish problem, months back
I said:
He's good to camera He totally gets the grittier issues He's got a skilled editorial team He knows how to use social media REALLY well
And here we are
The problem the Conservative Party has is that the massive underfunding of the criminal justice system happened on their watch.
During their period in government, hundreds of police stations were closed down across the US. Hampstead, for example, lost its police station. Simultaneously, the courts were underfunded, so that even if you do get caught, your chance of having a timely trial is very low.
So: I agree that lawlessness (particularly stuff like endemic shoplifting) is a serious problem. But the problem was caused by cuts from the party of law and order.
Mostly happened under the Cameron and Clegg coalition (Hampstead police station shut in 2013), so the LDs cannot escape blame for police stations closing and legal aid and court cuts either.
Boris and Rishi to be fair to them increased police funding
Here's the problem. In the 2019 parliament so many of your MPs and thus ministers were wazzocks. Insincerely repeating the party line about how many extra police you were adding. Problem is that people knew that you'd taken an axe to police numbers and they could see it. So it sounded like a lie - it WAS a lie as your increase was a decrease.
Whatever happened to the party of Law and Order btw? No police, rampant crime, criminal justice system ground to a halt and the prisons full.
You need to look at police per 100k of the population not the absolute numbers. Again the issue comes down the 8m immigrants we've had sine 2005 not generating enough economic output to fund the extra public services that are required to have them here including the NHS, education and policing. They are a net drag on the nation and the Tories or Reform will need to start sending the non-citizens who don't meet a minimum earnings threshold home.
I think it's more complicated than that, and isn't solely about police numbers.
Since 2010, the number of police stations in England and Wales has fallen by two thirds. In London, it's been three quarters.
So, take the example of shop lifting. In the old days, if the miscreants were apprehended, then the police would have a 10 minute trek to the nearest nick. Now it might be more like 45 minutes. So if they arrest someone they're going to be out of commission not for an hour and a half, but maybe two to three hours.
And the underfunding of the court system means that - in the event said miscreant is prosecuted - then the police officer is out of action for a whole day, and the trial might end up getting deferred anyway, because they were unable to find a barrister willing to act for said miscreant.
It's hard to think of an area of government spending with a better cost-benefit analysis than the criminal justice system: police, courts, prisons and the like. We all benefit from a law abiding society, and the best way to ensure that we live in a law abiding society is for there to be a meaningful prospect of apprehension and punishment if you offend. We don't have that today.
We don't just need more police, though. Because there's no point in arresting someone if they won't be prosecuted. We need to fund the entire chain. And that means we need to fund Legal Aid too, because right now a staggering number of cases end up being dismissed or deferred because of lack of legal representation.
They should have 24x7 courts , take the miscreants straight to the court and onwards to the pokey or ATM for the payment of fine. Even install payment machines in the court and if you don't pony up you go straight to the pokey.
24 hour courts without 24 hour lawyers doesn't improve things. Because when said miscreant arrives at court, and the Judge asks "do you have representation?", and miscreant says "no", then the Judge is going to adjourn the case.
We have difficulty enough persuading junior barristers to trek to Uxbridge Magistrates Court for £75 to represent someone in a shoplifting case, persuading them to do it at 4am isn't going to be easier.
What we probably should do is to replicate the US system of having public defenders offices that are staffed up with salaried lawyers, so that you don't need to have a whole palaver of trying to find representation for some scrote for minimal recompense.
It's all coming together as David Betz has been predicting. Civil strife within the next few years as the Brits finally revolt
I see Big Dom Cummings is harping on the same theme
And Robert Jenrick's video on X now has nearly 3m views
HRH His holiness the Lord Sir Grant Shapps has joined the adoring Jenners throng. Stick a fork in Clevers and Boris, they're done
I did predict this, when I saw Jenrick's video from Birmingham on the rubbish problem, months back
I said:
He's good to camera He totally gets the grittier issues He's got a skilled editorial team He knows how to use social media REALLY well
And here we are
The problem the Conservative Party has is that the massive underfunding of the criminal justice system happened on their watch.
During their period in government, hundreds of police stations were closed down across the US. Hampstead, for example, lost its police station. Simultaneously, the courts were underfunded, so that even if you do get caught, your chance of having a timely trial is very low.
So: I agree that lawlessness (particularly stuff like endemic shoplifting) is a serious problem. But the problem was caused by cuts from the party of law and order.
Mostly happened under the Cameron and Clegg coalition (Hampstead police station shut in 2013), so the LDs cannot escape blame for police stations closing and legal aid and court cuts either.
Boris and Rishi to be fair to them increased police funding
Here's the problem. In the 2019 parliament so many of your MPs and thus ministers were wazzocks. Insincerely repeating the party line about how many extra police you were adding. Problem is that people knew that you'd taken an axe to police numbers and they could see it. So it sounded like a lie - it WAS a lie as your increase was a decrease.
Whatever happened to the party of Law and Order btw? No police, rampant crime, criminal justice system ground to a halt and the prisons full.
You need to look at police per 100k of the population not the absolute numbers. Again the issue comes down the 8m immigrants we've had sine 2005 not generating enough economic output to fund the extra public services that are required to have them here including the NHS, education and policing. They are a net drag on the nation and the Tories or Reform will need to start sending the non-citizens who don't meet a minimum earnings threshold home.
I think it's more complicated than that, and isn't solely about police numbers.
Since 2010, the number of police stations in England and Wales has fallen by two thirds. In London, it's been three quarters.
So, take the example of shop lifting. In the old days, if the miscreants were apprehended, then the police would have a 10 minute trek to the nearest nick. Now it might be more like 45 minutes. So if they arrest someone they're going to be out of commission not for an hour and a half, but maybe two to three hours.
And the underfunding of the court system means that - in the event said miscreant is prosecuted - then the police officer is out of action for a whole day, and the trial might end up getting deferred anyway, because they were unable to find a barrister willing to act for said miscreant.
It's hard to think of an area of government spending with a better cost-benefit analysis than the criminal justice system: police, courts, prisons and the like. We all benefit from a law abiding society, and the best way to ensure that we live in a law abiding society is for there to be a meaningful prospect of apprehension and punishment if you offend. We don't have that today.
We don't just need more police, though. Because there's no point in arresting someone if they won't be prosecuted. We need to fund the entire chain. And that means we need to fund Legal Aid too, because right now a staggering number of cases end up being dismissed or deferred because of lack of legal representation.
But again the point I'm making is that we've added 8m people to the population in 20 years and on average they've not expanded GDP by enough to cover the additional public service expenditure they require. It's meant larger deficits, less money to go around and increasing tax as a proportion of GDP reducing long term trend growth. Uncontrolled immigration has been an unmitigated disaster for the UK economy. Realistically a migrant care worker or cleaner is never going to contribute enough in tax over their lifetime to cover their healthcare or pension let alone education, policing, defence, transport infrastructure etc...
Expanding the population at such a rapid rate with such low skilled workers for the last 20 years is why we are where we are. Every low skill migrant reduces our GDP per capita and their dependents reduce it further and the taxpayer is on the hook to provide them with housing, healthcare, welfare, pensions, education and the rest of it. It's just not feasible and we need to go through a long period of net emigration of low skill and unskilled migrants plus their dependents if we ever hope to have a high yield economy that can fund proper public services and infrastructure while maintaining a relatively balanced budget. We've had a 20 year failed experiment of increasing absolute GDP at the expense of GDP per capita, well maybe the focus should always have been on per capita GDP rather than the headline figure which is absolutely useless.
These are -candidly- separate issues.
Even if there hadn't been any immigration in the last 15 years, the cuts to our criminal justice system would still have had a very serious impact on the lives of citizens.
That's my point. And it's not just - or even mainly - about police numbers. It's about the fact that the legal system is so underfunded we don't prosecute people. It's about the fact that there's not a local police station that people can go to.
Now, has immigration made things worse: probably. It's just not the sole factor here, and may even not be the dominant one. (I.e. if you think about police stations per person in London, then the biggest factor is the drop in the number of police stations, not the increase in the number of people. And the same is true with the dramatic reduction in the number of duty solicitors.)
They aren't separate issues, immigration of the nature we've had for 20 years has directly resulted in lower GDP per capita than we would otherwise have had. That has led to a series of cuts in public services such as policing and justice because there's not enough GDP being generated per capita.
Those cuts to police stations and duty solicitors are because of budget cuts and those budget cuts are a direct result of there just not being enough GDP being generated to tax at a reasonable rate.
The population rose by 8m people since 2005, a 13% increase.
Nominal GDP has increased from £1.49tn to £3.08tn, an increase of 106%.
Nominal GDP per capita has increased from £29,314 to £47,322 an increase of 61%.
Simply, there was more funding per person available for public services on 2005 than we have today because uncontrolled immigration has reduced GDP per capita to such an extent that if it had kept up the government at 35% tax would have an extra £300bn to spend this year than it does currently.
Obviously this is a simplified view, I'm sure if I still had a team to look into it and adjust for inflation and wages the story would be pretty similar.
Falling GDP per capita due to uncontrolled immigration is the root cause of failing public services. On average each migrant worker and their dependents lowers our GDP per capita and now the effect has reached levels where the state can no longer be properly funded without stiflingly high tax rates.
As I said, we need a prolonged period of net emigration for low skilled and unskilled workers and their dependents. They will never contribute enough to the economy or in tax to cover the spending they will require currently and in the future.
Dude:
I am sympathetic to your concerns. Indeed, I probably largely agree with you about what needs to be done.
But that isn't why we had cuts to the criminal justice system. The coalition government - which happened *before* the vast bulk of the immigration happened - enacted a massive reduction in spend as part of austerity.
It had literally nothing to do with immigration.
If you were to make the comparison from 2005 to 2015 I doubt the conclusion would change much, alas I have no time to do it, dinner beckons.
Warning by CPS about publishing anything about the Liverpool outrage
I assume the same warning will apply to PB
No speculation at all
If you want some quality speculation check out Andrew Bridgen ex MP on the details behind the Ukrainian male models and the fire attacks. Gold. Pure gold.
He's gone full .... something.
Andrew Bridgen @ABridgen May 28 This shockingly demonstrates what those who rule over us think of unborn children. It will be the same in the UK, Why do you think there is so much legislation and enforcement of ‘protected zones’ around abortion clinics ? Because there is so much money to be made from selling the body parts. Do you really think these same rulers would not force you to take an untested experimental medication ? Luciferians ? https://x.com/ABridgen/status/1927644311543324981
Is there something in the water in the UK? I'm planning on returning for the summer, and am seriously concerned about what might happen to my brain if I drink the tapwater.
I have no idea how Reform will do in Scotland; but the important thing going at the moment is that Reform is shifting its image, and the effect will be substantial.
It is grown on the back of being contrarian, different, buccaneering, libertarian, low tax, Singaporian.
All that's gone now they are the vehicle of election winning potential. Watch for them become high spend social democrat + sound borders + Dixon of Dock Green. (Old Labour is the closest comparison).
The Tories should have told the pensioners to fuck off and funded law and order and defence properly instead of stuffing their mouths with gold.
I doubt many would have gone for Ed Miliband instead.
I was having lunch with somebody adjacent to British politics, their view, Tories should support Kim Leadbeter's bill today so we can have mandatory euthanasia for poor pensioners.
JENRICKVISION closing in on 5 MILLION views on X (dunno about elsewhere)
He's the only Brit politician - other than Farage - who really gets social media, esp in the TikTok age
You need short, clicky videos, with a plain but compelling narrative. Lots of movement, telling detail, end well
I have just seen the video and full marks to him
Time the London mayor got a grip on this unacceptable behaviour
I agree. Jenrick needs to be admonished.
Do you really support fare dodging ?
I suppose the question is whether fare dodging is a) new, b) getting better/worse, or c) if this is newsworthy because it's more visible. To which I suspect the answers are a) of course not, b) flip knows, c) it's probably a visibility thing rather than a numberical thing.
The nearest I could find to hard data is this FOI request;
The pandemic clearly plays merry hell with the stats, but fare dodging looks like it's been at a steady level for ages. Even when that bloke before Sadiq was Mayor- whatever became of him?
The rail link up to Bedford (both Thameslink and the other one) have put a massive amount of effort into clamping down on fare dodging, and it's been very effective. It's also - I suspect - been a net positive for the financials of the railway companies: if they lost 10% of fare income historically, then a few staff is a very cheap way of boosting revenues.
Suspect that gatelines are the main win here (besides- machines beat people for productivity, as long as there is a human to override the robots when necessary.) The catch is that gates do reduce fare dodging, but the hardcore dodger residue is more visible and harder core. One of those paradoxical situations where making things better makes the situation look worse.
It's all coming together as David Betz has been predicting. Civil strife within the next few years as the Brits finally revolt
I see Big Dom Cummings is harping on the same theme
And Robert Jenrick's video on X now has nearly 3m views
HRH His holiness the Lord Sir Grant Shapps has joined the adoring Jenners throng. Stick a fork in Clevers and Boris, they're done
I did predict this, when I saw Jenrick's video from Birmingham on the rubbish problem, months back
I said:
He's good to camera He totally gets the grittier issues He's got a skilled editorial team He knows how to use social media REALLY well
And here we are
The problem the Conservative Party has is that the massive underfunding of the criminal justice system happened on their watch.
During their period in government, hundreds of police stations were closed down across the US. Hampstead, for example, lost its police station. Simultaneously, the courts were underfunded, so that even if you do get caught, your chance of having a timely trial is very low.
So: I agree that lawlessness (particularly stuff like endemic shoplifting) is a serious problem. But the problem was caused by cuts from the party of law and order.
Mostly happened under the Cameron and Clegg coalition (Hampstead police station shut in 2013), so the LDs cannot escape blame for police stations closing and legal aid and court cuts either.
Boris and Rishi to be fair to them increased police funding
Here's the problem. In the 2019 parliament so many of your MPs and thus ministers were wazzocks. Insincerely repeating the party line about how many extra police you were adding. Problem is that people knew that you'd taken an axe to police numbers and they could see it. So it sounded like a lie - it WAS a lie as your increase was a decrease.
Whatever happened to the party of Law and Order btw? No police, rampant crime, criminal justice system ground to a halt and the prisons full.
You need to look at police per 100k of the population not the absolute numbers. Again the issue comes down the 8m immigrants we've had sine 2005 not generating enough economic output to fund the extra public services that are required to have them here including the NHS, education and policing. They are a net drag on the nation and the Tories or Reform will need to start sending the non-citizens who don't meet a minimum earnings threshold home.
I think it's more complicated than that, and isn't solely about police numbers.
Since 2010, the number of police stations in England and Wales has fallen by two thirds. In London, it's been three quarters.
So, take the example of shop lifting. In the old days, if the miscreants were apprehended, then the police would have a 10 minute trek to the nearest nick. Now it might be more like 45 minutes. So if they arrest someone they're going to be out of commission not for an hour and a half, but maybe two to three hours.
And the underfunding of the court system means that - in the event said miscreant is prosecuted - then the police officer is out of action for a whole day, and the trial might end up getting deferred anyway, because they were unable to find a barrister willing to act for said miscreant.
It's hard to think of an area of government spending with a better cost-benefit analysis than the criminal justice system: police, courts, prisons and the like. We all benefit from a law abiding society, and the best way to ensure that we live in a law abiding society is for there to be a meaningful prospect of apprehension and punishment if you offend. We don't have that today.
We don't just need more police, though. Because there's no point in arresting someone if they won't be prosecuted. We need to fund the entire chain. And that means we need to fund Legal Aid too, because right now a staggering number of cases end up being dismissed or deferred because of lack of legal representation.
But again the point I'm making is that we've added 8m people to the population in 20 years and on average they've not expanded GDP by enough to cover the additional public service expenditure they require. It's meant larger deficits, less money to go around and increasing tax as a proportion of GDP reducing long term trend growth. Uncontrolled immigration has been an unmitigated disaster for the UK economy. Realistically a migrant care worker or cleaner is never going to contribute enough in tax over their lifetime to cover their healthcare or pension let alone education, policing, defence, transport infrastructure etc...
Expanding the population at such a rapid rate with such low skilled workers for the last 20 years is why we are where we are. Every low skill migrant reduces our GDP per capita and their dependents reduce it further and the taxpayer is on the hook to provide them with housing, healthcare, welfare, pensions, education and the rest of it. It's just not feasible and we need to go through a long period of net emigration of low skill and unskilled migrants plus their dependents if we ever hope to have a high yield economy that can fund proper public services and infrastructure while maintaining a relatively balanced budget. We've had a 20 year failed experiment of increasing absolute GDP at the expense of GDP per capita, well maybe the focus should always have been on per capita GDP rather than the headline figure which is absolutely useless.
These are -candidly- separate issues.
Even if there hadn't been any immigration in the last 15 years, the cuts to our criminal justice system would still have had a very serious impact on the lives of citizens.
That's my point. And it's not just - or even mainly - about police numbers. It's about the fact that the legal system is so underfunded we don't prosecute people. It's about the fact that there's not a local police station that people can go to.
Now, has immigration made things worse: probably. It's just not the sole factor here, and may even not be the dominant one. (I.e. if you think about police stations per person in London, then the biggest factor is the drop in the number of police stations, not the increase in the number of people. And the same is true with the dramatic reduction in the number of duty solicitors.)
They aren't separate issues, immigration of the nature we've had for 20 years has directly resulted in lower GDP per capita than we would otherwise have had. That has led to a series of cuts in public services such as policing and justice because there's not enough GDP being generated per capita.
Those cuts to police stations and duty solicitors are because of budget cuts and those budget cuts are a direct result of there just not being enough GDP being generated to tax at a reasonable rate.
The population rose by 8m people since 2005, a 13% increase.
Nominal GDP has increased from £1.49tn to £3.08tn, an increase of 106%.
Nominal GDP per capita has increased from £29,314 to £47,322 an increase of 61%.
Simply, there was more funding per person available for public services on 2005 than we have today because uncontrolled immigration has reduced GDP per capita to such an extent that if it had kept up the government at 35% tax would have an extra £300bn to spend this year than it does currently.
Obviously this is a simplified view, I'm sure if I still had a team to look into it and adjust for inflation and wages the story would be pretty similar.
Falling GDP per capita due to uncontrolled immigration is the root cause of failing public services. On average each migrant worker and their dependents lowers our GDP per capita and now the effect has reached levels where the state can no longer be properly funded without stiflingly high tax rates.
As I said, we need a prolonged period of net emigration for low skilled and unskilled workers and their dependents. They will never contribute enough to the economy or in tax to cover the spending they will require currently and in the future.
Dude:
I am sympathetic to your concerns. Indeed, I probably largely agree with you about what needs to be done.
But that isn't why we had cuts to the criminal justice system. The coalition government - which happened *before* the vast bulk of the immigration happened - enacted a massive reduction in spend as part of austerity.
It had literally nothing to do with immigration.
Immigration has become the catch-all scapegoat for almost every failure of post-Thatcherism. Economic growth, criminal justice, housing, etc.
It's all coming together as David Betz has been predicting. Civil strife within the next few years as the Brits finally revolt
I see Big Dom Cummings is harping on the same theme
And Robert Jenrick's video on X now has nearly 3m views
HRH His holiness the Lord Sir Grant Shapps has joined the adoring Jenners throng. Stick a fork in Clevers and Boris, they're done
I did predict this, when I saw Jenrick's video from Birmingham on the rubbish problem, months back
I said:
He's good to camera He totally gets the grittier issues He's got a skilled editorial team He knows how to use social media REALLY well
And here we are
The problem the Conservative Party has is that the massive underfunding of the criminal justice system happened on their watch.
During their period in government, hundreds of police stations were closed down across the US. Hampstead, for example, lost its police station. Simultaneously, the courts were underfunded, so that even if you do get caught, your chance of having a timely trial is very low.
So: I agree that lawlessness (particularly stuff like endemic shoplifting) is a serious problem. But the problem was caused by cuts from the party of law and order.
Mostly happened under the Cameron and Clegg coalition (Hampstead police station shut in 2013), so the LDs cannot escape blame for police stations closing and legal aid and court cuts either.
Boris and Rishi to be fair to them increased police funding
Here's the problem. In the 2019 parliament so many of your MPs and thus ministers were wazzocks. Insincerely repeating the party line about how many extra police you were adding. Problem is that people knew that you'd taken an axe to police numbers and they could see it. So it sounded like a lie - it WAS a lie as your increase was a decrease.
Whatever happened to the party of Law and Order btw? No police, rampant crime, criminal justice system ground to a halt and the prisons full.
You need to look at police per 100k of the population not the absolute numbers. Again the issue comes down the 8m immigrants we've had sine 2005 not generating enough economic output to fund the extra public services that are required to have them here including the NHS, education and policing. They are a net drag on the nation and the Tories or Reform will need to start sending the non-citizens who don't meet a minimum earnings threshold home.
I think it's more complicated than that, and isn't solely about police numbers.
Since 2010, the number of police stations in England and Wales has fallen by two thirds. In London, it's been three quarters.
So, take the example of shop lifting. In the old days, if the miscreants were apprehended, then the police would have a 10 minute trek to the nearest nick. Now it might be more like 45 minutes. So if they arrest someone they're going to be out of commission not for an hour and a half, but maybe two to three hours.
And the underfunding of the court system means that - in the event said miscreant is prosecuted - then the police officer is out of action for a whole day, and the trial might end up getting deferred anyway, because they were unable to find a barrister willing to act for said miscreant.
It's hard to think of an area of government spending with a better cost-benefit analysis than the criminal justice system: police, courts, prisons and the like. We all benefit from a law abiding society, and the best way to ensure that we live in a law abiding society is for there to be a meaningful prospect of apprehension and punishment if you offend. We don't have that today.
We don't just need more police, though. Because there's no point in arresting someone if they won't be prosecuted. We need to fund the entire chain. And that means we need to fund Legal Aid too, because right now a staggering number of cases end up being dismissed or deferred because of lack of legal representation.
But again the point I'm making is that we've added 8m people to the population in 20 years and on average they've not expanded GDP by enough to cover the additional public service expenditure they require. It's meant larger deficits, less money to go around and increasing tax as a proportion of GDP reducing long term trend growth. Uncontrolled immigration has been an unmitigated disaster for the UK economy. Realistically a migrant care worker or cleaner is never going to contribute enough in tax over their lifetime to cover their healthcare or pension let alone education, policing, defence, transport infrastructure etc...
Expanding the population at such a rapid rate with such low skilled workers for the last 20 years is why we are where we are. Every low skill migrant reduces our GDP per capita and their dependents reduce it further and the taxpayer is on the hook to provide them with housing, healthcare, welfare, pensions, education and the rest of it. It's just not feasible and we need to go through a long period of net emigration of low skill and unskilled migrants plus their dependents if we ever hope to have a high yield economy that can fund proper public services and infrastructure while maintaining a relatively balanced budget. We've had a 20 year failed experiment of increasing absolute GDP at the expense of GDP per capita, well maybe the focus should always have been on per capita GDP rather than the headline figure which is absolutely useless.
These are -candidly- separate issues.
Even if there hadn't been any immigration in the last 15 years, the cuts to our criminal justice system would still have had a very serious impact on the lives of citizens.
That's my point. And it's not just - or even mainly - about police numbers. It's about the fact that the legal system is so underfunded we don't prosecute people. It's about the fact that there's not a local police station that people can go to.
Now, has immigration made things worse: probably. It's just not the sole factor here, and may even not be the dominant one. (I.e. if you think about police stations per person in London, then the biggest factor is the drop in the number of police stations, not the increase in the number of people. And the same is true with the dramatic reduction in the number of duty solicitors.)
They aren't separate issues, immigration of the nature we've had for 20 years has directly resulted in lower GDP per capita than we would otherwise have had. That has led to a series of cuts in public services such as policing and justice because there's not enough GDP being generated per capita.
Those cuts to police stations and duty solicitors are because of budget cuts and those budget cuts are a direct result of there just not being enough GDP being generated to tax at a reasonable rate.
The population rose by 8m people since 2005, a 13% increase.
Nominal GDP has increased from £1.49tn to £3.08tn, an increase of 106%.
Nominal GDP per capita has increased from £29,314 to £47,322 an increase of 61%.
Simply, there was more funding per person available for public services on 2005 than we have today because uncontrolled immigration has reduced GDP per capita to such an extent that if it had kept up the government at 35% tax would have an extra £300bn to spend this year than it does currently.
Obviously this is a simplified view, I'm sure if I still had a team to look into it and adjust for inflation and wages the story would be pretty similar.
Falling GDP per capita due to uncontrolled immigration is the root cause of failing public services. On average each migrant worker and their dependents lowers our GDP per capita and now the effect has reached levels where the state can no longer be properly funded without stiflingly high tax rates.
As I said, we need a prolonged period of net emigration for low skilled and unskilled workers and their dependents. They will never contribute enough to the economy or in tax to cover the spending they will require currently and in the future.
Dude:
I am sympathetic to your concerns. Indeed, I probably largely agree with you about what needs to be done.
But that isn't why we had cuts to the criminal justice system. The coalition government - which happened *before* the vast bulk of the immigration happened - enacted a massive reduction in spend as part of austerity.
It had literally nothing to do with immigration.
If you were to make the comparison from 2005 to 2015 I doubt the conclusion would change much, alas I have no time to do it, dinner beckons.
The UK government's Comprehensive Spending Review was announced in October 2010, and involved a 20% real-terms cut in central government funding for police forces over four years, from March 2011 to March 2015. The Ministry of Justice saw an even bigger drop in its budget - falling from £8.3bn to £7bn in the same time.
These weren't cuts relative to population size, or growing the police budget less quickly than the overall : they were large absolute reductions in spend.
And these cuts happened before the wave of immigration.
Your concerns about immigration are not unwarranted, and I don't disagree with much of your critique.
But the massive reductions in spending on criminal justice happened before most of the immigration happened, and they happened at the behest of the coalition government.
JENRICKVISION closing in on 5 MILLION views on X (dunno about elsewhere)
He's the only Brit politician - other than Farage - who really gets social media, esp in the TikTok age
You need short, clicky videos, with a plain but compelling narrative. Lots of movement, telling detail, end well
I have just seen the video and full marks to him
Time the London mayor got a grip on this unacceptable behaviour
I agree. Jenrick needs to be admonished.
Do you really support fare dodging ?
I suppose the question is whether fare dodging is a) new, b) getting better/worse, or c) if this is newsworthy because it's more visible. To which I suspect the answers are a) of course not, b) flip knows, c) it's probably a visibility thing rather than a numberical thing.
The nearest I could find to hard data is this FOI request;
The pandemic clearly plays merry hell with the stats, but fare dodging looks like it's been at a steady level for ages. Even when that bloke before Sadiq was Mayor- whatever became of him?
The rail link up to Bedford (both Thameslink and the other one) have put a massive amount of effort into clamping down on fare dodging, and it's been very effective. It's also - I suspect - been a net positive for the financials of the railway companies: if they lost 10% of fare income historically, then a few staff is a very cheap way of boosting revenues.
Suspect that gatelines are the main win here (besides- machines beat people for productivity, as long as there is a human to override the robots when necessary.) The catch is that gates do reduce fare dodging, but the hardcore dodger residue is more visible and harder core. One of those paradoxical situations where making things better makes the situation look worse.
The humans running revenue protection at Manchester Piccadilly are absolute arseholes.
Northern Rail are very bad with frequent cancellations/delays, and the barriers cannot cope with that when you've bought an advance or off-peak ticket and you arrive at peak time.
They'll threaten you with a criminal record etc if you don't pay the minimum £100 fine.
Public split on whether Nigel is Elizabeth with a cigarette
Was this done today?
I am sure it would never be the case because Yougov are a gold standard, world-respected, leader-in-their-field pollster but it whiffs a bit of push polling to me. Given the fact that bond yields are higher now than in Truss's nadir, I do wonder whether a Rachel Reeves comparison should have been added. The results could have been interesting.
It's all coming together as David Betz has been predicting. Civil strife within the next few years as the Brits finally revolt
I see Big Dom Cummings is harping on the same theme
And Robert Jenrick's video on X now has nearly 3m views
HRH His holiness the Lord Sir Grant Shapps has joined the adoring Jenners throng. Stick a fork in Clevers and Boris, they're done
I did predict this, when I saw Jenrick's video from Birmingham on the rubbish problem, months back
I said:
He's good to camera He totally gets the grittier issues He's got a skilled editorial team He knows how to use social media REALLY well
And here we are
The problem the Conservative Party has is that the massive underfunding of the criminal justice system happened on their watch.
During their period in government, hundreds of police stations were closed down across the US. Hampstead, for example, lost its police station. Simultaneously, the courts were underfunded, so that even if you do get caught, your chance of having a timely trial is very low.
So: I agree that lawlessness (particularly stuff like endemic shoplifting) is a serious problem. But the problem was caused by cuts from the party of law and order.
Mostly happened under the Cameron and Clegg coalition (Hampstead police station shut in 2013), so the LDs cannot escape blame for police stations closing and legal aid and court cuts either.
Boris and Rishi to be fair to them increased police funding
Here's the problem. In the 2019 parliament so many of your MPs and thus ministers were wazzocks. Insincerely repeating the party line about how many extra police you were adding. Problem is that people knew that you'd taken an axe to police numbers and they could see it. So it sounded like a lie - it WAS a lie as your increase was a decrease.
Whatever happened to the party of Law and Order btw? No police, rampant crime, criminal justice system ground to a halt and the prisons full.
You need to look at police per 100k of the population not the absolute numbers. Again the issue comes down the 8m immigrants we've had sine 2005 not generating enough economic output to fund the extra public services that are required to have them here including the NHS, education and policing. They are a net drag on the nation and the Tories or Reform will need to start sending the non-citizens who don't meet a minimum earnings threshold home.
I think it's more complicated than that, and isn't solely about police numbers.
Since 2010, the number of police stations in England and Wales has fallen by two thirds. In London, it's been three quarters.
So, take the example of shop lifting. In the old days, if the miscreants were apprehended, then the police would have a 10 minute trek to the nearest nick. Now it might be more like 45 minutes. So if they arrest someone they're going to be out of commission not for an hour and a half, but maybe two to three hours.
And the underfunding of the court system means that - in the event said miscreant is prosecuted - then the police officer is out of action for a whole day, and the trial might end up getting deferred anyway, because they were unable to find a barrister willing to act for said miscreant.
It's hard to think of an area of government spending with a better cost-benefit analysis than the criminal justice system: police, courts, prisons and the like. We all benefit from a law abiding society, and the best way to ensure that we live in a law abiding society is for there to be a meaningful prospect of apprehension and punishment if you offend. We don't have that today.
We don't just need more police, though. Because there's no point in arresting someone if they won't be prosecuted. We need to fund the entire chain. And that means we need to fund Legal Aid too, because right now a staggering number of cases end up being dismissed or deferred because of lack of legal representation.
But again the point I'm making is that we've added 8m people to the population in 20 years and on average they've not expanded GDP by enough to cover the additional public service expenditure they require. It's meant larger deficits, less money to go around and increasing tax as a proportion of GDP reducing long term trend growth. Uncontrolled immigration has been an unmitigated disaster for the UK economy. Realistically a migrant care worker or cleaner is never going to contribute enough in tax over their lifetime to cover their healthcare or pension let alone education, policing, defence, transport infrastructure etc...
Expanding the population at such a rapid rate with such low skilled workers for the last 20 years is why we are where we are. Every low skill migrant reduces our GDP per capita and their dependents reduce it further and the taxpayer is on the hook to provide them with housing, healthcare, welfare, pensions, education and the rest of it. It's just not feasible and we need to go through a long period of net emigration of low skill and unskilled migrants plus their dependents if we ever hope to have a high yield economy that can fund proper public services and infrastructure while maintaining a relatively balanced budget. We've had a 20 year failed experiment of increasing absolute GDP at the expense of GDP per capita, well maybe the focus should always have been on per capita GDP rather than the headline figure which is absolutely useless.
These are -candidly- separate issues.
Even if there hadn't been any immigration in the last 15 years, the cuts to our criminal justice system would still have had a very serious impact on the lives of citizens.
That's my point. And it's not just - or even mainly - about police numbers. It's about the fact that the legal system is so underfunded we don't prosecute people. It's about the fact that there's not a local police station that people can go to.
Now, has immigration made things worse: probably. It's just not the sole factor here, and may even not be the dominant one. (I.e. if you think about police stations per person in London, then the biggest factor is the drop in the number of police stations, not the increase in the number of people. And the same is true with the dramatic reduction in the number of duty solicitors.)
They aren't separate issues, immigration of the nature we've had for 20 years has directly resulted in lower GDP per capita than we would otherwise have had. That has led to a series of cuts in public services such as policing and justice because there's not enough GDP being generated per capita.
Those cuts to police stations and duty solicitors are because of budget cuts and those budget cuts are a direct result of there just not being enough GDP being generated to tax at a reasonable rate.
The population rose by 8m people since 2005, a 13% increase.
Nominal GDP has increased from £1.49tn to £3.08tn, an increase of 106%.
Nominal GDP per capita has increased from £29,314 to £47,322 an increase of 61%.
Simply, there was more funding per person available for public services on 2005 than we have today because uncontrolled immigration has reduced GDP per capita to such an extent that if it had kept up the government at 35% tax would have an extra £300bn to spend this year than it does currently.
Obviously this is a simplified view, I'm sure if I still had a team to look into it and adjust for inflation and wages the story would be pretty similar.
Falling GDP per capita due to uncontrolled immigration is the root cause of failing public services. On average each migrant worker and their dependents lowers our GDP per capita and now the effect has reached levels where the state can no longer be properly funded without stiflingly high tax rates.
As I said, we need a prolonged period of net emigration for low skilled and unskilled workers and their dependents. They will never contribute enough to the economy or in tax to cover the spending they will require currently and in the future.
I just don't see this connection to mass immigration in the stats. GDP per capita has been flat since 2008, and was growing throughout the period when Labour opened the borders.
I also don't see how you can prove that migrants on average lower it. You've got dependents and students, sure, but on average they are going to be unlikely to have lower rates of employment than the general population. GDP per worker is about £90k per year, but the average salary is less than half that. If that ratio is fixed, then anyone earning the minimum wage full-time is going to be boosting GDP per capita.
(I don't actually believe that but I'm trying to illustrate the difficulty of working it out. A minimum wage carer might free up two working age bankers to go back into work etc etc).
Public split on whether Nigel is Elizabeth with a cigarette
Was this done today?
I am sure it would never be the case because Yougov are a gold standard, world-respected, leader-in-their-field pollster but it whiffs a bit of push polling to me. Given the fact that bond yields are higher now than in Truss's nadir, I do wonder whether a Rachel Reeves comparison should have been added. The results could have been interesting.
Fieldwork was today.
As OGH said a push poll/outlier is a poll finding you do not like.
Public split on whether Nigel is Elizabeth with a cigarette
Was this done today?
I am sure it would never be the case because Yougov are a gold standard, world-respected, leader-in-their-field pollster but it whiffs a bit of push polling to me. Given the fact that bond yields are higher now than in Truss's nadir, I do wonder whether a Rachel Reeves comparison should have been added. The results could have been interesting.
It's all coming together as David Betz has been predicting. Civil strife within the next few years as the Brits finally revolt
I see Big Dom Cummings is harping on the same theme
And Robert Jenrick's video on X now has nearly 3m views
HRH His holiness the Lord Sir Grant Shapps has joined the adoring Jenners throng. Stick a fork in Clevers and Boris, they're done
I did predict this, when I saw Jenrick's video from Birmingham on the rubbish problem, months back
I said:
He's good to camera He totally gets the grittier issues He's got a skilled editorial team He knows how to use social media REALLY well
And here we are
The problem the Conservative Party has is that the massive underfunding of the criminal justice system happened on their watch.
During their period in government, hundreds of police stations were closed down across the US. Hampstead, for example, lost its police station. Simultaneously, the courts were underfunded, so that even if you do get caught, your chance of having a timely trial is very low.
So: I agree that lawlessness (particularly stuff like endemic shoplifting) is a serious problem. But the problem was caused by cuts from the party of law and order.
Mostly happened under the Cameron and Clegg coalition (Hampstead police station shut in 2013), so the LDs cannot escape blame for police stations closing and legal aid and court cuts either.
Boris and Rishi to be fair to them increased police funding
Here's the problem. In the 2019 parliament so many of your MPs and thus ministers were wazzocks. Insincerely repeating the party line about how many extra police you were adding. Problem is that people knew that you'd taken an axe to police numbers and they could see it. So it sounded like a lie - it WAS a lie as your increase was a decrease.
Whatever happened to the party of Law and Order btw? No police, rampant crime, criminal justice system ground to a halt and the prisons full.
You need to look at police per 100k of the population not the absolute numbers. Again the issue comes down the 8m immigrants we've had sine 2005 not generating enough economic output to fund the extra public services that are required to have them here including the NHS, education and policing. They are a net drag on the nation and the Tories or Reform will need to start sending the non-citizens who don't meet a minimum earnings threshold home.
I think it's more complicated than that, and isn't solely about police numbers.
Since 2010, the number of police stations in England and Wales has fallen by two thirds. In London, it's been three quarters.
So, take the example of shop lifting. In the old days, if the miscreants were apprehended, then the police would have a 10 minute trek to the nearest nick. Now it might be more like 45 minutes. So if they arrest someone they're going to be out of commission not for an hour and a half, but maybe two to three hours.
And the underfunding of the court system means that - in the event said miscreant is prosecuted - then the police officer is out of action for a whole day, and the trial might end up getting deferred anyway, because they were unable to find a barrister willing to act for said miscreant.
It's hard to think of an area of government spending with a better cost-benefit analysis than the criminal justice system: police, courts, prisons and the like. We all benefit from a law abiding society, and the best way to ensure that we live in a law abiding society is for there to be a meaningful prospect of apprehension and punishment if you offend. We don't have that today.
We don't just need more police, though. Because there's no point in arresting someone if they won't be prosecuted. We need to fund the entire chain. And that means we need to fund Legal Aid too, because right now a staggering number of cases end up being dismissed or deferred because of lack of legal representation.
But again the point I'm making is that we've added 8m people to the population in 20 years and on average they've not expanded GDP by enough to cover the additional public service expenditure they require. It's meant larger deficits, less money to go around and increasing tax as a proportion of GDP reducing long term trend growth. Uncontrolled immigration has been an unmitigated disaster for the UK economy. Realistically a migrant care worker or cleaner is never going to contribute enough in tax over their lifetime to cover their healthcare or pension let alone education, policing, defence, transport infrastructure etc...
Expanding the population at such a rapid rate with such low skilled workers for the last 20 years is why we are where we are. Every low skill migrant reduces our GDP per capita and their dependents reduce it further and the taxpayer is on the hook to provide them with housing, healthcare, welfare, pensions, education and the rest of it. It's just not feasible and we need to go through a long period of net emigration of low skill and unskilled migrants plus their dependents if we ever hope to have a high yield economy that can fund proper public services and infrastructure while maintaining a relatively balanced budget. We've had a 20 year failed experiment of increasing absolute GDP at the expense of GDP per capita, well maybe the focus should always have been on per capita GDP rather than the headline figure which is absolutely useless.
These are -candidly- separate issues.
Even if there hadn't been any immigration in the last 15 years, the cuts to our criminal justice system would still have had a very serious impact on the lives of citizens.
That's my point. And it's not just - or even mainly - about police numbers. It's about the fact that the legal system is so underfunded we don't prosecute people. It's about the fact that there's not a local police station that people can go to.
Now, has immigration made things worse: probably. It's just not the sole factor here, and may even not be the dominant one. (I.e. if you think about police stations per person in London, then the biggest factor is the drop in the number of police stations, not the increase in the number of people. And the same is true with the dramatic reduction in the number of duty solicitors.)
They aren't separate issues, immigration of the nature we've had for 20 years has directly resulted in lower GDP per capita than we would otherwise have had. That has led to a series of cuts in public services such as policing and justice because there's not enough GDP being generated per capita.
Those cuts to police stations and duty solicitors are because of budget cuts and those budget cuts are a direct result of there just not being enough GDP being generated to tax at a reasonable rate.
The population rose by 8m people since 2005, a 13% increase.
Nominal GDP has increased from £1.49tn to £3.08tn, an increase of 106%.
Nominal GDP per capita has increased from £29,314 to £47,322 an increase of 61%.
Simply, there was more funding per person available for public services on 2005 than we have today because uncontrolled immigration has reduced GDP per capita to such an extent that if it had kept up the government at 35% tax would have an extra £300bn to spend this year than it does currently.
Obviously this is a simplified view, I'm sure if I still had a team to look into it and adjust for inflation and wages the story would be pretty similar.
Falling GDP per capita due to uncontrolled immigration is the root cause of failing public services. On average each migrant worker and their dependents lowers our GDP per capita and now the effect has reached levels where the state can no longer be properly funded without stiflingly high tax rates.
As I said, we need a prolonged period of net emigration for low skilled and unskilled workers and their dependents. They will never contribute enough to the economy or in tax to cover the spending they will require currently and in the future.
Dude:
I am sympathetic to your concerns. Indeed, I probably largely agree with you about what needs to be done.
But that isn't why we had cuts to the criminal justice system. The coalition government - which happened *before* the vast bulk of the immigration happened - enacted a massive reduction in spend as part of austerity.
It had literally nothing to do with immigration.
If you were to make the comparison from 2005 to 2015 I doubt the conclusion would change much, alas I have no time to do it, dinner beckons.
The UK government's Comprehensive Spending Review was announced in October 2010, and involved a 20% real-terms cut in central government funding for police forces over four years, from March 2011 to March 2015. The Ministry of Justice saw an even bigger drop in its budget - falling from £8.3bn to £7bn in the same time.
These weren't cuts relative to population size, or growing the police budget less quickly than the overall : they were large absolute reductions in spend.
And these cuts happened before the wave of immigration.
Your concerns about immigration are not unwarranted, and I don't disagree with much of your critique.
But the massive reductions in spending on criminal justice happened before most of the immigration happened, and they happened at the behest of the coalition government.
Waves of immigration had already begun years earlier, from around 2003/04 onwards they had spiked massively.
But also the country was bust due to overspending by 2010. Cutting expenditure was necessary.
The wrong things were cut though.
Criminal justice wasn't the right thing to cut. And gold playing welfare while working people's pay was frozen was wrong too.
JENRICKVISION closing in on 5 MILLION views on X (dunno about elsewhere)
He's the only Brit politician - other than Farage - who really gets social media, esp in the TikTok age
You need short, clicky videos, with a plain but compelling narrative. Lots of movement, telling detail, end well
I have just seen the video and full marks to him
Time the London mayor got a grip on this unacceptable behaviour
I agree. Jenrick needs to be admonished.
Do you really support fare dodging ?
I suppose the question is whether fare dodging is a) new, b) getting better/worse, or c) if this is newsworthy because it's more visible. To which I suspect the answers are a) of course not, b) flip knows, c) it's probably a visibility thing rather than a numberical thing.
The nearest I could find to hard data is this FOI request;
The pandemic clearly plays merry hell with the stats, but fare dodging looks like it's been at a steady level for ages. Even when that bloke before Sadiq was Mayor- whatever became of him?
The rail link up to Bedford (both Thameslink and the other one) have put a massive amount of effort into clamping down on fare dodging, and it's been very effective. It's also - I suspect - been a net positive for the financials of the railway companies: if they lost 10% of fare income historically, then a few staff is a very cheap way of boosting revenues.
Suspect that gatelines are the main win here (besides- machines beat people for productivity, as long as there is a human to override the robots when necessary.) The catch is that gates do reduce fare dodging, but the hardcore dodger residue is more visible and harder core. One of those paradoxical situations where making things better makes the situation look worse.
The humans running revenue protection at Manchester Piccadilly are absolute arseholes.
Northern Rail are very bad with frequent cancellations/delays, and the barriers cannot cope with that when you've bought an advance or off-peak ticket and you arrive at peak time.
They'll threaten you with a criminal record etc if you don't pay the minimum £100 fine.
Offer to go to the Magistrates Court rather than pay. AFAIK the 'fine' is to avoid going there. Take a lawyer with you (Oxford educated?).
Public split on whether Nigel is Elizabeth with a cigarette
Was this done today?
I am sure it would never be the case because Yougov are a gold standard, world-respected, leader-in-their-field pollster but it whiffs a bit of push polling to me. Given the fact that bond yields are higher now than in Truss's nadir, I do wonder whether a Rachel Reeves comparison should have been added. The results could have been interesting.
Fieldwork was today.
As OGH said a push poll/outlier is a poll finding you do not like.
I neither like nor dislike the findings - I like Truss so I would applaud Farage's policies if they were more like hers.
However, Sir Useless only made this speech today - even if the speech was considered a success (no sniggering at the back) it would be unlikely that his main talking point would have gathered sufficient saliency to be the sort of water cooler discussion that we might need polling on.
JENRICKVISION closing in on 5 MILLION views on X (dunno about elsewhere)
He's the only Brit politician - other than Farage - who really gets social media, esp in the TikTok age
You need short, clicky videos, with a plain but compelling narrative. Lots of movement, telling detail, end well
I have just seen the video and full marks to him
Time the London mayor got a grip on this unacceptable behaviour
I agree. Jenrick needs to be admonished.
Do you really support fare dodging ?
I suppose the question is whether fare dodging is a) new, b) getting better/worse, or c) if this is newsworthy because it's more visible. To which I suspect the answers are a) of course not, b) flip knows, c) it's probably a visibility thing rather than a numberical thing.
The nearest I could find to hard data is this FOI request;
The pandemic clearly plays merry hell with the stats, but fare dodging looks like it's been at a steady level for ages. Even when that bloke before Sadiq was Mayor- whatever became of him?
The rail link up to Bedford (both Thameslink and the other one) have put a massive amount of effort into clamping down on fare dodging, and it's been very effective. It's also - I suspect - been a net positive for the financials of the railway companies: if they lost 10% of fare income historically, then a few staff is a very cheap way of boosting revenues.
Suspect that gatelines are the main win here (besides- machines beat people for productivity, as long as there is a human to override the robots when necessary.) The catch is that gates do reduce fare dodging, but the hardcore dodger residue is more visible and harder core. One of those paradoxical situations where making things better makes the situation look worse.
The humans running revenue protection at Manchester Piccadilly are absolute arseholes.
Northern Rail are very bad with frequent cancellations/delays, and the barriers cannot cope with that when you've bought an advance or off-peak ticket and you arrive at peak time.
They'll threaten you with a criminal record etc if you don't pay the minimum £100 fine.
Offer to go to the Magistrates Court rather than pay. AFAIK the 'fine' is to avoid going there. Take a lawyer with you (Oxford educated?).
I don't know how it is handled.
We know what happens with TV Licences, and also Business Improvement District enforcers - they will get you that criminal record (maybe just a wrecked credit rating?) if you don't pay the larger fine rubber-stamped by the Magistrates or the Bulk Fine Centre.
Getting on any train now is fascinating to see how many people suddenly get up and walk the length of the train as soon as they see a ticket inspector approaching, often immediately deciding they need to do the reverse journey just a few minutes later when by sheer coincidence the ticket inspector is doing likewise.
Ticket inspectors seem either oblivious to such behaviour or just know it's not worth the hassle of calling anyone out on it.
The Tories should have told the pensioners to fuck off and funded law and order and defence properly instead of stuffing their mouths with gold.
I doubt many would have gone for Ed Miliband instead.
I was having lunch with somebody adjacent to British politics, their view, Tories should support Kim Leadbeter's bill today so we can have mandatory euthanasia for poor pensioners.
Why did they stop at pensioners? Once you go down that road the obvious logic is cull the bottom 10 percent every year for the next decade
Public split on whether Nigel is Elizabeth with a cigarette
Was this done today?
I am sure it would never be the case because Yougov are a gold standard, world-respected, leader-in-their-field pollster but it whiffs a bit of push polling to me. Given the fact that bond yields are higher now than in Truss's nadir, I do wonder whether a Rachel Reeves comparison should have been added. The results could have been interesting.
Fieldwork was today.
As OGH said a push poll/outlier is a poll finding you do not like.
I neither like nor dislike the findings - I like Truss so I would applaud Farage's policies if they were more like hers.
However, Sir Useless only made this speech today - even if the speech was considered a success (no sniggering at the back) it would be unlikely that his main talking point would have gathered sufficient saliency to be the sort of water cooler discussion that we might need polling on.
I hate to ruin your fantasy, but the Tories have been banging on about the Farage Truss line for a while.
It's all coming together as David Betz has been predicting. Civil strife within the next few years as the Brits finally revolt
I see Big Dom Cummings is harping on the same theme
And Robert Jenrick's video on X now has nearly 3m views
HRH His holiness the Lord Sir Grant Shapps has joined the adoring Jenners throng. Stick a fork in Clevers and Boris, they're done
I did predict this, when I saw Jenrick's video from Birmingham on the rubbish problem, months back
I said:
He's good to camera He totally gets the grittier issues He's got a skilled editorial team He knows how to use social media REALLY well
And here we are
The problem the Conservative Party has is that the massive underfunding of the criminal justice system happened on their watch.
During their period in government, hundreds of police stations were closed down across the US. Hampstead, for example, lost its police station. Simultaneously, the courts were underfunded, so that even if you do get caught, your chance of having a timely trial is very low.
So: I agree that lawlessness (particularly stuff like endemic shoplifting) is a serious problem. But the problem was caused by cuts from the party of law and order.
Mostly happened under the Cameron and Clegg coalition (Hampstead police station shut in 2013), so the LDs cannot escape blame for police stations closing and legal aid and court cuts either.
Boris and Rishi to be fair to them increased police funding
Here's the problem. In the 2019 parliament so many of your MPs and thus ministers were wazzocks. Insincerely repeating the party line about how many extra police you were adding. Problem is that people knew that you'd taken an axe to police numbers and they could see it. So it sounded like a lie - it WAS a lie as your increase was a decrease.
Whatever happened to the party of Law and Order btw? No police, rampant crime, criminal justice system ground to a halt and the prisons full.
You need to look at police per 100k of the population not the absolute numbers. Again the issue comes down the 8m immigrants we've had sine 2005 not generating enough economic output to fund the extra public services that are required to have them here including the NHS, education and policing. They are a net drag on the nation and the Tories or Reform will need to start sending the non-citizens who don't meet a minimum earnings threshold home.
I think it's more complicated than that, and isn't solely about police numbers.
Since 2010, the number of police stations in England and Wales has fallen by two thirds. In London, it's been three quarters.
So, take the example of shop lifting. In the old days, if the miscreants were apprehended, then the police would have a 10 minute trek to the nearest nick. Now it might be more like 45 minutes. So if they arrest someone they're going to be out of commission not for an hour and a half, but maybe two to three hours.
And the underfunding of the court system means that - in the event said miscreant is prosecuted - then the police officer is out of action for a whole day, and the trial might end up getting deferred anyway, because they were unable to find a barrister willing to act for said miscreant.
It's hard to think of an area of government spending with a better cost-benefit analysis than the criminal justice system: police, courts, prisons and the like. We all benefit from a law abiding society, and the best way to ensure that we live in a law abiding society is for there to be a meaningful prospect of apprehension and punishment if you offend. We don't have that today.
We don't just need more police, though. Because there's no point in arresting someone if they won't be prosecuted. We need to fund the entire chain. And that means we need to fund Legal Aid too, because right now a staggering number of cases end up being dismissed or deferred because of lack of legal representation.
But again the point I'm making is that we've added 8m people to the population in 20 years and on average they've not expanded GDP by enough to cover the additional public service expenditure they require. It's meant larger deficits, less money to go around and increasing tax as a proportion of GDP reducing long term trend growth. Uncontrolled immigration has been an unmitigated disaster for the UK economy. Realistically a migrant care worker or cleaner is never going to contribute enough in tax over their lifetime to cover their healthcare or pension let alone education, policing, defence, transport infrastructure etc...
Expanding the population at such a rapid rate with such low skilled workers for the last 20 years is why we are where we are. Every low skill migrant reduces our GDP per capita and their dependents reduce it further and the taxpayer is on the hook to provide them with housing, healthcare, welfare, pensions, education and the rest of it. It's just not feasible and we need to go through a long period of net emigration of low skill and unskilled migrants plus their dependents if we ever hope to have a high yield economy that can fund proper public services and infrastructure while maintaining a relatively balanced budget. We've had a 20 year failed experiment of increasing absolute GDP at the expense of GDP per capita, well maybe the focus should always have been on per capita GDP rather than the headline figure which is absolutely useless.
These are -candidly- separate issues.
Even if there hadn't been any immigration in the last 15 years, the cuts to our criminal justice system would still have had a very serious impact on the lives of citizens.
That's my point. And it's not just - or even mainly - about police numbers. It's about the fact that the legal system is so underfunded we don't prosecute people. It's about the fact that there's not a local police station that people can go to.
Now, has immigration made things worse: probably. It's just not the sole factor here, and may even not be the dominant one. (I.e. if you think about police stations per person in London, then the biggest factor is the drop in the number of police stations, not the increase in the number of people. And the same is true with the dramatic reduction in the number of duty solicitors.)
They aren't separate issues, immigration of the nature we've had for 20 years has directly resulted in lower GDP per capita than we would otherwise have had. That has led to a series of cuts in public services such as policing and justice because there's not enough GDP being generated per capita.
Those cuts to police stations and duty solicitors are because of budget cuts and those budget cuts are a direct result of there just not being enough GDP being generated to tax at a reasonable rate.
The population rose by 8m people since 2005, a 13% increase.
Nominal GDP has increased from £1.49tn to £3.08tn, an increase of 106%.
Nominal GDP per capita has increased from £29,314 to £47,322 an increase of 61%.
Simply, there was more funding per person available for public services on 2005 than we have today because uncontrolled immigration has reduced GDP per capita to such an extent that if it had kept up the government at 35% tax would have an extra £300bn to spend this year than it does currently.
Obviously this is a simplified view, I'm sure if I still had a team to look into it and adjust for inflation and wages the story would be pretty similar.
Falling GDP per capita due to uncontrolled immigration is the root cause of failing public services. On average each migrant worker and their dependents lowers our GDP per capita and now the effect has reached levels where the state can no longer be properly funded without stiflingly high tax rates.
As I said, we need a prolonged period of net emigration for low skilled and unskilled workers and their dependents. They will never contribute enough to the economy or in tax to cover the spending they will require currently and in the future.
Dude:
I am sympathetic to your concerns. Indeed, I probably largely agree with you about what needs to be done.
But that isn't why we had cuts to the criminal justice system. The coalition government - which happened *before* the vast bulk of the immigration happened - enacted a massive reduction in spend as part of austerity.
It had literally nothing to do with immigration.
If you were to make the comparison from 2005 to 2015 I doubt the conclusion would change much, alas I have no time to do it, dinner beckons.
The UK government's Comprehensive Spending Review was announced in October 2010, and involved a 20% real-terms cut in central government funding for police forces over four years, from March 2011 to March 2015. The Ministry of Justice saw an even bigger drop in its budget - falling from £8.3bn to £7bn in the same time.
These weren't cuts relative to population size, or growing the police budget less quickly than the overall : they were large absolute reductions in spend.
And these cuts happened before the wave of immigration.
Your concerns about immigration are not unwarranted, and I don't disagree with much of your critique.
But the massive reductions in spending on criminal justice happened before most of the immigration happened, and they happened at the behest of the coalition government.
Waves of immigration had already begun years earlier, from around 2003/04 onwards they had spiked massively.
But also the country was bust due to overspending by 2010. Cutting expenditure was necessary.
The wrong things were cut though.
Criminal justice wasn't the right thing to cut. And gold playing welfare while working people's pay was frozen was wrong too.
The Coalition cut anything that mattered, while protecting the things that didn’t.
It's all coming together as David Betz has been predicting. Civil strife within the next few years as the Brits finally revolt
I see Big Dom Cummings is harping on the same theme
And Robert Jenrick's video on X now has nearly 3m views
HRH His holiness the Lord Sir Grant Shapps has joined the adoring Jenners throng. Stick a fork in Clevers and Boris, they're done
I did predict this, when I saw Jenrick's video from Birmingham on the rubbish problem, months back
I said:
He's good to camera He totally gets the grittier issues He's got a skilled editorial team He knows how to use social media REALLY well
And here we are
The problem the Conservative Party has is that the massive underfunding of the criminal justice system happened on their watch.
During their period in government, hundreds of police stations were closed down across the US. Hampstead, for example, lost its police station. Simultaneously, the courts were underfunded, so that even if you do get caught, your chance of having a timely trial is very low.
So: I agree that lawlessness (particularly stuff like endemic shoplifting) is a serious problem. But the problem was caused by cuts from the party of law and order.
Mostly happened under the Cameron and Clegg coalition (Hampstead police station shut in 2013), so the LDs cannot escape blame for police stations closing and legal aid and court cuts either.
Boris and Rishi to be fair to them increased police funding
Here's the problem. In the 2019 parliament so many of your MPs and thus ministers were wazzocks. Insincerely repeating the party line about how many extra police you were adding. Problem is that people knew that you'd taken an axe to police numbers and they could see it. So it sounded like a lie - it WAS a lie as your increase was a decrease.
Whatever happened to the party of Law and Order btw? No police, rampant crime, criminal justice system ground to a halt and the prisons full.
You need to look at police per 100k of the population not the absolute numbers. Again the issue comes down the 8m immigrants we've had sine 2005 not generating enough economic output to fund the extra public services that are required to have them here including the NHS, education and policing. They are a net drag on the nation and the Tories or Reform will need to start sending the non-citizens who don't meet a minimum earnings threshold home.
I think it's more complicated than that, and isn't solely about police numbers.
Since 2010, the number of police stations in England and Wales has fallen by two thirds. In London, it's been three quarters.
So, take the example of shop lifting. In the old days, if the miscreants were apprehended, then the police would have a 10 minute trek to the nearest nick. Now it might be more like 45 minutes. So if they arrest someone they're going to be out of commission not for an hour and a half, but maybe two to three hours.
And the underfunding of the court system means that - in the event said miscreant is prosecuted - then the police officer is out of action for a whole day, and the trial might end up getting deferred anyway, because they were unable to find a barrister willing to act for said miscreant.
It's hard to think of an area of government spending with a better cost-benefit analysis than the criminal justice system: police, courts, prisons and the like. We all benefit from a law abiding society, and the best way to ensure that we live in a law abiding society is for there to be a meaningful prospect of apprehension and punishment if you offend. We don't have that today.
We don't just need more police, though. Because there's no point in arresting someone if they won't be prosecuted. We need to fund the entire chain. And that means we need to fund Legal Aid too, because right now a staggering number of cases end up being dismissed or deferred because of lack of legal representation.
But again the point I'm making is that we've added 8m people to the population in 20 years and on average they've not expanded GDP by enough to cover the additional public service expenditure they require. It's meant larger deficits, less money to go around and increasing tax as a proportion of GDP reducing long term trend growth. Uncontrolled immigration has been an unmitigated disaster for the UK economy. Realistically a migrant care worker or cleaner is never going to contribute enough in tax over their lifetime to cover their healthcare or pension let alone education, policing, defence, transport infrastructure etc...
Expanding the population at such a rapid rate with such low skilled workers for the last 20 years is why we are where we are. Every low skill migrant reduces our GDP per capita and their dependents reduce it further and the taxpayer is on the hook to provide them with housing, healthcare, welfare, pensions, education and the rest of it. It's just not feasible and we need to go through a long period of net emigration of low skill and unskilled migrants plus their dependents if we ever hope to have a high yield economy that can fund proper public services and infrastructure while maintaining a relatively balanced budget. We've had a 20 year failed experiment of increasing absolute GDP at the expense of GDP per capita, well maybe the focus should always have been on per capita GDP rather than the headline figure which is absolutely useless.
These are -candidly- separate issues.
Even if there hadn't been any immigration in the last 15 years, the cuts to our criminal justice system would still have had a very serious impact on the lives of citizens.
That's my point. And it's not just - or even mainly - about police numbers. It's about the fact that the legal system is so underfunded we don't prosecute people. It's about the fact that there's not a local police station that people can go to.
Now, has immigration made things worse: probably. It's just not the sole factor here, and may even not be the dominant one. (I.e. if you think about police stations per person in London, then the biggest factor is the drop in the number of police stations, not the increase in the number of people. And the same is true with the dramatic reduction in the number of duty solicitors.)
They aren't separate issues, immigration of the nature we've had for 20 years has directly resulted in lower GDP per capita than we would otherwise have had. That has led to a series of cuts in public services such as policing and justice because there's not enough GDP being generated per capita.
Those cuts to police stations and duty solicitors are because of budget cuts and those budget cuts are a direct result of there just not being enough GDP being generated to tax at a reasonable rate.
The population rose by 8m people since 2005, a 13% increase.
Nominal GDP has increased from £1.49tn to £3.08tn, an increase of 106%.
Nominal GDP per capita has increased from £29,314 to £47,322 an increase of 61%.
Simply, there was more funding per person available for public services on 2005 than we have today because uncontrolled immigration has reduced GDP per capita to such an extent that if it had kept up the government at 35% tax would have an extra £300bn to spend this year than it does currently.
Obviously this is a simplified view, I'm sure if I still had a team to look into it and adjust for inflation and wages the story would be pretty similar.
Falling GDP per capita due to uncontrolled immigration is the root cause of failing public services. On average each migrant worker and their dependents lowers our GDP per capita and now the effect has reached levels where the state can no longer be properly funded without stiflingly high tax rates.
As I said, we need a prolonged period of net emigration for low skilled and unskilled workers and their dependents. They will never contribute enough to the economy or in tax to cover the spending they will require currently and in the future.
Dude:
I am sympathetic to your concerns. Indeed, I probably largely agree with you about what needs to be done.
But that isn't why we had cuts to the criminal justice system. The coalition government - which happened *before* the vast bulk of the immigration happened - enacted a massive reduction in spend as part of austerity.
It had literally nothing to do with immigration.
Immigration has become the catch-all scapegoat for almost every failure of post-Thatcherism. Economic growth, criminal justice, housing, etc.
Yep, and like Brexit, halting immigration will be a distraction from the real problems of the country. Another wasted decade or two to come.
And none of them will have a plan for how the country functions without immigrants.
JENRICKVISION closing in on 5 MILLION views on X (dunno about elsewhere)
He's the only Brit politician - other than Farage - who really gets social media, esp in the TikTok age
You need short, clicky videos, with a plain but compelling narrative. Lots of movement, telling detail, end well
I have just seen the video and full marks to him
Time the London mayor got a grip on this unacceptable behaviour
I agree. Jenrick needs to be admonished.
Do you really support fare dodging ?
I suppose the question is whether fare dodging is a) new, b) getting better/worse, or c) if this is newsworthy because it's more visible. To which I suspect the answers are a) of course not, b) flip knows, c) it's probably a visibility thing rather than a numberical thing.
The nearest I could find to hard data is this FOI request;
The pandemic clearly plays merry hell with the stats, but fare dodging looks like it's been at a steady level for ages. Even when that bloke before Sadiq was Mayor- whatever became of him?
The rail link up to Bedford (both Thameslink and the other one) have put a massive amount of effort into clamping down on fare dodging, and it's been very effective. It's also - I suspect - been a net positive for the financials of the railway companies: if they lost 10% of fare income historically, then a few staff is a very cheap way of boosting revenues.
Suspect that gatelines are the main win here (besides- machines beat people for productivity, as long as there is a human to override the robots when necessary.) The catch is that gates do reduce fare dodging, but the hardcore dodger residue is more visible and harder core. One of those paradoxical situations where making things better makes the situation look worse.
The humans running revenue protection at Manchester Piccadilly are absolute arseholes.
Northern Rail are very bad with frequent cancellations/delays, and the barriers cannot cope with that when you've bought an advance or off-peak ticket and you arrive at peak time.
They'll threaten you with a criminal record etc if you don't pay the minimum £100 fine.
Offer to go to the Magistrates Court rather than pay. AFAIK the 'fine' is to avoid going there. Take a lawyer with you (Oxford educated?).
I don't know how it is handled.
We know what happens with TV Licences, and also Business Improvement District enforcers - they will get you that criminal record (maybe just a wrecked credit rating?) if you don't pay the larger fine rubber-stamped by the Magistrates or the Bulk Fine Centre.
It's very messy (or was) particularly if you joined on an unstaffed station and the ticket machine was out of order.
Getting on any train now is fascinating to see how many people suddenly get up and walk the length of the train as soon as they see a ticket inspector approaching, often immediately deciding they need to do the reverse journey just a few minutes later when by sheer coincidence the ticket inspector is doing likewise.
Ticket inspectors seem either oblivious to such behaviour or just know it's not worth the hassle of calling anyone out on it.
We have travelled quite a bit on TFW and Avanti this year, and have required tickets to access the platforms and have always had our tickets checked and even on occassions our two together card
It's all coming together as David Betz has been predicting. Civil strife within the next few years as the Brits finally revolt
I see Big Dom Cummings is harping on the same theme
And Robert Jenrick's video on X now has nearly 3m views
HRH His holiness the Lord Sir Grant Shapps has joined the adoring Jenners throng. Stick a fork in Clevers and Boris, they're done
I did predict this, when I saw Jenrick's video from Birmingham on the rubbish problem, months back
I said:
He's good to camera He totally gets the grittier issues He's got a skilled editorial team He knows how to use social media REALLY well
And here we are
The problem the Conservative Party has is that the massive underfunding of the criminal justice system happened on their watch.
During their period in government, hundreds of police stations were closed down across the US. Hampstead, for example, lost its police station. Simultaneously, the courts were underfunded, so that even if you do get caught, your chance of having a timely trial is very low.
So: I agree that lawlessness (particularly stuff like endemic shoplifting) is a serious problem. But the problem was caused by cuts from the party of law and order.
Mostly happened under the Cameron and Clegg coalition (Hampstead police station shut in 2013), so the LDs cannot escape blame for police stations closing and legal aid and court cuts either.
Boris and Rishi to be fair to them increased police funding
Here's the problem. In the 2019 parliament so many of your MPs and thus ministers were wazzocks. Insincerely repeating the party line about how many extra police you were adding. Problem is that people knew that you'd taken an axe to police numbers and they could see it. So it sounded like a lie - it WAS a lie as your increase was a decrease.
Whatever happened to the party of Law and Order btw? No police, rampant crime, criminal justice system ground to a halt and the prisons full.
You need to look at police per 100k of the population not the absolute numbers. Again the issue comes down the 8m immigrants we've had sine 2005 not generating enough economic output to fund the extra public services that are required to have them here including the NHS, education and policing. They are a net drag on the nation and the Tories or Reform will need to start sending the non-citizens who don't meet a minimum earnings threshold home.
I think it's more complicated than that, and isn't solely about police numbers.
Since 2010, the number of police stations in England and Wales has fallen by two thirds. In London, it's been three quarters.
So, take the example of shop lifting. In the old days, if the miscreants were apprehended, then the police would have a 10 minute trek to the nearest nick. Now it might be more like 45 minutes. So if they arrest someone they're going to be out of commission not for an hour and a half, but maybe two to three hours.
And the underfunding of the court system means that - in the event said miscreant is prosecuted - then the police officer is out of action for a whole day, and the trial might end up getting deferred anyway, because they were unable to find a barrister willing to act for said miscreant.
It's hard to think of an area of government spending with a better cost-benefit analysis than the criminal justice system: police, courts, prisons and the like. We all benefit from a law abiding society, and the best way to ensure that we live in a law abiding society is for there to be a meaningful prospect of apprehension and punishment if you offend. We don't have that today.
We don't just need more police, though. Because there's no point in arresting someone if they won't be prosecuted. We need to fund the entire chain. And that means we need to fund Legal Aid too, because right now a staggering number of cases end up being dismissed or deferred because of lack of legal representation.
But again the point I'm making is that we've added 8m people to the population in 20 years and on average they've not expanded GDP by enough to cover the additional public service expenditure they require. It's meant larger deficits, less money to go around and increasing tax as a proportion of GDP reducing long term trend growth. Uncontrolled immigration has been an unmitigated disaster for the UK economy. Realistically a migrant care worker or cleaner is never going to contribute enough in tax over their lifetime to cover their healthcare or pension let alone education, policing, defence, transport infrastructure etc...
Expanding the population at such a rapid rate with such low skilled workers for the last 20 years is why we are where we are. Every low skill migrant reduces our GDP per capita and their dependents reduce it further and the taxpayer is on the hook to provide them with housing, healthcare, welfare, pensions, education and the rest of it. It's just not feasible and we need to go through a long period of net emigration of low skill and unskilled migrants plus their dependents if we ever hope to have a high yield economy that can fund proper public services and infrastructure while maintaining a relatively balanced budget. We've had a 20 year failed experiment of increasing absolute GDP at the expense of GDP per capita, well maybe the focus should always have been on per capita GDP rather than the headline figure which is absolutely useless.
These are -candidly- separate issues.
Even if there hadn't been any immigration in the last 15 years, the cuts to our criminal justice system would still have had a very serious impact on the lives of citizens.
That's my point. And it's not just - or even mainly - about police numbers. It's about the fact that the legal system is so underfunded we don't prosecute people. It's about the fact that there's not a local police station that people can go to.
Now, has immigration made things worse: probably. It's just not the sole factor here, and may even not be the dominant one. (I.e. if you think about police stations per person in London, then the biggest factor is the drop in the number of police stations, not the increase in the number of people. And the same is true with the dramatic reduction in the number of duty solicitors.)
They aren't separate issues, immigration of the nature we've had for 20 years has directly resulted in lower GDP per capita than we would otherwise have had. That has led to a series of cuts in public services such as policing and justice because there's not enough GDP being generated per capita.
Those cuts to police stations and duty solicitors are because of budget cuts and those budget cuts are a direct result of there just not being enough GDP being generated to tax at a reasonable rate.
The population rose by 8m people since 2005, a 13% increase.
Nominal GDP has increased from £1.49tn to £3.08tn, an increase of 106%.
Nominal GDP per capita has increased from £29,314 to £47,322 an increase of 61%.
Simply, there was more funding per person available for public services on 2005 than we have today because uncontrolled immigration has reduced GDP per capita to such an extent that if it had kept up the government at 35% tax would have an extra £300bn to spend this year than it does currently.
Obviously this is a simplified view, I'm sure if I still had a team to look into it and adjust for inflation and wages the story would be pretty similar.
Falling GDP per capita due to uncontrolled immigration is the root cause of failing public services. On average each migrant worker and their dependents lowers our GDP per capita and now the effect has reached levels where the state can no longer be properly funded without stiflingly high tax rates.
As I said, we need a prolonged period of net emigration for low skilled and unskilled workers and their dependents. They will never contribute enough to the economy or in tax to cover the spending they will require currently and in the future.
Dude:
I am sympathetic to your concerns. Indeed, I probably largely agree with you about what needs to be done.
But that isn't why we had cuts to the criminal justice system. The coalition government - which happened *before* the vast bulk of the immigration happened - enacted a massive reduction in spend as part of austerity.
It had literally nothing to do with immigration.
If you were to make the comparison from 2005 to 2015 I doubt the conclusion would change much, alas I have no time to do it, dinner beckons.
The UK government's Comprehensive Spending Review was announced in October 2010, and involved a 20% real-terms cut in central government funding for police forces over four years, from March 2011 to March 2015. The Ministry of Justice saw an even bigger drop in its budget - falling from £8.3bn to £7bn in the same time.
These weren't cuts relative to population size, or growing the police budget less quickly than the overall : they were large absolute reductions in spend.
And these cuts happened before the wave of immigration.
Your concerns about immigration are not unwarranted, and I don't disagree with much of your critique.
But the massive reductions in spending on criminal justice happened before most of the immigration happened, and they happened at the behest of the coalition government.
Waves of immigration had already begun years earlier, from around 2003/04 onwards they had spiked massively.
But also the country was bust due to overspending by 2010. Cutting expenditure was necessary.
The wrong things were cut though.
Criminal justice wasn't the right thing to cut. And gold playing welfare while working people's pay was frozen was wrong too.
The Coalition cut anything that mattered, while protecting the things that didn’t.
They cut and protected what they needed to cut and protect to win the 2015 election. It punted the underlying issue of the gap between how much tax the public were prepared to pay and the services they wanted for that tax into the long grass, but that meant they would be Someone Else's Problem. As has happened.
It's all coming together as David Betz has been predicting. Civil strife within the next few years as the Brits finally revolt
I see Big Dom Cummings is harping on the same theme
And Robert Jenrick's video on X now has nearly 3m views
HRH His holiness the Lord Sir Grant Shapps has joined the adoring Jenners throng. Stick a fork in Clevers and Boris, they're done
I did predict this, when I saw Jenrick's video from Birmingham on the rubbish problem, months back
I said:
He's good to camera He totally gets the grittier issues He's got a skilled editorial team He knows how to use social media REALLY well
And here we are
The problem the Conservative Party has is that the massive underfunding of the criminal justice system happened on their watch.
During their period in government, hundreds of police stations were closed down across the US. Hampstead, for example, lost its police station. Simultaneously, the courts were underfunded, so that even if you do get caught, your chance of having a timely trial is very low.
So: I agree that lawlessness (particularly stuff like endemic shoplifting) is a serious problem. But the problem was caused by cuts from the party of law and order.
Mostly happened under the Cameron and Clegg coalition (Hampstead police station shut in 2013), so the LDs cannot escape blame for police stations closing and legal aid and court cuts either.
Boris and Rishi to be fair to them increased police funding
Here's the problem. In the 2019 parliament so many of your MPs and thus ministers were wazzocks. Insincerely repeating the party line about how many extra police you were adding. Problem is that people knew that you'd taken an axe to police numbers and they could see it. So it sounded like a lie - it WAS a lie as your increase was a decrease.
Whatever happened to the party of Law and Order btw? No police, rampant crime, criminal justice system ground to a halt and the prisons full.
You need to look at police per 100k of the population not the absolute numbers. Again the issue comes down the 8m immigrants we've had sine 2005 not generating enough economic output to fund the extra public services that are required to have them here including the NHS, education and policing. They are a net drag on the nation and the Tories or Reform will need to start sending the non-citizens who don't meet a minimum earnings threshold home.
I think it's more complicated than that, and isn't solely about police numbers.
Since 2010, the number of police stations in England and Wales has fallen by two thirds. In London, it's been three quarters.
So, take the example of shop lifting. In the old days, if the miscreants were apprehended, then the police would have a 10 minute trek to the nearest nick. Now it might be more like 45 minutes. So if they arrest someone they're going to be out of commission not for an hour and a half, but maybe two to three hours.
And the underfunding of the court system means that - in the event said miscreant is prosecuted - then the police officer is out of action for a whole day, and the trial might end up getting deferred anyway, because they were unable to find a barrister willing to act for said miscreant.
It's hard to think of an area of government spending with a better cost-benefit analysis than the criminal justice system: police, courts, prisons and the like. We all benefit from a law abiding society, and the best way to ensure that we live in a law abiding society is for there to be a meaningful prospect of apprehension and punishment if you offend. We don't have that today.
We don't just need more police, though. Because there's no point in arresting someone if they won't be prosecuted. We need to fund the entire chain. And that means we need to fund Legal Aid too, because right now a staggering number of cases end up being dismissed or deferred because of lack of legal representation.
But again the point I'm making is that we've added 8m people to the population in 20 years and on average they've not expanded GDP by enough to cover the additional public service expenditure they require. It's meant larger deficits, less money to go around and increasing tax as a proportion of GDP reducing long term trend growth. Uncontrolled immigration has been an unmitigated disaster for the UK economy. Realistically a migrant care worker or cleaner is never going to contribute enough in tax over their lifetime to cover their healthcare or pension let alone education, policing, defence, transport infrastructure etc...
Expanding the population at such a rapid rate with such low skilled workers for the last 20 years is why we are where we are. Every low skill migrant reduces our GDP per capita and their dependents reduce it further and the taxpayer is on the hook to provide them with housing, healthcare, welfare, pensions, education and the rest of it. It's just not feasible and we need to go through a long period of net emigration of low skill and unskilled migrants plus their dependents if we ever hope to have a high yield economy that can fund proper public services and infrastructure while maintaining a relatively balanced budget. We've had a 20 year failed experiment of increasing absolute GDP at the expense of GDP per capita, well maybe the focus should always have been on per capita GDP rather than the headline figure which is absolutely useless.
These are -candidly- separate issues.
Even if there hadn't been any immigration in the last 15 years, the cuts to our criminal justice system would still have had a very serious impact on the lives of citizens.
That's my point. And it's not just - or even mainly - about police numbers. It's about the fact that the legal system is so underfunded we don't prosecute people. It's about the fact that there's not a local police station that people can go to.
Now, has immigration made things worse: probably. It's just not the sole factor here, and may even not be the dominant one. (I.e. if you think about police stations per person in London, then the biggest factor is the drop in the number of police stations, not the increase in the number of people. And the same is true with the dramatic reduction in the number of duty solicitors.)
They aren't separate issues, immigration of the nature we've had for 20 years has directly resulted in lower GDP per capita than we would otherwise have had. That has led to a series of cuts in public services such as policing and justice because there's not enough GDP being generated per capita.
Those cuts to police stations and duty solicitors are because of budget cuts and those budget cuts are a direct result of there just not being enough GDP being generated to tax at a reasonable rate.
The population rose by 8m people since 2005, a 13% increase.
Nominal GDP has increased from £1.49tn to £3.08tn, an increase of 106%.
Nominal GDP per capita has increased from £29,314 to £47,322 an increase of 61%.
Simply, there was more funding per person available for public services on 2005 than we have today because uncontrolled immigration has reduced GDP per capita to such an extent that if it had kept up the government at 35% tax would have an extra £300bn to spend this year than it does currently.
Obviously this is a simplified view, I'm sure if I still had a team to look into it and adjust for inflation and wages the story would be pretty similar.
Falling GDP per capita due to uncontrolled immigration is the root cause of failing public services. On average each migrant worker and their dependents lowers our GDP per capita and now the effect has reached levels where the state can no longer be properly funded without stiflingly high tax rates.
As I said, we need a prolonged period of net emigration for low skilled and unskilled workers and their dependents. They will never contribute enough to the economy or in tax to cover the spending they will require currently and in the future.
Dude:
I am sympathetic to your concerns. Indeed, I probably largely agree with you about what needs to be done.
But that isn't why we had cuts to the criminal justice system. The coalition government - which happened *before* the vast bulk of the immigration happened - enacted a massive reduction in spend as part of austerity.
It had literally nothing to do with immigration.
Immigration has become the catch-all scapegoat for almost every failure of post-Thatcherism. Economic growth, criminal justice, housing, etc.
Yep, and like Brexit, halting immigration will be a distraction from the real problems of the country. Another wasted decade or two to come.
And none of them will have a plan for how the country functions without immigrants.
Do the proponents of further mass immigration have a plan for how the country will function with them?
It's all coming together as David Betz has been predicting. Civil strife within the next few years as the Brits finally revolt
I see Big Dom Cummings is harping on the same theme
And Robert Jenrick's video on X now has nearly 3m views
HRH His holiness the Lord Sir Grant Shapps has joined the adoring Jenners throng. Stick a fork in Clevers and Boris, they're done
I did predict this, when I saw Jenrick's video from Birmingham on the rubbish problem, months back
I said:
He's good to camera He totally gets the grittier issues He's got a skilled editorial team He knows how to use social media REALLY well
And here we are
The problem the Conservative Party has is that the massive underfunding of the criminal justice system happened on their watch.
During their period in government, hundreds of police stations were closed down across the US. Hampstead, for example, lost its police station. Simultaneously, the courts were underfunded, so that even if you do get caught, your chance of having a timely trial is very low.
So: I agree that lawlessness (particularly stuff like endemic shoplifting) is a serious problem. But the problem was caused by cuts from the party of law and order.
Mostly happened under the Cameron and Clegg coalition (Hampstead police station shut in 2013), so the LDs cannot escape blame for police stations closing and legal aid and court cuts either.
Boris and Rishi to be fair to them increased police funding
Here's the problem. In the 2019 parliament so many of your MPs and thus ministers were wazzocks. Insincerely repeating the party line about how many extra police you were adding. Problem is that people knew that you'd taken an axe to police numbers and they could see it. So it sounded like a lie - it WAS a lie as your increase was a decrease.
Whatever happened to the party of Law and Order btw? No police, rampant crime, criminal justice system ground to a halt and the prisons full.
You need to look at police per 100k of the population not the absolute numbers. Again the issue comes down the 8m immigrants we've had sine 2005 not generating enough economic output to fund the extra public services that are required to have them here including the NHS, education and policing. They are a net drag on the nation and the Tories or Reform will need to start sending the non-citizens who don't meet a minimum earnings threshold home.
I think it's more complicated than that, and isn't solely about police numbers.
Since 2010, the number of police stations in England and Wales has fallen by two thirds. In London, it's been three quarters.
So, take the example of shop lifting. In the old days, if the miscreants were apprehended, then the police would have a 10 minute trek to the nearest nick. Now it might be more like 45 minutes. So if they arrest someone they're going to be out of commission not for an hour and a half, but maybe two to three hours.
And the underfunding of the court system means that - in the event said miscreant is prosecuted - then the police officer is out of action for a whole day, and the trial might end up getting deferred anyway, because they were unable to find a barrister willing to act for said miscreant.
It's hard to think of an area of government spending with a better cost-benefit analysis than the criminal justice system: police, courts, prisons and the like. We all benefit from a law abiding society, and the best way to ensure that we live in a law abiding society is for there to be a meaningful prospect of apprehension and punishment if you offend. We don't have that today.
We don't just need more police, though. Because there's no point in arresting someone if they won't be prosecuted. We need to fund the entire chain. And that means we need to fund Legal Aid too, because right now a staggering number of cases end up being dismissed or deferred because of lack of legal representation.
But again the point I'm making is that we've added 8m people to the population in 20 years and on average they've not expanded GDP by enough to cover the additional public service expenditure they require. It's meant larger deficits, less money to go around and increasing tax as a proportion of GDP reducing long term trend growth. Uncontrolled immigration has been an unmitigated disaster for the UK economy. Realistically a migrant care worker or cleaner is never going to contribute enough in tax over their lifetime to cover their healthcare or pension let alone education, policing, defence, transport infrastructure etc...
Expanding the population at such a rapid rate with such low skilled workers for the last 20 years is why we are where we are. Every low skill migrant reduces our GDP per capita and their dependents reduce it further and the taxpayer is on the hook to provide them with housing, healthcare, welfare, pensions, education and the rest of it. It's just not feasible and we need to go through a long period of net emigration of low skill and unskilled migrants plus their dependents if we ever hope to have a high yield economy that can fund proper public services and infrastructure while maintaining a relatively balanced budget. We've had a 20 year failed experiment of increasing absolute GDP at the expense of GDP per capita, well maybe the focus should always have been on per capita GDP rather than the headline figure which is absolutely useless.
These are -candidly- separate issues.
Even if there hadn't been any immigration in the last 15 years, the cuts to our criminal justice system would still have had a very serious impact on the lives of citizens.
That's my point. And it's not just - or even mainly - about police numbers. It's about the fact that the legal system is so underfunded we don't prosecute people. It's about the fact that there's not a local police station that people can go to.
Now, has immigration made things worse: probably. It's just not the sole factor here, and may even not be the dominant one. (I.e. if you think about police stations per person in London, then the biggest factor is the drop in the number of police stations, not the increase in the number of people. And the same is true with the dramatic reduction in the number of duty solicitors.)
They aren't separate issues, immigration of the nature we've had for 20 years has directly resulted in lower GDP per capita than we would otherwise have had. That has led to a series of cuts in public services such as policing and justice because there's not enough GDP being generated per capita.
Those cuts to police stations and duty solicitors are because of budget cuts and those budget cuts are a direct result of there just not being enough GDP being generated to tax at a reasonable rate.
The population rose by 8m people since 2005, a 13% increase.
Nominal GDP has increased from £1.49tn to £3.08tn, an increase of 106%.
Nominal GDP per capita has increased from £29,314 to £47,322 an increase of 61%.
Simply, there was more funding per person available for public services on 2005 than we have today because uncontrolled immigration has reduced GDP per capita to such an extent that if it had kept up the government at 35% tax would have an extra £300bn to spend this year than it does currently.
Obviously this is a simplified view, I'm sure if I still had a team to look into it and adjust for inflation and wages the story would be pretty similar.
Falling GDP per capita due to uncontrolled immigration is the root cause of failing public services. On average each migrant worker and their dependents lowers our GDP per capita and now the effect has reached levels where the state can no longer be properly funded without stiflingly high tax rates.
As I said, we need a prolonged period of net emigration for low skilled and unskilled workers and their dependents. They will never contribute enough to the economy or in tax to cover the spending they will require currently and in the future.
Dude:
I am sympathetic to your concerns. Indeed, I probably largely agree with you about what needs to be done.
But that isn't why we had cuts to the criminal justice system. The coalition government - which happened *before* the vast bulk of the immigration happened - enacted a massive reduction in spend as part of austerity.
It had literally nothing to do with immigration.
If you were to make the comparison from 2005 to 2015 I doubt the conclusion would change much, alas I have no time to do it, dinner beckons.
The UK government's Comprehensive Spending Review was announced in October 2010, and involved a 20% real-terms cut in central government funding for police forces over four years, from March 2011 to March 2015. The Ministry of Justice saw an even bigger drop in its budget - falling from £8.3bn to £7bn in the same time.
These weren't cuts relative to population size, or growing the police budget less quickly than the overall : they were large absolute reductions in spend.
And these cuts happened before the wave of immigration.
Your concerns about immigration are not unwarranted, and I don't disagree with much of your critique.
But the massive reductions in spending on criminal justice happened before most of the immigration happened, and they happened at the behest of the coalition government.
Waves of immigration had already begun years earlier, from around 2003/04 onwards they had spiked massively.
But also the country was bust due to overspending by 2010. Cutting expenditure was necessary.
The wrong things were cut though.
Criminal justice wasn't the right thing to cut. And gold playing welfare while working people's pay was frozen was wrong too.
Since 2004, the UK population has experienced net immigration of approximately 5.5m, of which 4m was since 2010. I'm not denying immigration has played a role, I'm just pointing out (which I think you agree with) that the biggest factor in the underfunding of the criminal justice system was the 2010 cuts.
Their anger seems to be focussed on Jenrick rather than the fare dodgers.
They are annoyed he's done something that's generated interest/support
Which LBC presenter is it.
Is it Ben Kentish pr perhaps Lewis Goodall ? Or JOB ? It'll be one of those three I think
I only know LBC 'had it confirmed by TfL' that naughtiness had occured and thus the criminality of the fare dodgers must be ignored. Lewis Goodall is chief suspect. JoBsworth wouldn't bother unless he could mock a member of the public and make it about Brexit
Public split on whether Nigel is Elizabeth with a cigarette
Was this done today?
I am sure it would never be the case because Yougov are a gold standard, world-respected, leader-in-their-field pollster but it whiffs a bit of push polling to me. Given the fact that bond yields are higher now than in Truss's nadir, I do wonder whether a Rachel Reeves comparison should have been added. The results could have been interesting.
Fieldwork was today.
As OGH said a push poll/outlier is a poll finding you do not like.
I neither like nor dislike the findings - I like Truss so I would applaud Farage's policies if they were more like hers.
However, Sir Useless only made this speech today - even if the speech was considered a success (no sniggering at the back) it would be unlikely that his main talking point would have gathered sufficient saliency to be the sort of water cooler discussion that we might need polling on.
I hate to ruin your fantasy, but the Tories have been banging on about the Farage Truss line for a while.
He will likely eclipse any impact from Starmer's anti-Reform speech/junket
Any impact from Sir Lard's speech would be negative for Labour, so they should count themselves lucky.
Nah the Mirror have said Sir Keir humiliated Nigel. It must be true!
More significantly, the Mail are preparing to shuffle away again;
Under-pressure Nigel Farage hit back at Sir Keir Starmer and other critics of his economic policies today as he was accused of having 'fantasy' policies.
The Reform UK leader reheated one of his attacks from the 2016 EU referendum campaign as he accused the Prime Minister of launching 'Project Fear 2.0' by suggesting he was economically akin to Liz Truss.
Sir Keir this morning warned voters they cannot trust Mr Farage with their 'future, mortgages or jobs' in a speech deriding his economic literacy.
Farage needed to make the promises he did this week to secure more ex-Labour votes. But his backers on the right aren't going to like them. Farage is a very smart retail politician, but even he might not be smart enough to do that.
Fantasy, says a PM whose Chancellor is running a £150bn deficit with no plans to address it other than unprecedented increases in productivity and growth.
JENRICKVISION closing in on 5 MILLION views on X (dunno about elsewhere)
He's the only Brit politician - other than Farage - who really gets social media, esp in the TikTok age
You need short, clicky videos, with a plain but compelling narrative. Lots of movement, telling detail, end well
I have just seen the video and full marks to him
Time the London mayor got a grip on this unacceptable behaviour
I agree. Jenrick needs to be admonished.
Do you really support fare dodging ?
Jenrick broke Tfl rules.
How
The bigger issue is what was Jenrick doing whilst in Government when all this bad behaviour was going on. It's a stunt, but quite a clever, if disingenuous one.
Can someone tell Americans that Nippon means Japan ?
Ingraham: On the U.S. Steel website it says it's a good thing, I’m basically paraphrasing, that we are being acquired by Nippon. Are you saying they are not being acquired by Nippon because that's what it says on the U.S. Steel website https://x.com/Acyn/status/1927871535999766872
The company is Japan Steel. You might as well say Japan Steel is acquiring the US.
The name of the company in English is Nippon Steel, not Japan Steel.
Indeed, but it still means Japan. And there are dozens of companies called Nippon 'x'.
So exactly like referring to US Steel as "US". Just stupid.
A few years ago I had to dismiss somebody because they had engaging in fare dodging on an epic scale for years.
They were buying tickets to and from a station that was 6 stops away from the station he boarded/alighted but said station had no barriers.
Chap was earning £200k per annum and could easily afford paying the correct fares.
As part of the discussions with BTP these sort of middle class fare dodgers are where most of the lost revenue on the system is.
It been that way forever,TSE.
When I used to commute between Guildford and Vauxhall i was astonished by the number of well off city types who considered it perfectly normal to buy season tickets for the two fag ends of their journey. The amounts thus fiddled were huge.
Not sure how well Jenrick would go down with the public but he has a knack for self promotion, and most successful politicians are good at that.
The Tories must just be relieved that someone of their ranks has actually generated a relatively newsworthy debate rather than Badenoch’s various meandering musings that go nowhere.
The Tories should have told the pensioners to fuck off and funded law and order and defence properly instead of stuffing their mouths with gold.
I doubt many would have gone for Ed Miliband instead.
I was having lunch with somebody adjacent to British politics, their view, Tories should support Kim Leadbeter's bill today so we can have mandatory euthanasia for poor pensioners.
Kim Leadbeter's bill is only for the terminally ill and any decent Tories should even have reservations about that
It's all coming together as David Betz has been predicting. Civil strife within the next few years as the Brits finally revolt
I see Big Dom Cummings is harping on the same theme
And Robert Jenrick's video on X now has nearly 3m views
HRH His holiness the Lord Sir Grant Shapps has joined the adoring Jenners throng. Stick a fork in Clevers and Boris, they're done
I did predict this, when I saw Jenrick's video from Birmingham on the rubbish problem, months back
I said:
He's good to camera He totally gets the grittier issues He's got a skilled editorial team He knows how to use social media REALLY well
And here we are
The problem the Conservative Party has is that the massive underfunding of the criminal justice system happened on their watch.
During their period in government, hundreds of police stations were closed down across the US. Hampstead, for example, lost its police station. Simultaneously, the courts were underfunded, so that even if you do get caught, your chance of having a timely trial is very low.
So: I agree that lawlessness (particularly stuff like endemic shoplifting) is a serious problem. But the problem was caused by cuts from the party of law and order.
Mostly happened under the Cameron and Clegg coalition (Hampstead police station shut in 2013), so the LDs cannot escape blame for police stations closing and legal aid and court cuts either.
Boris and Rishi to be fair to them increased police funding
Here's the problem. In the 2019 parliament so many of your MPs and thus ministers were wazzocks. Insincerely repeating the party line about how many extra police you were adding. Problem is that people knew that you'd taken an axe to police numbers and they could see it. So it sounded like a lie - it WAS a lie as your increase was a decrease.
Whatever happened to the party of Law and Order btw? No police, rampant crime, criminal justice system ground to a halt and the prisons full.
You need to look at police per 100k of the population not the absolute numbers. Again the issue comes down the 8m immigrants we've had sine 2005 not generating enough economic output to fund the extra public services that are required to have them here including the NHS, education and policing. They are a net drag on the nation and the Tories or Reform will need to start sending the non-citizens who don't meet a minimum earnings threshold home.
I think it's more complicated than that, and isn't solely about police numbers.
Since 2010, the number of police stations in England and Wales has fallen by two thirds. In London, it's been three quarters.
So, take the example of shop lifting. In the old days, if the miscreants were apprehended, then the police would have a 10 minute trek to the nearest nick. Now it might be more like 45 minutes. So if they arrest someone they're going to be out of commission not for an hour and a half, but maybe two to three hours.
And the underfunding of the court system means that - in the event said miscreant is prosecuted - then the police officer is out of action for a whole day, and the trial might end up getting deferred anyway, because they were unable to find a barrister willing to act for said miscreant.
It's hard to think of an area of government spending with a better cost-benefit analysis than the criminal justice system: police, courts, prisons and the like. We all benefit from a law abiding society, and the best way to ensure that we live in a law abiding society is for there to be a meaningful prospect of apprehension and punishment if you offend. We don't have that today.
We don't just need more police, though. Because there's no point in arresting someone if they won't be prosecuted. We need to fund the entire chain. And that means we need to fund Legal Aid too, because right now a staggering number of cases end up being dismissed or deferred because of lack of legal representation.
But again the point I'm making is that we've added 8m people to the population in 20 years and on average they've not expanded GDP by enough to cover the additional public service expenditure they require. It's meant larger deficits, less money to go around and increasing tax as a proportion of GDP reducing long term trend growth. Uncontrolled immigration has been an unmitigated disaster for the UK economy. Realistically a migrant care worker or cleaner is never going to contribute enough in tax over their lifetime to cover their healthcare or pension let alone education, policing, defence, transport infrastructure etc...
Expanding the population at such a rapid rate with such low skilled workers for the last 20 years is why we are where we are. Every low skill migrant reduces our GDP per capita and their dependents reduce it further and the taxpayer is on the hook to provide them with housing, healthcare, welfare, pensions, education and the rest of it. It's just not feasible and we need to go through a long period of net emigration of low skill and unskilled migrants plus their dependents if we ever hope to have a high yield economy that can fund proper public services and infrastructure while maintaining a relatively balanced budget. We've had a 20 year failed experiment of increasing absolute GDP at the expense of GDP per capita, well maybe the focus should always have been on per capita GDP rather than the headline figure which is absolutely useless.
These are -candidly- separate issues.
Even if there hadn't been any immigration in the last 15 years, the cuts to our criminal justice system would still have had a very serious impact on the lives of citizens.
That's my point. And it's not just - or even mainly - about police numbers. It's about the fact that the legal system is so underfunded we don't prosecute people. It's about the fact that there's not a local police station that people can go to.
Now, has immigration made things worse: probably. It's just not the sole factor here, and may even not be the dominant one. (I.e. if you think about police stations per person in London, then the biggest factor is the drop in the number of police stations, not the increase in the number of people. And the same is true with the dramatic reduction in the number of duty solicitors.)
They aren't separate issues, immigration of the nature we've had for 20 years has directly resulted in lower GDP per capita than we would otherwise have had. That has led to a series of cuts in public services such as policing and justice because there's not enough GDP being generated per capita.
Those cuts to police stations and duty solicitors are because of budget cuts and those budget cuts are a direct result of there just not being enough GDP being generated to tax at a reasonable rate.
The population rose by 8m people since 2005, a 13% increase.
Nominal GDP has increased from £1.49tn to £3.08tn, an increase of 106%.
Nominal GDP per capita has increased from £29,314 to £47,322 an increase of 61%.
Simply, there was more funding per person available for public services on 2005 than we have today because uncontrolled immigration has reduced GDP per capita to such an extent that if it had kept up the government at 35% tax would have an extra £300bn to spend this year than it does currently.
Obviously this is a simplified view, I'm sure if I still had a team to look into it and adjust for inflation and wages the story would be pretty similar.
Falling GDP per capita due to uncontrolled immigration is the root cause of failing public services. On average each migrant worker and their dependents lowers our GDP per capita and now the effect has reached levels where the state can no longer be properly funded without stiflingly high tax rates.
As I said, we need a prolonged period of net emigration for low skilled and unskilled workers and their dependents. They will never contribute enough to the economy or in tax to cover the spending they will require currently and in the future.
Dude:
I am sympathetic to your concerns. Indeed, I probably largely agree with you about what needs to be done.
But that isn't why we had cuts to the criminal justice system. The coalition government - which happened *before* the vast bulk of the immigration happened - enacted a massive reduction in spend as part of austerity.
It had literally nothing to do with immigration.
If you were to make the comparison from 2005 to 2015 I doubt the conclusion would change much, alas I have no time to do it, dinner beckons.
The UK government's Comprehensive Spending Review was announced in October 2010, and involved a 20% real-terms cut in central government funding for police forces over four years, from March 2011 to March 2015. The Ministry of Justice saw an even bigger drop in its budget - falling from £8.3bn to £7bn in the same time.
These weren't cuts relative to population size, or growing the police budget less quickly than the overall : they were large absolute reductions in spend.
And these cuts happened before the wave of immigration.
Your concerns about immigration are not unwarranted, and I don't disagree with much of your critique.
But the massive reductions in spending on criminal justice happened before most of the immigration happened, and they happened at the behest of the coalition government.
Waves of immigration had already begun years earlier, from around 2003/04 onwards they had spiked massively.
But also the country was bust due to overspending by 2010. Cutting expenditure was necessary.
The wrong things were cut though.
Criminal justice wasn't the right thing to cut. And gold playing welfare while working people's pay was frozen was wrong too.
Since 2004, the UK population has experienced net immigration of approximately 5.5m, of which 4m was since 2010. I'm not denying immigration has played a role, I'm just pointing out (which I think you agree with) that the biggest factor in the underfunding of the criminal justice system was the 2010 cuts.
As you say, the wrong things were cut.
The biggest mistake was cutting health spending, medical treatment doesn't get cheaper if it's delayed unless the patient dies before they get treated.
Not sure how well Jenrick would go down with the public but he has a knack for self promotion, and most successful politicians are good at that.
The Tories must just be relieved that someone of their ranks has actually generated a relatively newsworthy debate rather than Badenoch’s various meandering musings that go nowhere.
He has captured a narrative, and hats of for that.
The shame is that he was never in Government so he never had the opportunity to reduce knife crime or fare dodging in the years between 2019 and 2024.
It's all coming together as David Betz has been predicting. Civil strife within the next few years as the Brits finally revolt
I see Big Dom Cummings is harping on the same theme
And Robert Jenrick's video on X now has nearly 3m views
HRH His holiness the Lord Sir Grant Shapps has joined the adoring Jenners throng. Stick a fork in Clevers and Boris, they're done
I did predict this, when I saw Jenrick's video from Birmingham on the rubbish problem, months back
I said:
He's good to camera He totally gets the grittier issues He's got a skilled editorial team He knows how to use social media REALLY well
And here we are
The problem the Conservative Party has is that the massive underfunding of the criminal justice system happened on their watch.
During their period in government, hundreds of police stations were closed down across the US. Hampstead, for example, lost its police station. Simultaneously, the courts were underfunded, so that even if you do get caught, your chance of having a timely trial is very low.
So: I agree that lawlessness (particularly stuff like endemic shoplifting) is a serious problem. But the problem was caused by cuts from the party of law and order.
Mostly happened under the Cameron and Clegg coalition (Hampstead police station shut in 2013), so the LDs cannot escape blame for police stations closing and legal aid and court cuts either.
Boris and Rishi to be fair to them increased police funding
Here's the problem. In the 2019 parliament so many of your MPs and thus ministers were wazzocks. Insincerely repeating the party line about how many extra police you were adding. Problem is that people knew that you'd taken an axe to police numbers and they could see it. So it sounded like a lie - it WAS a lie as your increase was a decrease.
Whatever happened to the party of Law and Order btw? No police, rampant crime, criminal justice system ground to a halt and the prisons full.
That was a direct result of the decisions of the Tory and LD government of 2010-15 as I said, for which Osborne was most responsible and which Boris and Rishi at least partly reversed in the Conservative majority government of 2019-2024. It was also the same Tory and LD government which said police do not need to prosecute thefts under £200 which to be fair to him Starmer has now reversed.
You keep trying to smear my party with your mistakes.
2010-2015 Government: Home secretary: Theresa May (Tory) Minister of State for Policing: Nick Herbert (Tory) then Damian Green (Tory) then Mike Penning (Tory) Parliamentary Undersecretary of State for Crime Reduction: James Brokenshire (Tory) Secretary of State for Justice: Ken Clarke (Tory) then Chris Grayling (Tory) Parliamentary Undersecretary of State for Prisons: Crispin Blunt (Tory) then Jeremy Wright (Tory) then Andrew Selous (Tory)
Tory Tory Tory Tory. Own your own shit.
Deputy PM Nick Clegg (LD), Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander (LD) both of whom would have signed off Osborne's decisions in Cabinet and cuts the Home Office were told by the Treasury to implement given the Tories could only govern with LD support.
Tory LD, Tory LD, Tory LD. Own your own shit too!
Cicero never rose to these heights.
Its utterly hilarious. A coalition government which absolutely divided up ministries between parties with the Tories notoriously not only holding onto law and order but telling everyone they had done so to be tough.
Every single minister. In both departments. Was a Tory. At all times. And Mr I Only Voted Plaid That One Time thinks that somehow we were responsible for what those Tory ministers were doing.
Why are the Tories sinking into the abyss? Because the public think they are lying shysters who can't take any responsibility for their shit record in office. And here is HY to prove them right.
Wrong, I said the Coalition was wrong to have cut police numbers as hard but the Coalition included LDs too, so yes YOUR party was also responsible.
Though as I also pointed out police numbers rose again under Boris and Rishi
The Tories should have told the pensioners to fuck off and funded law and order and defence properly instead of stuffing their mouths with gold.
I doubt many would have gone for Ed Miliband instead.
I was having lunch with somebody adjacent to British politics, their view, Tories should support Kim Leadbeter's bill today so we can have mandatory euthanasia for poor pensioners.
Kim Leadbeter's bill is only for the terminally ill and any decent Tories should even have reservations about that
Have you ever watched a terminally ill loved one struggle through those last months? If you haven't it might be an eye opener.
Not sure how well Jenrick would go down with the public but he has a knack for self promotion, and most successful politicians are good at that.
The Tories must just be relieved that someone of their ranks has actually generated a relatively newsworthy debate rather than Badenoch’s various meandering musings that go nowhere.
He has captured a narrative, and hats of for that.
The shame is that he was never in Government so he never had the opportunity to reduce knife crime or fare dodging in the years between 2019 and 2024.
Fwre dodging was the responsibility of TFL then too, and I dare say if Jenrick had filmed a similar video then you would have been scandalised and disgusted by the cheap gesture politics of it all.
The Tories should have told the pensioners to fuck off and funded law and order and defence properly instead of stuffing their mouths with gold.
I doubt many would have gone for Ed Miliband instead.
I was having lunch with somebody adjacent to British politics, their view, Tories should support Kim Leadbeter's bill today so we can have mandatory euthanasia for poor pensioners.
Kim Leadbeter's bill is only for the terminally ill and any decent Tories should even have reservations about that
Have you ever watched a terminally ill loved one struggle through those last months? If you haven't it might be an eye opener.
It's even worse when there's a feckless parent who won't even think about their kid's need to get onto the property ladder. If we could just allow the children to organize a painless way for their parent to pass on it, would work for all involved.
Not sure how well Jenrick would go down with the public but he has a knack for self promotion, and most successful politicians are good at that.
The Tories must just be relieved that someone of their ranks has actually generated a relatively newsworthy debate rather than Badenoch’s various meandering musings that go nowhere.
He has captured a narrative, and hats of for that.
The shame is that he was never in Government so he never had the opportunity to reduce knife crime or fare dodging in the years between 2019 and 2024.
Fwre dodging was the responsibility of TFL then too, and I dare say if Jenrick had filmed a similar video then you would have been scandalised and disgusted by the cheap gesture politics of it all.
I am not scandalised at all. I would expect nothing less than disingenouous Machiavellian genius from Jenrick.
The Tories should have told the pensioners to fuck off and funded law and order and defence properly instead of stuffing their mouths with gold.
I doubt many would have gone for Ed Miliband instead.
I was having lunch with somebody adjacent to British politics, their view, Tories should support Kim Leadbeter's bill today so we can have mandatory euthanasia for poor pensioners.
Kim Leadbeter's bill is only for the terminally ill and any decent Tories should even have reservations about that
The Tories should have told the pensioners to fuck off and funded law and order and defence properly instead of stuffing their mouths with gold.
I doubt many would have gone for Ed Miliband instead.
I was having lunch with somebody adjacent to British politics, their view, Tories should support Kim Leadbeter's bill today so we can have mandatory euthanasia for poor pensioners.
Kim Leadbeter's bill is only for the terminally ill and any decent Tories should even have reservations about that
What? You can reserve a seat to watch the execution?
It's all coming together as David Betz has been predicting. Civil strife within the next few years as the Brits finally revolt
I see Big Dom Cummings is harping on the same theme
And Robert Jenrick's video on X now has nearly 3m views
HRH His holiness the Lord Sir Grant Shapps has joined the adoring Jenners throng. Stick a fork in Clevers and Boris, they're done
I did predict this, when I saw Jenrick's video from Birmingham on the rubbish problem, months back
I said:
He's good to camera He totally gets the grittier issues He's got a skilled editorial team He knows how to use social media REALLY well
And here we are
The problem the Conservative Party has is that the massive underfunding of the criminal justice system happened on their watch.
During their period in government, hundreds of police stations were closed down across the US. Hampstead, for example, lost its police station. Simultaneously, the courts were underfunded, so that even if you do get caught, your chance of having a timely trial is very low.
So: I agree that lawlessness (particularly stuff like endemic shoplifting) is a serious problem. But the problem was caused by cuts from the party of law and order.
Mostly happened under the Cameron and Clegg coalition (Hampstead police station shut in 2013), so the LDs cannot escape blame for police stations closing and legal aid and court cuts either.
Boris and Rishi to be fair to them increased police funding
Here's the problem. In the 2019 parliament so many of your MPs and thus ministers were wazzocks. Insincerely repeating the party line about how many extra police you were adding. Problem is that people knew that you'd taken an axe to police numbers and they could see it. So it sounded like a lie - it WAS a lie as your increase was a decrease.
Whatever happened to the party of Law and Order btw? No police, rampant crime, criminal justice system ground to a halt and the prisons full.
You need to look at police per 100k of the population not the absolute numbers. Again the issue comes down the 8m immigrants we've had sine 2005 not generating enough economic output to fund the extra public services that are required to have them here including the NHS, education and policing. They are a net drag on the nation and the Tories or Reform will need to start sending the non-citizens who don't meet a minimum earnings threshold home.
I think it's more complicated than that, and isn't solely about police numbers.
Since 2010, the number of police stations in England and Wales has fallen by two thirds. In London, it's been three quarters.
So, take the example of shop lifting. In the old days, if the miscreants were apprehended, then the police would have a 10 minute trek to the nearest nick. Now it might be more like 45 minutes. So if they arrest someone they're going to be out of commission not for an hour and a half, but maybe two to three hours.
And the underfunding of the court system means that - in the event said miscreant is prosecuted - then the police officer is out of action for a whole day, and the trial might end up getting deferred anyway, because they were unable to find a barrister willing to act for said miscreant.
It's hard to think of an area of government spending with a better cost-benefit analysis than the criminal justice system: police, courts, prisons and the like. We all benefit from a law abiding society, and the best way to ensure that we live in a law abiding society is for there to be a meaningful prospect of apprehension and punishment if you offend. We don't have that today.
We don't just need more police, though. Because there's no point in arresting someone if they won't be prosecuted. We need to fund the entire chain. And that means we need to fund Legal Aid too, because right now a staggering number of cases end up being dismissed or deferred because of lack of legal representation.
But again the point I'm making is that we've added 8m people to the population in 20 years and on average they've not expanded GDP by enough to cover the additional public service expenditure they require. It's meant larger deficits, less money to go around and increasing tax as a proportion of GDP reducing long term trend growth. Uncontrolled immigration has been an unmitigated disaster for the UK economy. Realistically a migrant care worker or cleaner is never going to contribute enough in tax over their lifetime to cover their healthcare or pension let alone education, policing, defence, transport infrastructure etc...
Expanding the population at such a rapid rate with such low skilled workers for the last 20 years is why we are where we are. Every low skill migrant reduces our GDP per capita and their dependents reduce it further and the taxpayer is on the hook to provide them with housing, healthcare, welfare, pensions, education and the rest of it. It's just not feasible and we need to go through a long period of net emigration of low skill and unskilled migrants plus their dependents if we ever hope to have a high yield economy that can fund proper public services and infrastructure while maintaining a relatively balanced budget. We've had a 20 year failed experiment of increasing absolute GDP at the expense of GDP per capita, well maybe the focus should always have been on per capita GDP rather than the headline figure which is absolutely useless.
These are -candidly- separate issues.
Even if there hadn't been any immigration in the last 15 years, the cuts to our criminal justice system would still have had a very serious impact on the lives of citizens.
That's my point. And it's not just - or even mainly - about police numbers. It's about the fact that the legal system is so underfunded we don't prosecute people. It's about the fact that there's not a local police station that people can go to.
Now, has immigration made things worse: probably. It's just not the sole factor here, and may even not be the dominant one. (I.e. if you think about police stations per person in London, then the biggest factor is the drop in the number of police stations, not the increase in the number of people. And the same is true with the dramatic reduction in the number of duty solicitors.)
They aren't separate issues, immigration of the nature we've had for 20 years has directly resulted in lower GDP per capita than we would otherwise have had. That has led to a series of cuts in public services such as policing and justice because there's not enough GDP being generated per capita.
Those cuts to police stations and duty solicitors are because of budget cuts and those budget cuts are a direct result of there just not being enough GDP being generated to tax at a reasonable rate.
The population rose by 8m people since 2005, a 13% increase.
Nominal GDP has increased from £1.49tn to £3.08tn, an increase of 106%.
Nominal GDP per capita has increased from £29,314 to £47,322 an increase of 61%.
Simply, there was more funding per person available for public services on 2005 than we have today because uncontrolled immigration has reduced GDP per capita to such an extent that if it had kept up the government at 35% tax would have an extra £300bn to spend this year than it does currently.
Obviously this is a simplified view, I'm sure if I still had a team to look into it and adjust for inflation and wages the story would be pretty similar.
Falling GDP per capita due to uncontrolled immigration is the root cause of failing public services. On average each migrant worker and their dependents lowers our GDP per capita and now the effect has reached levels where the state can no longer be properly funded without stiflingly high tax rates.
As I said, we need a prolonged period of net emigration for low skilled and unskilled workers and their dependents. They will never contribute enough to the economy or in tax to cover the spending they will require currently and in the future.
Dude:
I am sympathetic to your concerns. Indeed, I probably largely agree with you about what needs to be done.
But that isn't why we had cuts to the criminal justice system. The coalition government - which happened *before* the vast bulk of the immigration happened - enacted a massive reduction in spend as part of austerity.
It had literally nothing to do with immigration.
If you were to make the comparison from 2005 to 2015 I doubt the conclusion would change much, alas I have no time to do it, dinner beckons.
The UK government's Comprehensive Spending Review was announced in October 2010, and involved a 20% real-terms cut in central government funding for police forces over four years, from March 2011 to March 2015. The Ministry of Justice saw an even bigger drop in its budget - falling from £8.3bn to £7bn in the same time.
These weren't cuts relative to population size, or growing the police budget less quickly than the overall : they were large absolute reductions in spend.
And these cuts happened before the wave of immigration.
Your concerns about immigration are not unwarranted, and I don't disagree with much of your critique.
But the massive reductions in spending on criminal justice happened before most of the immigration happened, and they happened at the behest of the coalition government.
Waves of immigration had already begun years earlier, from around 2003/04 onwards they had spiked massively.
But also the country was bust due to overspending by 2010. Cutting expenditure was necessary.
The wrong things were cut though.
Criminal justice wasn't the right thing to cut. And gold playing welfare while working people's pay was frozen was wrong too.
Since 2004, the UK population has experienced net immigration of approximately 5.5m, of which 4m was since 2010. I'm not denying immigration has played a role, I'm just pointing out (which I think you agree with) that the biggest factor in the underfunding of the criminal justice system was the 2010 cuts.
As you say, the wrong things were cut.
The biggest mistake was cutting health spending, medical treatment doesn't get cheaper if it's delayed unless the patient dies before they get treated.
The Tories should have told the pensioners to fuck off and funded law and order and defence properly instead of stuffing their mouths with gold.
I doubt many would have gone for Ed Miliband instead.
I was having lunch with somebody adjacent to British politics, their view, Tories should support Kim Leadbeter's bill today so we can have mandatory euthanasia for poor pensioners.
Kim Leadbeter's bill is only for the terminally ill and any decent Tories should even have reservations about that
Have you ever watched a terminally ill loved one struggle through those last months? If you haven't it might be an eye opener.
And once the door is open what next, the mentally ill, the disabled? Canada is already further along that slippery slope
A few years ago I had to dismiss somebody because they had engaging in fare dodging on an epic scale for years.
They were buying tickets to and from a station that was 6 stops away from the station he boarded/alighted but said station had no barriers.
Chap was earning £200k per annum and could easily afford paying the correct fares.
As part of the discussions with BTP these sort of middle class fare dodgers are where most of the lost revenue on the system is.
It been that way forever,TSE.
When I used to commute between Guildford and Vauxhall i was astonished by the number of well off city types who considered it perfectly normal to buy season tickets for the two fag ends of their journey. The amounts thus fiddled were huge.
Never once saw a ticket inspector.
Referred to as doughnuting. A hole in the middle of your validity.
Their anger seems to be focussed on Jenrick rather than the fare dodgers.
They are annoyed he's done something that's generated interest/support
It rather makes his point / again taps in the public mood, that the media will now go into but but but Jenrick he didn't have a permit to film. And the public will go WTF, just sort out the fare dodgers, the shoplifters, the phone snatchers.
The Tories should have told the pensioners to fuck off and funded law and order and defence properly instead of stuffing their mouths with gold.
I doubt many would have gone for Ed Miliband instead.
I was having lunch with somebody adjacent to British politics, their view, Tories should support Kim Leadbeter's bill today so we can have mandatory euthanasia for poor pensioners.
Kim Leadbeter's bill is only for the terminally ill and any decent Tories should even have reservations about that
Have you ever watched a terminally ill loved one struggle through those last months? If you haven't it might be an eye opener.
It's even worse when there's a feckless parent who won't even think about their kid's need to get onto the property ladder. If we could just allow the children to organize a painless way for their parent to pass on it, would work for all involved.
For a brief moment I was being absolutely serious.
In his post even HY has indicated "terminal illness" and aren't there likely to be safeguards that ensure it would only apply when genuine end of life becomes intolerable, rather than my kids buying me, at aged 63, a one way ticket to Dignitas?
Comments
LBC went into investigation mode and exposed the horrific truth!
That is, if they let you out.
I doubt many would have gone for Ed Miliband instead.
But then the micro-plastics will happen to your brain...
It certainly seems to have triggered Labour supporters
You may have misheard...
At the moment they are drumming up support, to the point where they are a possible government. They know that their manifesto in four years time ('Rome was not built in a day') will have to appear rational. Just like all the other parties' bogus manifestos.
He was stealing £45 million from the London public. Rather more than any of these fare dodgers.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jun/24/robert-jenrick-planning-row-the-key-questions-answered
It's a little bit like medicine: prevention is better (and cheaper) than cure. We'll end up needing to lock up large numbers of people, because we failed to clamp down on crime earlier. The damage is myriad: it's in terms of people feeling safe on the streets, it's the lives of victims, it's our pocketbooks in having to mop up after the fact, and it's even damage to the criminals themselves - because if they'd been caught and punished earlier they probably would never have graduated to more serious crimes.
Mrs Thatcher and Tony Blair both got this. But the Cameron government, and Boris Johnson and his successors certainly did not.
I wonder if Jenrick had a ticket and had swiped in when he followed them into the station
The cost looks to be around £1000, which would pay for ~20 (?) hours of police time to catch fare dodgers.
They also filmed staff.
The nearest I could find to hard data is this FOI request;
https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transparency/freedom-of-information/foi-request-detail?referenceId=FOI-2899-2425
The pandemic clearly plays merry hell with the stats, but fare dodging looks like it's been at a steady level for ages. Even when that bloke before Sadiq was Mayor- whatever became of him?
Which didn't quite work out as planned.
Those cuts to police stations and duty solicitors are because of budget cuts and those budget cuts are a direct result of there just not being enough GDP being generated to tax at a reasonable rate.
The population rose by 8m people since 2005, a 13% increase.
Nominal GDP has increased from £1.49tn to £3.08tn, an increase of 106%.
Nominal GDP per capita has increased from £29,314 to £47,322 an increase of 61%.
Simply, there was more funding per person available for public services on 2005 than we have today because uncontrolled immigration has reduced GDP per capita to such an extent that if it had kept up the government at 35% tax would have an extra £300bn to spend this year than it does currently.
Obviously this is a simplified view, I'm sure if I still had a team to look into it and adjust for inflation and wages the story would be pretty similar.
Falling GDP per capita due to uncontrolled immigration is the root cause of failing public services. On average each migrant worker and their dependents lowers our GDP per capita and now the effect has reached levels where the state can no longer be properly funded without stiflingly high tax rates.
As I said, we need a prolonged period of net emigration for low skilled and unskilled workers and their dependents. They will never contribute enough to the economy or in tax to cover the spending they will require currently and in the future.
I am sympathetic to your concerns. Indeed, I probably largely agree with you about what needs to be done.
But that isn't why we had cuts to the criminal justice system. The coalition government - which happened *before* the vast bulk of the immigration happened - enacted a massive reduction in spend as part of austerity.
It had literally nothing to do with immigration.
They were buying tickets to and from a station that was 6 stops away from the station he boarded/alighted but said station had no barriers.
Chap was earning £200k per annum and could easily afford paying the correct fares.
As part of the discussions with BTP these sort of middle class fare dodgers are where most of the lost revenue on the system is.
It is grown on the back of being contrarian, different, buccaneering, libertarian, low tax, Singaporian.
All that's gone now they are the vehicle of election winning potential. Watch for them become high spend social democrat + sound borders + Dixon of Dock Green. (Old Labour is the closest comparison).
https://www.channel5.com/show/fare-dodgers-at-war-with-the-law
These weren't cuts relative to population size, or growing the police budget less quickly than the overall : they were large absolute reductions in spend.
And these cuts happened before the wave of immigration.
Your concerns about immigration are not unwarranted, and I don't disagree with much of your critique.
But the massive reductions in spending on criminal justice happened before most of the immigration happened, and they happened at the behest of the coalition government.
Northern Rail are very bad with frequent cancellations/delays, and the barriers cannot cope with that when you've bought an advance or off-peak ticket and you arrive at peak time.
They'll threaten you with a criminal record etc if you don't pay the minimum £100 fine.
I am sure it would never be the case because Yougov are a gold standard, world-respected, leader-in-their-field pollster but it whiffs a bit of push polling to me. Given the fact that bond yields are higher now than in Truss's nadir, I do wonder whether a Rachel Reeves comparison should have been added. The results could have been interesting.
I also don't see how you can prove that migrants on average lower it. You've got dependents and students, sure, but on average they are going to be unlikely to have lower rates of employment than the general population. GDP per worker is about £90k per year, but the average salary is less than half that. If that ratio is fixed, then anyone earning the minimum wage full-time is going to be boosting GDP per capita.
(I don't actually believe that but I'm trying to illustrate the difficulty of working it out. A minimum wage carer might free up two working age bankers to go back into work etc etc).
As OGH said a push poll/outlier is a poll finding you do not like.
But also the country was bust due to overspending by 2010. Cutting expenditure was necessary.
The wrong things were cut though.
Criminal justice wasn't the right thing to cut. And gold playing welfare while working people's pay was frozen was wrong too.
However, Sir Useless only made this speech today - even if the speech was considered a success (no sniggering at the back) it would be unlikely that his main talking point would have gathered sufficient saliency to be the sort of water cooler discussion that we might need polling on.
We know what happens with TV Licences, and also Business Improvement District enforcers - they will get you that criminal record (maybe just a wrecked credit rating?) if you don't pay the larger fine rubber-stamped by the Magistrates or the Bulk Fine Centre.
Ticket inspectors seem either oblivious to such behaviour or just know it's not worth the hassle of calling anyone out on it.
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2025/05/12/she-may-be-gone-but-the-truss-legacy-still-endures/
It has been picked up by the media and the think tanks who warned Liz Truss.
And none of them will have a plan for how the country functions without immigrants.
But this was good news.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyx0p18kq74o
Is it Ben Kentish pr perhaps Lewis Goodall ?
Or JOB ?
It'll be one of those three I think
As you say, the wrong things were cut.
Lewis Goodall is chief suspect. JoBsworth wouldn't bother unless he could mock a member of the public and make it about Brexit
Feck.
BatteCorrectHorsery ?
And there are dozens of companies called Nippon 'x'.
So exactly like referring to US Steel as "US".
Just stupid.
When I used to commute between Guildford and Vauxhall i was astonished by the number of well off city types who considered it perfectly normal to buy season tickets for the two fag ends of their journey. The amounts thus fiddled were huge.
Never once saw a ticket inspector.
The Tories must just be relieved that someone of their ranks has actually generated a relatively newsworthy debate rather than Badenoch’s various meandering musings that go nowhere.
The shame is that he was never in Government so he never had the opportunity to reduce knife crime or fare dodging in the years between 2019 and 2024.
Though as I also pointed out police numbers rose again under Boris and Rishi
In his post even HY has indicated "terminal illness" and aren't there likely to be safeguards that ensure it would only apply when genuine end of life becomes intolerable, rather than my kids buying me, at aged 63, a one way ticket to Dignitas?