I defy anyone to watch this and NOT conclude the system is irretrievably broken, is being gamed against us, and will have to be smashed so we can start again
This is why people will take a punt with Reform in 2029. It's clear that the two major parties don't have the answers and don't have the stomach for mass deportations of illegals and halting asylum seeking. Going into the election I think if the Tories want to get anywhere they will need to make manifesto commitments to halt all asylum seeking except for those who are specifically invited to apply and deport all current and failed asylum seekers from nations who were not invited to apply with economic sanctions on the likes of Pakistan, Egypt, Nigeria etc... who don't take back their citizens including blocking all visitor visa applications and halting direct and some common indirect routes to/from those countries.
Reform are surely going to make ending asylum seeking and deporting illegal immigrants the centre of their manifesto and I have no doubt that in the privacy of the polling booth it is going to be extremely popular. The government is no longer able to control the narrative on this subject now.
I wonder if Reform have the stomach for it. Millions need to go home, and that, in the end, is what will happen
But my fear is that Reform will also flinch and then a new party will arise and it might all get much darker
How ? How on earth is is even practical from a logistics standpoint to put this in to practise ?
We don’t even check if people leave once their visas expire so how will we know, presuming you are correct, who these millions are.
I suspect the easiest course of action is just to award them citizenship and carry on as we are.
I defy anyone to watch this and NOT conclude the system is irretrievably broken, is being gamed against us, and will have to be smashed so we can start again
This is why people will take a punt with Reform in 2029. It's clear that the two major parties don't have the answers and don't have the stomach for mass deportations of illegals and halting asylum seeking. Going into the election I think if the Tories want to get anywhere they will need to make manifesto commitments to halt all asylum seeking except for those who are specifically invited to apply and deport all current and failed asylum seekers from nations who were not invited to apply with economic sanctions on the likes of Pakistan, Egypt, Nigeria etc... who don't take back their citizens including blocking all visitor visa applications and halting direct and some common indirect routes to/from those countries.
Reform are surely going to make ending asylum seeking and deporting illegal immigrants the centre of their manifesto and I have no doubt that in the privacy of the polling booth it is going to be extremely popular. The government is no longer able to control the narrative on this subject now.
I wonder if Reform have the stomach for it. Millions need to go home, and that, in the end, is what will happen
But my fear is that Reform will also flinch and then a new party will arise and it might all get much darker
Are you suggesting Farage is frit? Jenrick would happily pull the trigger. So don't worry about new parties. If this old bollocks floats your inflatable rib, Jenrick - Tories are the boys!
The NHS is just broken for ordinary people it seems. If you fit into one of the “pathways” (cancer, stroke, heart disease) then you get treated in a timely fashion (most of the time), but those are mostly the diseases of old people. For the young, the NHS is a failure that pretends to treat them & then keeps them dangling with the hope of treatment that might manifest itself sometime, maybe.
I'm currently awaiting eye surgery for the second time. First it was the left eye which took three years from initial referral to surgery. Now with the right eye I'm told it's likely to be over a year just to get an initial consultation and two and a half to three years after that for surgery.
So in total I'll likely have spent seven or more years partially sighted because of a condition that is easily treated with a fairly minor, if delicate, procedure. I'm lucky, I've always had one functioning eye and can keep on working. But I wonder just how much of our bloated benefits bill is due to people who can't work because the NHS is incapable of fixing their problems in any reasonable time frame.
That surprises me. I was favourably impressed with the speed and efficiency of my surgery, which took a few months from diagnosis at a Specsavers checkup, rather than years.
Unfortunately, if my family's recent experiences are anything to go by I suspect the NHS in my part of Scotland (Greater Glasgow) is even more broken than elsewhere in the UK.
My sister is seriously disabled and needs ambulance transport to get to hospital appointments and recently we had to involve our MSP just to stop the Scottish Ambulance Service from continually cancelling her transport the day before.
I could go on at length about other failings, but in summary I honestly can't recall a single positive interaction with the NHS in the last five years.
Wasn't there research that said the most pro-Trump demographic was people who identified as regular churchgoers who rarely went to church?
If the polling Leon has found identifies a growth of such identity, or Potemkin, Christians in Britain, then it could be very politically significant.
That's certainly one way to square the circle, though an alarming one if it is what's going on. We don't have the same televangelist culture in the UK as in the US, and that's a very good thing. The massive downside of broadcast religion is that it tends to sidestep the difficult "who, exactly, is my neighbour, and who isn't?" question.
And that leads fairly smoothly to the consequences we are currently seeing Stateside.
(Much more likely is that using polling to identify small percentages is blooming difficult. And that calculating a change by subtracting one blurry number from another is a mug's game.)
If it is at least part of what's going on then it will be because English-language social media is dominated by Americans.
People adopting Christianity as a badge of political identity, without being regular attendees, is quite believable.
Quite a lot of people say they are Christian but would never bother to attend church - except for weddings and maybe baptism.
And about 100% of people who go to church would never dream of selling all their possessions and giving the money to the poor.
Roman Catholic priests and nuns effectively do exactly that, give up their worldly goods and take a lifetime vow of poverty. Only getting housing from the church and pocket money for food and basic necessities from their congregation
I don't know about Catholic Priests elsewhere, but that's not how it works in Ireland. It's certainly not pocket money that is paying for holidays in Spain and the like. The collections from the congregation for the Priest at Easter are taken very seriously.
The NHS is just broken for ordinary people it seems. If you fit into one of the “pathways” (cancer, stroke, heart disease) then you get treated in a timely fashion (most of the time), but those are mostly the diseases of old people. For the young, the NHS is a failure that pretends to treat them & then keeps them dangling with the hope of treatment that might manifest itself sometime, maybe.
I'm currently awaiting eye surgery for the second time. First it was the left eye which took three years from initial referral to surgery. Now with the right eye I'm told it's likely to be over a year just to get an initial consultation and two and a half to three years after that for surgery.
So in total I'll likely have spent seven or more years partially sighted because of a condition that is easily treated with a fairly minor, if delicate, procedure. I'm lucky, I've always had one functioning eye and can keep on working. But I wonder just how much of our bloated benefits bill is due to people who can't work because the NHS is incapable of fixing their problems in any reasonable time frame.
That surprises me. I was favourably impressed with the speed and efficiency of my surgery, which took a few months from diagnosis at a Specsavers checkup, rather than years.
Unfortunately, if my family's recent experiences are anything to go by I suspect the NHS in my part of Scotland (Greater Glasgow) is even more broken than elsewhere in the UK.
My sister is seriously disabled and needs ambulance transport to get to hospital appointments and recently we had to involve our MSP just to stop the Scottish Ambulance Service from continually cancelling her transport the day before.
I could go on at length about other failings, but in summary I honestly can't recall a single positive interaction with the NHS in the last five years.
My neighbour works (or rather 'worked') for the Scottish Ambulance Service in Glasgow. Constant sh*t-show of last-minute cancelled shifts/hours, endless management re-orgs, etc. Eventually gave up on it as they couldn't stand it any more - even reliably paying the rent was getting difficult.
Oddly, my interactions with the Glasgow/Scottish NHS were way improved during lockdown. Then went to sh*t again when it was left back to local surgeries, units etc. It really baffles me how bad they are. Letter through the door telling you about your appointment for yesterday. Or an appointment with the name of a unit, but no address or contact details. Really, really basic stuff.
The NHS is just broken for ordinary people it seems. If you fit into one of the “pathways” (cancer, stroke, heart disease) then you get treated in a timely fashion (most of the time), but those are mostly the diseases of old people. For the young, the NHS is a failure that pretends to treat them & then keeps them dangling with the hope of treatment that might manifest itself sometime, maybe.
I'm currently awaiting eye surgery for the second time. First it was the left eye which took three years from initial referral to surgery. Now with the right eye I'm told it's likely to be over a year just to get an initial consultation and two and a half to three years after that for surgery.
So in total I'll likely have spent seven or more years partially sighted because of a condition that is easily treated with a fairly minor, if delicate, procedure. I'm lucky, I've always had one functioning eye and can keep on working. But I wonder just how much of our bloated benefits bill is due to people who can't work because the NHS is incapable of fixing their problems in any reasonable time frame.
That surprises me. I was favourably impressed with the speed and efficiency of my surgery, which took a few months from diagnosis at a Specsavers checkup, rather than years.
I sometimes wonder if the GP/NHS is like the Police (of which I have somewhat more family experience).
If you're good at your job, you get to work in a 'posh' area, lower workload, spend more time on the job helping the somewhat affluent avoid the ills of affluence.
If you're bad at it - get transferred to Scumsville and continue failing where it "doesn't matter" in the least.
That is certainly how Education works in Britain, so I would be surprised if it didn't also apply to the NHS.
The NHS is just broken for ordinary people it seems. If you fit into one of the “pathways” (cancer, stroke, heart disease) then you get treated in a timely fashion (most of the time), but those are mostly the diseases of old people. For the young, the NHS is a failure that pretends to treat them & then keeps them dangling with the hope of treatment that might manifest itself sometime, maybe.
I'm currently awaiting eye surgery for the second time. First it was the left eye which took three years from initial referral to surgery. Now with the right eye I'm told it's likely to be over a year just to get an initial consultation and two and a half to three years after that for surgery.
So in total I'll likely have spent seven or more years partially sighted because of a condition that is easily treated with a fairly minor, if delicate, procedure. I'm lucky, I've always had one functioning eye and can keep on working. But I wonder just how much of our bloated benefits bill is due to people who can't work because the NHS is incapable of fixing their problems in any reasonable time frame.
That surprises me. I was favourably impressed with the speed and efficiency of my surgery, which took a few months from diagnosis at a Specsavers checkup, rather than years.
I sometimes wonder if the GP/NHS is like the Police (of which I have somewhat more family experience).
If you're good at your job, you get to work in a 'posh' area, lower workload, spend more time on the job helping the somewhat affluent avoid the ills of affluence.
If you're bad at it - get transferred to Scumsville and continue failing where it "doesn't matter" in the least.
That is certainly how Education works in Britain, so I would be surprised if it didn't also apply to the NHS.
That would explain a lot about my time at secondary school.
I defy anyone to watch this and NOT conclude the system is irretrievably broken, is being gamed against us, and will have to be smashed so we can start again
This is why people will take a punt with Reform in 2029. It's clear that the two major parties don't have the answers and don't have the stomach for mass deportations of illegals and halting asylum seeking. Going into the election I think if the Tories want to get anywhere they will need to make manifesto commitments to halt all asylum seeking except for those who are specifically invited to apply and deport all current and failed asylum seekers from nations who were not invited to apply with economic sanctions on the likes of Pakistan, Egypt, Nigeria etc... who don't take back their citizens including blocking all visitor visa applications and halting direct and some common indirect routes to/from those countries.
Reform are surely going to make ending asylum seeking and deporting illegal immigrants the centre of their manifesto and I have no doubt that in the privacy of the polling booth it is going to be extremely popular. The government is no longer able to control the narrative on this subject now.
I wonder if Reform have the stomach for it. Millions need to go home, and that, in the end, is what will happen
But my fear is that Reform will also flinch and then a new party will arise and it might all get much darker
How ? How on earth is is even practical from a logistics standpoint to put this in to practise ?
We don’t even check if people leave once their visas expire so how will we know, presuming you are correct, who these millions are.
I suspect the easiest course of action is just to award them citizenship and carry on as we are.
I suspect it won't be millions but there will be a fall in the population as we move into net emigration under Reform as not many visas are handed out and the existing ones are expired and unable to be renewed. That is just going to be natural attrition so long as Reform change the law early in their term and ram the changes through the lords and overrule judges with a bunch of notwithstandings in the primary legislation. All of the existing rulings that have allowed criminals to evade deportation will need to be set aside by the new laws, for example.
I also wouldn't be surprised if very early on Reform suspend or repeal the HRA and suspend our membership of the ECHR to enable deportation of illegals to whatever country they can pay to take them (probably Libya or Rwanda).
In the end I think Leon is right, the mood music in the country has turned decisively against immigration and asylum seekers, it is only going to get more negative towards it as Labour are unable to deport the illegal immigrants or stop the boats so of Reform don't have the stomach then the public will inevitably vote in a party that does or the Tories will step in and become that party.
I defy anyone to watch this and NOT conclude the system is irretrievably broken, is being gamed against us, and will have to be smashed so we can start again
This is why people will take a punt with Reform in 2029. It's clear that the two major parties don't have the answers and don't have the stomach for mass deportations of illegals and halting asylum seeking. Going into the election I think if the Tories want to get anywhere they will need to make manifesto commitments to halt all asylum seeking except for those who are specifically invited to apply and deport all current and failed asylum seekers from nations who were not invited to apply with economic sanctions on the likes of Pakistan, Egypt, Nigeria etc... who don't take back their citizens including blocking all visitor visa applications and halting direct and some common indirect routes to/from those countries.
Reform are surely going to make ending asylum seeking and deporting illegal immigrants the centre of their manifesto and I have no doubt that in the privacy of the polling booth it is going to be extremely popular. The government is no longer able to control the narrative on this subject now.
I wonder if Reform have the stomach for it. Millions need to go home, and that, in the end, is what will happen
But my fear is that Reform will also flinch and then a new party will arise and it might all get much darker
There aren't millions of asylum seekers in this country, so who are the millions who need to go home?
Is it people who are here on legal visas?
Is it people who migrated here and have gained citizenship?
Is it people who were born here, are citizens of here, but aren't white?
One FBI guy's experience of the 'new' FBI under Trump:
"I recount those events more in sorrow than in anger. I love my country and our Constitution with a fervor that mere language will not allow me to articulate, and it pains me that my profession will no longer entail being their servant. As you know, my wife and I are expecting our first child this summer, and this decision will entail no small degree of hardship for us. But as our organization began to decay, I made a vow that I would comport myself in a manner that would allow me to look my son in the eye as I raised him."
The political capture of both law enforcement and the justice system is happening very rapidly, and far more blatantly than even I expected.
But at least it’s being captured by the right side. By American patriots
In the UK that capture is being done by people, agencies, cultures - that actively hate the UK
A true American patriot would be someone who respected the US Constitution, and was glad the US won the Civil War and World War II.
Not someone who hates the US Constitution (besides the 2nd Amendment), and flies the flag of America's enemy in either the Civil War or WWII.
I don't know if you can really call flying the Confederate flag flying the flag of America's enemy. It was part of America.
Well: aren't you signalling support for the reasons why the Confederacy ceceeded from the Union?
Quite possibly, but I still don't think it was 'America's enemy'. It's like saying the Saltire flag is the flag of 'Britain's enemy' - there are senses in which it was true (wrt England), and there are people who probably still regard it to be true, but there's another sense in which it's a proud part of the identity and history of that location.
I know you would like to have the Russian Tricolour flapping over London, but I wonder what you think the Confederate flag stands for that is *good* in your mind?
I haven't said it is good.
So you think Americans should fly a bad flag, one with utterly negative connotations?
I haven't said I think Americans should fly it. And I haven't said that it has 'utterly negative connotations' either. Your entire posting oeuvre consists of inventing things that people have said and attacking them for it doesn't it?
What I have said is that I don't think 'the flag of America's enemy' can be an accurate description of the flag of one half of a civil war. Leaving aside the pendantry of the fact that 'America' refers to a continent, not a country.
I can't speak for the people who choose to fly the flag (unlike everyone else here who apparently has access to their innermost thoughts) but I would suggest that in addition to being a racist dogwhistle for some, it has additional connotations of a distinctly Southern identity and pride, and furthermore of a rebellious nature and disdain for authority. The people who fly it would regard themselves as 'true American patriots' and probably wouldn't care much for Barty's approval.
One FBI guy's experience of the 'new' FBI under Trump:
"I recount those events more in sorrow than in anger. I love my country and our Constitution with a fervor that mere language will not allow me to articulate, and it pains me that my profession will no longer entail being their servant. As you know, my wife and I are expecting our first child this summer, and this decision will entail no small degree of hardship for us. But as our organization began to decay, I made a vow that I would comport myself in a manner that would allow me to look my son in the eye as I raised him."
The political capture of both law enforcement and the justice system is happening very rapidly, and far more blatantly than even I expected.
But at least it’s being captured by the right side. By American patriots
In the UK that capture is being done by people, agencies, cultures - that actively hate the UK
A true American patriot would be someone who respected the US Constitution, and was glad the US won the Civil War and World War II.
Not someone who hates the US Constitution (besides the 2nd Amendment), and flies the flag of America's enemy in either the Civil War or WWII.
I don't know if you can really call flying the Confederate flag flying the flag of America's enemy. It was part of America.
Well: aren't you signalling support for the reasons why the Confederacy ceceeded from the Union?
Quite possibly, but I still don't think it was 'America's enemy'. It's like saying the Saltire flag is the flag of 'Britain's enemy' - there are senses in which it was true (wrt England), and there are people who probably still regard it to be true, but there's another sense in which it's a proud part of the identity and history of that location.
I know you would like to have the Russian Tricolour flapping over London, but I wonder what you think the Confederate flag stands for that is *good* in your mind?
I haven't said it is good.
So you think Americans should fly a bad flag, one with utterly negative connotations?
I haven't said I think Americans should fly it. And I haven't said that it has 'utterly negative connotations' either. Your entire posting oeuvre consists of inventing things that people have said and attacking them for it doesn't it?
What I have said is that I don't think 'the flag of America's enemy' can be an accurate description of the flag of one half of a civil war. Leaving aside the pendantry of the fact that 'America' refers to a continent, not a country.
I can't speak for the people who choose to fly the flag (unlike everyone else here who apparently has access to their innermost thoughts) but I would suggest that in addition to being a racist dogwhistle for some, it has additional connotations of a distinctly Southern identity and pride, and furthermore of a rebellious nature and disdain for authority. The people who fly it would regard themselves as 'true American patriots' and probably wouldn't care much for Barty's approval.
What I have said is that I don't think 'the flag of America's enemy' can be an accurate description of the flag of one half of a civil war.
Of course it can.
The half that wanted to continue with America flew the American flag and were victorious.
The half that didn't want to be Americans, wanted to leave the country and lost were not.
The latter half were traitors and enemies who wanted to destroy America. Had they won, then they wouldn't be Americans today.
The fact they consider themselves "true American patriots" while flying the flag of enemies of America just shows how stupid and ignorant they are.
In the end I think Leon is right, the mood music in the country has turned decisively against immigration and asylum seekers, it is only going to get more negative towards it as Labour are unable to deport the illegal immigrants or stop the boats so of Reform don't have the stomach then the public will inevitably vote in a party that does or the Tories will step in and become that party.
The prevailing view when the modern experiment in mass migration began was that people might be a bit angry in the short term, but they'll get over it and we'll all be better off in the long run, so any opposition should just be ignored or managed. It's proving to have been a terrible mistake.
I defy anyone to watch this and NOT conclude the system is irretrievably broken, is being gamed against us, and will have to be smashed so we can start again
This is why people will take a punt with Reform in 2029. It's clear that the two major parties don't have the answers and don't have the stomach for mass deportations of illegals and halting asylum seeking. Going into the election I think if the Tories want to get anywhere they will need to make manifesto commitments to halt all asylum seeking except for those who are specifically invited to apply and deport all current and failed asylum seekers from nations who were not invited to apply with economic sanctions on the likes of Pakistan, Egypt, Nigeria etc... who don't take back their citizens including blocking all visitor visa applications and halting direct and some common indirect routes to/from those countries.
Reform are surely going to make ending asylum seeking and deporting illegal immigrants the centre of their manifesto and I have no doubt that in the privacy of the polling booth it is going to be extremely popular. The government is no longer able to control the narrative on this subject now.
I wonder if Reform have the stomach for it. Millions need to go home, and that, in the end, is what will happen
But my fear is that Reform will also flinch and then a new party will arise and it might all get much darker
You always seem to be fearing that if we don't do what you want we'll end up doing even more of what you want.
One FBI guy's experience of the 'new' FBI under Trump:
"I recount those events more in sorrow than in anger. I love my country and our Constitution with a fervor that mere language will not allow me to articulate, and it pains me that my profession will no longer entail being their servant. As you know, my wife and I are expecting our first child this summer, and this decision will entail no small degree of hardship for us. But as our organization began to decay, I made a vow that I would comport myself in a manner that would allow me to look my son in the eye as I raised him."
The political capture of both law enforcement and the justice system is happening very rapidly, and far more blatantly than even I expected.
But at least it’s being captured by the right side. By American patriots
In the UK that capture is being done by people, agencies, cultures - that actively hate the UK
A true American patriot would be someone who respected the US Constitution, and was glad the US won the Civil War and World War II.
Not someone who hates the US Constitution (besides the 2nd Amendment), and flies the flag of America's enemy in either the Civil War or WWII.
I don't know if you can really call flying the Confederate flag flying the flag of America's enemy. It was part of America.
Well: aren't you signalling support for the reasons why the Confederacy ceceeded from the Union?
Quite possibly, but I still don't think it was 'America's enemy'. It's like saying the Saltire flag is the flag of 'Britain's enemy' - there are senses in which it was true (wrt England), and there are people who probably still regard it to be true, but there's another sense in which it's a proud part of the identity and history of that location.
I know you would like to have the Russian Tricolour flapping over London, but I wonder what you think the Confederate flag stands for that is *good* in your mind?
I haven't said it is good.
So you think Americans should fly a bad flag, one with utterly negative connotations?
I haven't said I think Americans should fly it. And I haven't said that it has 'utterly negative connotations' either. Your entire posting oeuvre consists of inventing things that people have said and attacking them for it doesn't it?
What I have said is that I don't think 'the flag of America's enemy' can be an accurate description of the flag of one half of a civil war. Leaving aside the pendantry of the fact that 'America' refers to a continent, not a country.
I can't speak for the people who choose to fly the flag (unlike everyone else here who apparently has access to their innermost thoughts) but I would suggest that in addition to being a racist dogwhistle for some, it has additional connotations of a distinctly Southern identity and pride, and furthermore of a rebellious nature and disdain for authority. The people who fly it would regard themselves as 'true American patriots' and probably wouldn't care much for Barty's approval.
What I have said is that I don't think 'the flag of America's enemy' can be an accurate description of the flag of one half of a civil war.
Of course it can.
The half that wanted to continue with America flew the American flag and were victorious.
The half that didn't want to be Americans, wanted to leave the country and lost were not.
The latter half were traitors and enemies who wanted to destroy America. Had they won, then they wouldn't be Americans today.
The fact they consider themselves "true American patriots" while flying the flag of enemies of America just shows how stupid and ignorant they are.
America refers to the continent. The USA refers to the country. The secessionists were just as American as the Union - so for that matter are the Canadians.
I defy anyone to watch this and NOT conclude the system is irretrievably broken, is being gamed against us, and will have to be smashed so we can start again
This is why people will take a punt with Reform in 2029. It's clear that the two major parties don't have the answers and don't have the stomach for mass deportations of illegals and halting asylum seeking. Going into the election I think if the Tories want to get anywhere they will need to make manifesto commitments to halt all asylum seeking except for those who are specifically invited to apply and deport all current and failed asylum seekers from nations who were not invited to apply with economic sanctions on the likes of Pakistan, Egypt, Nigeria etc... who don't take back their citizens including blocking all visitor visa applications and halting direct and some common indirect routes to/from those countries.
Reform are surely going to make ending asylum seeking and deporting illegal immigrants the centre of their manifesto and I have no doubt that in the privacy of the polling booth it is going to be extremely popular. The government is no longer able to control the narrative on this subject now.
I wonder if Reform have the stomach for it. Millions need to go home, and that, in the end, is what will happen
But my fear is that Reform will also flinch and then a new party will arise and it might all get much darker
There aren't millions of asylum seekers in this country, so who are the millions who need to go home?
Is it people who are here on legal visas?
Is it people who migrated here and have gained citizenship?
Is it people who were born here, are citizens of here, but aren't white?
Also not sure why @Leon fears things will "all get much darker" with the post-Farage party and also at the same time says he thinks "millions" need to go "home".
I defy anyone to watch this and NOT conclude the system is irretrievably broken, is being gamed against us, and will have to be smashed so we can start again
This is why people will take a punt with Reform in 2029. It's clear that the two major parties don't have the answers and don't have the stomach for mass deportations of illegals and halting asylum seeking. Going into the election I think if the Tories want to get anywhere they will need to make manifesto commitments to halt all asylum seeking except for those who are specifically invited to apply and deport all current and failed asylum seekers from nations who were not invited to apply with economic sanctions on the likes of Pakistan, Egypt, Nigeria etc... who don't take back their citizens including blocking all visitor visa applications and halting direct and some common indirect routes to/from those countries.
Reform are surely going to make ending asylum seeking and deporting illegal immigrants the centre of their manifesto and I have no doubt that in the privacy of the polling booth it is going to be extremely popular. The government is no longer able to control the narrative on this subject now.
I wonder if Reform have the stomach for it. Millions need to go home, and that, in the end, is what will happen
But my fear is that Reform will also flinch and then a new party will arise and it might all get much darker
You always seem to be fearing that if we don't do what you want we'll end up doing even more of what you want.
* Chef's kiss*
When the Soviet system lost legitimacy, it manifested itself in the state no longer being able to exercise authority over the people. What do you think that would look like here and do you really want to risk it happening?
Particularly love the Pokot of Kenya who had a unique treatment for psychosis
When a tribesman became psychotic the Pokot people would grab him and hold him down, then “pound his head with a sizeable rock for a considerable time”
I defy anyone to watch this and NOT conclude the system is irretrievably broken, is being gamed against us, and will have to be smashed so we can start again
This is why people will take a punt with Reform in 2029. It's clear that the two major parties don't have the answers and don't have the stomach for mass deportations of illegals and halting asylum seeking. Going into the election I think if the Tories want to get anywhere they will need to make manifesto commitments to halt all asylum seeking except for those who are specifically invited to apply and deport all current and failed asylum seekers from nations who were not invited to apply with economic sanctions on the likes of Pakistan, Egypt, Nigeria etc... who don't take back their citizens including blocking all visitor visa applications and halting direct and some common indirect routes to/from those countries.
Reform are surely going to make ending asylum seeking and deporting illegal immigrants the centre of their manifesto and I have no doubt that in the privacy of the polling booth it is going to be extremely popular. The government is no longer able to control the narrative on this subject now.
I wonder if Reform have the stomach for it. Millions need to go home, and that, in the end, is what will happen
But my fear is that Reform will also flinch and then a new party will arise and it might all get much darker
There aren't millions of asylum seekers in this country, so who are the millions who need to go home?
Is it people who are here on legal visas?
Is it people who migrated here and have gained citizenship?
Is it people who were born here, are citizens of here, but aren't white?
My guess would be everyone who migrated here who hasn't yet achieved citizenship..
In fact, Pokot Therapy could be used in multiple scenarios
Eg gerontology
If your mother shows early signs of dementia, just pin her forcefully to the ground, then “pound her head with a sizeable rock for a considerable time”
The NHS is just broken for ordinary people it seems. If you fit into one of the “pathways” (cancer, stroke, heart disease) then you get treated in a timely fashion (most of the time), but those are mostly the diseases of old people. For the young, the NHS is a failure that pretends to treat them & then keeps them dangling with the hope of treatment that might manifest itself sometime, maybe.
I'm currently awaiting eye surgery for the second time. First it was the left eye which took three years from initial referral to surgery. Now with the right eye I'm told it's likely to be over a year just to get an initial consultation and two and a half to three years after that for surgery.
So in total I'll likely have spent seven or more years partially sighted because of a condition that is easily treated with a fairly minor, if delicate, procedure. I'm lucky, I've always had one functioning eye and can keep on working. But I wonder just how much of our bloated benefits bill is due to people who can't work because the NHS is incapable of fixing their problems in any reasonable time frame.
That surprises me. I was favourably impressed with the speed and efficiency of my surgery, which took a few months from diagnosis at a Specsavers checkup, rather than years.
Unfortunately, if my family's recent experiences are anything to go by I suspect the NHS in my part of Scotland (Greater Glasgow) is even more broken than elsewhere in the UK.
My sister is seriously disabled and needs ambulance transport to get to hospital appointments and recently we had to involve our MSP just to stop the Scottish Ambulance Service from continually cancelling her transport the day before.
I could go on at length about other failings, but in summary I honestly can't recall a single positive interaction with the NHS in the last five years.
Anecdotage never persuaded anyone of anything (as not enough people on PB realise), but my own recent experience of the same health board has been pretty ok. In my case pre cancerous grow identified & removed pdq, swift follow up excision of possibly dodgy remnant, also reasonably quick diagnosis of vestibular balance disorder though that did result in a few visits to Inverclyde Royal (not the end of the world). A close family member had a long wait for a hip replacement to the point of looking at going private in Finland, but once the system kicked in it was super efficient and they’re well on the road to recovery. I accept that all of this was largely dependent on me driving so maybe there is a problem with patient transport, but as someone once wrote in a note, there is no money. That was 15 years ago and there’s less than no money now. What gets cut to improve this situation?
I defy anyone to watch this and NOT conclude the system is irretrievably broken, is being gamed against us, and will have to be smashed so we can start again
This is why people will take a punt with Reform in 2029. It's clear that the two major parties don't have the answers and don't have the stomach for mass deportations of illegals and halting asylum seeking. Going into the election I think if the Tories want to get anywhere they will need to make manifesto commitments to halt all asylum seeking except for those who are specifically invited to apply and deport all current and failed asylum seekers from nations who were not invited to apply with economic sanctions on the likes of Pakistan, Egypt, Nigeria etc... who don't take back their citizens including blocking all visitor visa applications and halting direct and some common indirect routes to/from those countries.
Reform are surely going to make ending asylum seeking and deporting illegal immigrants the centre of their manifesto and I have no doubt that in the privacy of the polling booth it is going to be extremely popular. The government is no longer able to control the narrative on this subject now.
I wonder if Reform have the stomach for it. Millions need to go home, and that, in the end, is what will happen
But my fear is that Reform will also flinch and then a new party will arise and it might all get much darker
There aren't millions of asylum seekers in this country, so who are the millions who need to go home?
Is it people who are here on legal visas?
Is it people who migrated here and have gained citizenship?
Is it people who were born here, are citizens of here, but aren't white?
My guess would be everyone who migrated here who hasn't yet achieved citizenship..
I've met a Reform voter who thinks that Nigel Farage is a liberal. He (the Reform voter) wants to expel from the country everyone who came after 2000. Revoke citizenships....
Particularly love the Pokot of Kenya who had a unique treatment for psychosis
When a tribesman became psychotic the Pokot people would grab him and hold him down, then “pound his head with a sizeable rock for a considerable time”
Yes, that should do it
Wait until you find out what we used to do to them.
I defy anyone to watch this and NOT conclude the system is irretrievably broken, is being gamed against us, and will have to be smashed so we can start again
This is why people will take a punt with Reform in 2029. It's clear that the two major parties don't have the answers and don't have the stomach for mass deportations of illegals and halting asylum seeking. Going into the election I think if the Tories want to get anywhere they will need to make manifesto commitments to halt all asylum seeking except for those who are specifically invited to apply and deport all current and failed asylum seekers from nations who were not invited to apply with economic sanctions on the likes of Pakistan, Egypt, Nigeria etc... who don't take back their citizens including blocking all visitor visa applications and halting direct and some common indirect routes to/from those countries.
Reform are surely going to make ending asylum seeking and deporting illegal immigrants the centre of their manifesto and I have no doubt that in the privacy of the polling booth it is going to be extremely popular. The government is no longer able to control the narrative on this subject now.
I wonder if Reform have the stomach for it. Millions need to go home, and that, in the end, is what will happen
But my fear is that Reform will also flinch and then a new party will arise and it might all get much darker
There aren't millions of asylum seekers in this country, so who are the millions who need to go home?
Is it people who are here on legal visas?
Is it people who migrated here and have gained citizenship?
Is it people who were born here, are citizens of here, but aren't white?
My guess would be everyone who migrated here who hasn't yet achieved citizenship..
I've met a Reform voter who thinks that Nigel Farage is a liberal. He (the Reform voter) wants to expel from the country everyone who came after 2000. Revoke citizenships....
It's time to outline £100bn in spending cuts and tax rises, split 75% towards spending cuts with the majority coming from welfare and entitlements. If the government doesn't do this and continues to borrow like a drunken sailor we're heading for a bond vigilante strike and another bout of QE which will push inflation up and destroy people's disposable incomes.
The only way out is to cut welfare spending and get people back into work. We can't afford to pay the lazy to sit at home doing nothing on benefits.
'Benefits' according to the OBR are £150bn on Pensioners; £88bn on UC; and £74bn on other benefits. Where would you axe to get the £100bn?
Should we get pensioners back into work?
£20bn each out of UC and "other" benefits.
Cut the triple lock entirely.
£20bn out of the state pension by tapering above £40k, spend half of the saving on increasing the state pension for those who don't have any or significant private income in retirement.
NI payable on all income types/merge NI and income tax.
50% haircut on defined benefit public sector pensions for amounts over £40k (so a £60k DB pension becomes £50k).
Freeze thresholds for a further 3 years.
Cut at least 500k public sector jobs within two years, ban use of agency staff and severely limit the use of consultants and contractors. Use half of those savings to offer competitive salaries for technical roles.
I think that would probably make a £100bn worth of closing the deficit, the resulting fall in bond yields and inflation would probably add another £20bn saving per year on the interest bill.
And means test the NHS for the wealthy
Define wealthy.
Otherwise people like me will either die because they can't afford treatment (and I am already at high risk of early death because of the NHS's failures to spot stages 1, 2 or 3 of my cancer) - and I can't - or be bankrupted and made homeless.
As for the state pension, it gets taxed if the pensioner has other income.
One of the reasons for the deficit is the amount spent on furlough during Covid - money largely spent on those in jobs and to keep them in jobs. It was about £140 billion. They too should contribute.
- 1p on income tax. - Extend VAT to food, books/newspapers & children's clothes. - NI for everyone who works. - Limit or abolish tax relief for those giving to charity and place an upper limit on the tax saved by those contributing to charity whether alive or after death. - Limit tax relief for pension contributions to the basic rate. - Extend VAT on education to all education providers, including universities. - Freeze thresholds. - Place a limit on public sector pay increases (the amount shovelled at train drivers by Reeves never gets mentioned here but it was a stupid move). - Abolish the WFA and other pension-specific benefits. Aim for the state pension to be the same as the tax free income as and when we can afford it. - Abolish the triple lock. - Those with assets should contribute something towards social care. - Introduce council tax bands for higher value houses. - Increase or widen the charges for council services beyond the basic. - Ensure that overseas visitors pay for the NHS. Other countries manage this. So can we. - Limit tax relief for private equity companies loading companies up with debt, taking dividends and asset stripping. (Thames Water and other companies in a similar position should be allowed to go bust and then nationalised for a £. Too often asset stripping has been presented as overseas investment. It is a gigantic con.)
And so on.
There is a nasty streak among some of the commentary on here. Everyone seems to want others to pay taxes and those who work on here seem to think that they should be exempt from any measures to help pay down the deficit, thinking it must all be done by the poor and the old. It also gives the impression that some welcome AD because they will be able to pressure the old and sick into killing themselves to save money or withhold treatment so that they suffer. It is disgustingly frankly. I am surprised to see @Big_G_NorthWales among their number
One reason that I am opposed to the assisted dying stuff is that I have met several people in healthcare who were against the continued existence of others, who they deemed "a waste of resources".
I could see them telling a blind person who wanted a ramp to her door - "Have you considered killing yourself". Yes, very easily.
That actually happened in canada which has ad.....a paraolympian wanted a ramp to get in her house they suggested MAID
I defy anyone to watch this and NOT conclude the system is irretrievably broken, is being gamed against us, and will have to be smashed so we can start again
This is why people will take a punt with Reform in 2029. It's clear that the two major parties don't have the answers and don't have the stomach for mass deportations of illegals and halting asylum seeking. Going into the election I think if the Tories want to get anywhere they will need to make manifesto commitments to halt all asylum seeking except for those who are specifically invited to apply and deport all current and failed asylum seekers from nations who were not invited to apply with economic sanctions on the likes of Pakistan, Egypt, Nigeria etc... who don't take back their citizens including blocking all visitor visa applications and halting direct and some common indirect routes to/from those countries.
Reform are surely going to make ending asylum seeking and deporting illegal immigrants the centre of their manifesto and I have no doubt that in the privacy of the polling booth it is going to be extremely popular. The government is no longer able to control the narrative on this subject now.
I wonder if Reform have the stomach for it. Millions need to go home, and that, in the end, is what will happen
But my fear is that Reform will also flinch and then a new party will arise and it might all get much darker
There aren't millions of asylum seekers in this country, so who are the millions who need to go home?
Is it people who are here on legal visas?
Is it people who migrated here and have gained citizenship?
Is it people who were born here, are citizens of here, but aren't white?
Also not sure why @Leon fears things will "all get much darker" with the post-Farage party and also at the same time says he thinks "millions" need to go "home".
One FBI guy's experience of the 'new' FBI under Trump:
"I recount those events more in sorrow than in anger. I love my country and our Constitution with a fervor that mere language will not allow me to articulate, and it pains me that my profession will no longer entail being their servant. As you know, my wife and I are expecting our first child this summer, and this decision will entail no small degree of hardship for us. But as our organization began to decay, I made a vow that I would comport myself in a manner that would allow me to look my son in the eye as I raised him."
The political capture of both law enforcement and the justice system is happening very rapidly, and far more blatantly than even I expected.
But at least it’s being captured by the right side. By American patriots
In the UK that capture is being done by people, agencies, cultures - that actively hate the UK
A true American patriot would be someone who respected the US Constitution, and was glad the US won the Civil War and World War II.
Not someone who hates the US Constitution (besides the 2nd Amendment), and flies the flag of America's enemy in either the Civil War or WWII.
I don't know if you can really call flying the Confederate flag flying the flag of America's enemy. It was part of America.
Well: aren't you signalling support for the reasons why the Confederacy ceceeded from the Union?
Quite possibly, but I still don't think it was 'America's enemy'. It's like saying the Saltire flag is the flag of 'Britain's enemy' - there are senses in which it was true (wrt England), and there are people who probably still regard it to be true, but there's another sense in which it's a proud part of the identity and history of that location.
I know you would like to have the Russian Tricolour flapping over London, but I wonder what you think the Confederate flag stands for that is *good* in your mind?
I haven't said it is good.
So you think Americans should fly a bad flag, one with utterly negative connotations?
I haven't said I think Americans should fly it. And I haven't said that it has 'utterly negative connotations' either. Your entire posting oeuvre consists of inventing things that people have said and attacking them for it doesn't it?
What I have said is that I don't think 'the flag of America's enemy' can be an accurate description of the flag of one half of a civil war. Leaving aside the pendantry of the fact that 'America' refers to a continent, not a country.
I can't speak for the people who choose to fly the flag (unlike everyone else here who apparently has access to their innermost thoughts) but I would suggest that in addition to being a racist dogwhistle for some, it has additional connotations of a distinctly Southern identity and pride, and furthermore of a rebellious nature and disdain for authority. The people who fly it would regard themselves as 'true American patriots' and probably wouldn't care much for Barty's approval.
What I have said is that I don't think 'the flag of America's enemy' can be an accurate description of the flag of one half of a civil war.
Of course it can.
The half that wanted to continue with America flew the American flag and were victorious.
The half that didn't want to be Americans, wanted to leave the country and lost were not.
The latter half were traitors and enemies who wanted to destroy America. Had they won, then they wouldn't be Americans today.
The fact they consider themselves "true American patriots" while flying the flag of enemies of America just shows how stupid and ignorant they are.
Are secessionists inevitably traitors, and liable to be punished as such?
Ireland, Ukraine, Slovakia, Singapore, Bangladesh ... where does it end?
I defy anyone to watch this and NOT conclude the system is irretrievably broken, is being gamed against us, and will have to be smashed so we can start again
This is why people will take a punt with Reform in 2029. It's clear that the two major parties don't have the answers and don't have the stomach for mass deportations of illegals and halting asylum seeking. Going into the election I think if the Tories want to get anywhere they will need to make manifesto commitments to halt all asylum seeking except for those who are specifically invited to apply and deport all current and failed asylum seekers from nations who were not invited to apply with economic sanctions on the likes of Pakistan, Egypt, Nigeria etc... who don't take back their citizens including blocking all visitor visa applications and halting direct and some common indirect routes to/from those countries.
Reform are surely going to make ending asylum seeking and deporting illegal immigrants the centre of their manifesto and I have no doubt that in the privacy of the polling booth it is going to be extremely popular. The government is no longer able to control the narrative on this subject now.
I wonder if Reform have the stomach for it. Millions need to go home, and that, in the end, is what will happen
But my fear is that Reform will also flinch and then a new party will arise and it might all get much darker
There aren't millions of asylum seekers in this country, so who are the millions who need to go home?
Is it people who are here on legal visas?
Is it people who migrated here and have gained citizenship?
Is it people who were born here, are citizens of here, but aren't white?
My guess would be everyone who migrated here who hasn't yet achieved citizenship..
I've met a Reform voter who thinks that Nigel Farage is a liberal. He (the Reform voter) wants to expel from the country everyone who came after 2000. Revoke citizenships....
Why 2000?
Why not 1066?
That's probably his neighbour, B, who thinks Reform voter A is liberal.
When I went to UCL, in the 90s, I was told that students advocating violent fascism should be treated with respect. By the university authorities. This was after some of them used violence against other students.
It's time to outline £100bn in spending cuts and tax rises, split 75% towards spending cuts with the majority coming from welfare and entitlements. If the government doesn't do this and continues to borrow like a drunken sailor we're heading for a bond vigilante strike and another bout of QE which will push inflation up and destroy people's disposable incomes.
The only way out is to cut welfare spending and get people back into work. We can't afford to pay the lazy to sit at home doing nothing on benefits.
'Benefits' according to the OBR are £150bn on Pensioners; £88bn on UC; and £74bn on other benefits. Where would you axe to get the £100bn?
Should we get pensioners back into work?
£20bn each out of UC and "other" benefits.
Cut the triple lock entirely.
£20bn out of the state pension by tapering above £40k, spend half of the saving on increasing the state pension for those who don't have any or significant private income in retirement.
NI payable on all income types/merge NI and income tax.
50% haircut on defined benefit public sector pensions for amounts over £40k (so a £60k DB pension becomes £50k).
Freeze thresholds for a further 3 years.
Cut at least 500k public sector jobs within two years, ban use of agency staff and severely limit the use of consultants and contractors. Use half of those savings to offer competitive salaries for technical roles.
I think that would probably make a £100bn worth of closing the deficit, the resulting fall in bond yields and inflation would probably add another £20bn saving per year on the interest bill.
And means test the NHS for the wealthy
Define wealthy.
Otherwise people like me will either die because they can't afford treatment (and I am already at high risk of early death because of the NHS's failures to spot stages 1, 2 or 3 of my cancer) - and I can't - or be bankrupted and made homeless.
As for the state pension, it gets taxed if the pensioner has other income.
One of the reasons for the deficit is the amount spent on furlough during Covid - money largely spent on those in jobs and to keep them in jobs. It was about £140 billion. They too should contribute.
- 1p on income tax. - Extend VAT to food, books/newspapers & children's clothes. - NI for everyone who works. - Limit or abolish tax relief for those giving to charity and place an upper limit on the tax saved by those contributing to charity whether alive or after death. - Limit tax relief for pension contributions to the basic rate. - Extend VAT on education to all education providers, including universities. - Freeze thresholds. - Place a limit on public sector pay increases (the amount shovelled at train drivers by Reeves never gets mentioned here but it was a stupid move). - Abolish the WFA and other pension-specific benefits. Aim for the state pension to be the same as the tax free income as and when we can afford it. - Abolish the triple lock. - Those with assets should contribute something towards social care. - Introduce council tax bands for higher value houses. - Increase or widen the charges for council services beyond the basic. - Ensure that overseas visitors pay for the NHS. Other countries manage this. So can we. - Limit tax relief for private equity companies loading companies up with debt, taking dividends and asset stripping. (Thames Water and other companies in a similar position should be allowed to go bust and then nationalised for a £. Too often asset stripping has been presented as overseas investment. It is a gigantic con.)
And so on.
There is a nasty streak among some of the commentary on here. Everyone seems to want others to pay taxes and those who work on here seem to think that they should be exempt from any measures to help pay down the deficit, thinking it must all be done by the poor and the old. It also gives the impression that some welcome AD because they will be able to pressure the old and sick into killing themselves to save money or withhold treatment so that they suffer. It is disgustingly frankly. I am surprised to see @Big_G_NorthWales among their number
One reason that I am opposed to the assisted dying stuff is that I have met several people in healthcare who were against the continued existence of others, who they deemed "a waste of resources".
I could see them telling a blind person who wanted a ramp to her door - "Have you considered killing yourself". Yes, very easily.
That actually happened in canada which has ad.....a paraolympian wanted a ramp to get in her house they suggested MAID
My comment was deliberate call out to that incident.
The ability of people to take an idea to such extremes is an interesting one. I recall the nurse who wanted my mother dead. And her reaction to my reaction - which I explained to the doctor in charge of the ward after I complained.
In other news I have accepted a new job for a British startup at C-Level, I start in September and I'm very excited at the prospect. There are only ~30 people at the company, I'll be the second person in at exec level. I've obviously taken a pretty drastic pay cut to do this from my finance and fintech days but for the first time in ages I'm really looking forwards to going back to work.
I think it will be about 11 months off in total spent with the family, which is the best year I've had since the year my then girlfriend (now wife) and I went travelling together for six months and got married a few months after we got back. If you can afford to take the time off, I'd highly recommend doing a year(ish) long career break and just spending the time with family and not worrying about work stuff. I'm obviously very lucky that I have earned well in my previous roles and that my wife also has a high income so I do recognise that not everyone would be able to do it.
Congratulations. What does "C-level" mean?
Chief level.
Chief Executive, Chief Operating Officer, Chief Financial Officer etc.
Anyhoo, the best people have General in their title, such as General Counsel.
Ahem. The bestest best people have "statistician" in their title. We outrank everybody
One FBI guy's experience of the 'new' FBI under Trump:
"I recount those events more in sorrow than in anger. I love my country and our Constitution with a fervor that mere language will not allow me to articulate, and it pains me that my profession will no longer entail being their servant. As you know, my wife and I are expecting our first child this summer, and this decision will entail no small degree of hardship for us. But as our organization began to decay, I made a vow that I would comport myself in a manner that would allow me to look my son in the eye as I raised him."
The political capture of both law enforcement and the justice system is happening very rapidly, and far more blatantly than even I expected.
But at least it’s being captured by the right side. By American patriots
In the UK that capture is being done by people, agencies, cultures - that actively hate the UK
A true American patriot would be someone who respected the US Constitution, and was glad the US won the Civil War and World War II.
Not someone who hates the US Constitution (besides the 2nd Amendment), and flies the flag of America's enemy in either the Civil War or WWII.
I don't know if you can really call flying the Confederate flag flying the flag of America's enemy. It was part of America.
Well: aren't you signalling support for the reasons why the Confederacy ceceeded from the Union?
Quite possibly, but I still don't think it was 'America's enemy'. It's like saying the Saltire flag is the flag of 'Britain's enemy' - there are senses in which it was true (wrt England), and there are people who probably still regard it to be true, but there's another sense in which it's a proud part of the identity and history of that location.
I know you would like to have the Russian Tricolour flapping over London, but I wonder what you think the Confederate flag stands for that is *good* in your mind?
I haven't said it is good.
So you think Americans should fly a bad flag, one with utterly negative connotations?
I haven't said I think Americans should fly it. And I haven't said that it has 'utterly negative connotations' either. Your entire posting oeuvre consists of inventing things that people have said and attacking them for it doesn't it?
What I have said is that I don't think 'the flag of America's enemy' can be an accurate description of the flag of one half of a civil war. Leaving aside the pendantry of the fact that 'America' refers to a continent, not a country.
I can't speak for the people who choose to fly the flag (unlike everyone else here who apparently has access to their innermost thoughts) but I would suggest that in addition to being a racist dogwhistle for some, it has additional connotations of a distinctly Southern identity and pride, and furthermore of a rebellious nature and disdain for authority. The people who fly it would regard themselves as 'true American patriots' and probably wouldn't care much for Barty's approval.
What I have said is that I don't think 'the flag of America's enemy' can be an accurate description of the flag of one half of a civil war.
Of course it can.
The half that wanted to continue with America flew the American flag and were victorious.
The half that didn't want to be Americans, wanted to leave the country and lost were not.
The latter half were traitors and enemies who wanted to destroy America. Had they won, then they wouldn't be Americans today.
The fact they consider themselves "true American patriots" while flying the flag of enemies of America just shows how stupid and ignorant they are.
America refers to the continent. The USA refers to the country. The secessionists were just as American as the Union - so for that matter are the Canadians.
Americans refers to people of that country, Canadians are not Americans. They are North Americans, but they're not Americans, and they would be rightly offended if you said they are.
The NHS is just broken for ordinary people it seems. If you fit into one of the “pathways” (cancer, stroke, heart disease) then you get treated in a timely fashion (most of the time), but those are mostly the diseases of old people. For the young, the NHS is a failure that pretends to treat them & then keeps them dangling with the hope of treatment that might manifest itself sometime, maybe.
I'm currently awaiting eye surgery for the second time. First it was the left eye which took three years from initial referral to surgery. Now with the right eye I'm told it's likely to be over a year just to get an initial consultation and two and a half to three years after that for surgery.
So in total I'll likely have spent seven or more years partially sighted because of a condition that is easily treated with a fairly minor, if delicate, procedure. I'm lucky, I've always had one functioning eye and can keep on working. But I wonder just how much of our bloated benefits bill is due to people who can't work because the NHS is incapable of fixing their problems in any reasonable time frame.
That surprises me. I was favourably impressed with the speed and efficiency of my surgery, which took a few months from diagnosis at a Specsavers checkup, rather than years.
I sometimes wonder if the GP/NHS is like the Police (of which I have somewhat more family experience).
If you're good at your job, you get to work in a 'posh' area, lower workload, spend more time on the job helping the somewhat affluent avoid the ills of affluence.
If you're bad at it - get transferred to Scumsville and continue failing where it "doesn't matter" in the least.
West Yorks is not particularly posh. Some bit of it could be not inaccurately described as scumsville.
In the end I think Leon is right, the mood music in the country has turned decisively against immigration and asylum seekers, it is only going to get more negative towards it as Labour are unable to deport the illegal immigrants or stop the boats so of Reform don't have the stomach then the public will inevitably vote in a party that does or the Tories will step in and become that party.
The prevailing view when the modern experiment in mass migration began was that people might be a bit angry in the short term, but they'll get over it and we'll all be better off in the long run, so any opposition should just be ignored or managed. It's proving to have been a terrible mistake.
I think if immigration had been limited to people with earnings over the higher rate threshold then this might have been the case. As it is with millions of people arriving on unskilled, student and dependent visas who contribute far, far less than they receive in state services it has been an unmitigated disaster since about 2005. Wrt illegal immigration the current or next government will need to get a Rwanda style agreement up and running, clear any and all legal hurdles with primary legislation, abrogating treaties and agreements if necessary and just putting people on planes and deporting them to somewhere not the UK or giving them a chance to self deport if they don't want to do that (see the illegal immigrants in the US self deporting rather than risk ending up in El Salvador).
Make clear that there is no chance of staying in the UK under any circumstances so it's go home on a commercial flight or go to Rwanda, if they've burned their passports etc... then it's go to Rwanda by default unless they can arrange for a new passport to be issued by their home country.
One FBI guy's experience of the 'new' FBI under Trump:
"I recount those events more in sorrow than in anger. I love my country and our Constitution with a fervor that mere language will not allow me to articulate, and it pains me that my profession will no longer entail being their servant. As you know, my wife and I are expecting our first child this summer, and this decision will entail no small degree of hardship for us. But as our organization began to decay, I made a vow that I would comport myself in a manner that would allow me to look my son in the eye as I raised him."
The political capture of both law enforcement and the justice system is happening very rapidly, and far more blatantly than even I expected.
But at least it’s being captured by the right side. By American patriots
In the UK that capture is being done by people, agencies, cultures - that actively hate the UK
A true American patriot would be someone who respected the US Constitution, and was glad the US won the Civil War and World War II.
Not someone who hates the US Constitution (besides the 2nd Amendment), and flies the flag of America's enemy in either the Civil War or WWII.
I don't know if you can really call flying the Confederate flag flying the flag of America's enemy. It was part of America.
Well: aren't you signalling support for the reasons why the Confederacy ceceeded from the Union?
Quite possibly, but I still don't think it was 'America's enemy'. It's like saying the Saltire flag is the flag of 'Britain's enemy' - there are senses in which it was true (wrt England), and there are people who probably still regard it to be true, but there's another sense in which it's a proud part of the identity and history of that location.
I know you would like to have the Russian Tricolour flapping over London, but I wonder what you think the Confederate flag stands for that is *good* in your mind?
I haven't said it is good.
So you think Americans should fly a bad flag, one with utterly negative connotations?
I haven't said I think Americans should fly it. And I haven't said that it has 'utterly negative connotations' either. Your entire posting oeuvre consists of inventing things that people have said and attacking them for it doesn't it?
What I have said is that I don't think 'the flag of America's enemy' can be an accurate description of the flag of one half of a civil war. Leaving aside the pendantry of the fact that 'America' refers to a continent, not a country.
I can't speak for the people who choose to fly the flag (unlike everyone else here who apparently has access to their innermost thoughts) but I would suggest that in addition to being a racist dogwhistle for some, it has additional connotations of a distinctly Southern identity and pride, and furthermore of a rebellious nature and disdain for authority. The people who fly it would regard themselves as 'true American patriots' and probably wouldn't care much for Barty's approval.
What I have said is that I don't think 'the flag of America's enemy' can be an accurate description of the flag of one half of a civil war.
Of course it can.
The half that wanted to continue with America flew the American flag and were victorious.
The half that didn't want to be Americans, wanted to leave the country and lost were not.
The latter half were traitors and enemies who wanted to destroy America. Had they won, then they wouldn't be Americans today.
The fact they consider themselves "true American patriots" while flying the flag of enemies of America just shows how stupid and ignorant they are.
Are secessionists inevitably traitors, and liable to be punished as such?
Ireland, Ukraine, Slovakia, Singapore, Bangladesh ... where does it end?
UKIP, SNP, Plaid Cymru?
It depends if they seek to secede via democratic means, or via bloodshed.
I defy anyone to watch this and NOT conclude the system is irretrievably broken, is being gamed against us, and will have to be smashed so we can start again
This is why people will take a punt with Reform in 2029. It's clear that the two major parties don't have the answers and don't have the stomach for mass deportations of illegals and halting asylum seeking. Going into the election I think if the Tories want to get anywhere they will need to make manifesto commitments to halt all asylum seeking except for those who are specifically invited to apply and deport all current and failed asylum seekers from nations who were not invited to apply with economic sanctions on the likes of Pakistan, Egypt, Nigeria etc... who don't take back their citizens including blocking all visitor visa applications and halting direct and some common indirect routes to/from those countries.
Reform are surely going to make ending asylum seeking and deporting illegal immigrants the centre of their manifesto and I have no doubt that in the privacy of the polling booth it is going to be extremely popular. The government is no longer able to control the narrative on this subject now.
I wonder if Reform have the stomach for it. Millions need to go home, and that, in the end, is what will happen
But my fear is that Reform will also flinch and then a new party will arise and it might all get much darker
You always seem to be fearing that if we don't do what you want we'll end up doing even more of what you want.
See also his earlier "now look what you made us do" comments re the US.
One FBI guy's experience of the 'new' FBI under Trump:
"I recount those events more in sorrow than in anger. I love my country and our Constitution with a fervor that mere language will not allow me to articulate, and it pains me that my profession will no longer entail being their servant. As you know, my wife and I are expecting our first child this summer, and this decision will entail no small degree of hardship for us. But as our organization began to decay, I made a vow that I would comport myself in a manner that would allow me to look my son in the eye as I raised him."
The political capture of both law enforcement and the justice system is happening very rapidly, and far more blatantly than even I expected.
But at least it’s being captured by the right side. By American patriots
In the UK that capture is being done by people, agencies, cultures - that actively hate the UK
A true American patriot would be someone who respected the US Constitution, and was glad the US won the Civil War and World War II.
Not someone who hates the US Constitution (besides the 2nd Amendment), and flies the flag of America's enemy in either the Civil War or WWII.
I don't know if you can really call flying the Confederate flag flying the flag of America's enemy. It was part of America.
Well: aren't you signalling support for the reasons why the Confederacy ceceeded from the Union?
Quite possibly, but I still don't think it was 'America's enemy'. It's like saying the Saltire flag is the flag of 'Britain's enemy' - there are senses in which it was true (wrt England), and there are people who probably still regard it to be true, but there's another sense in which it's a proud part of the identity and history of that location.
I know you would like to have the Russian Tricolour flapping over London, but I wonder what you think the Confederate flag stands for that is *good* in your mind?
I haven't said it is good.
So you think Americans should fly a bad flag, one with utterly negative connotations?
I haven't said I think Americans should fly it. And I haven't said that it has 'utterly negative connotations' either. Your entire posting oeuvre consists of inventing things that people have said and attacking them for it doesn't it?
What I have said is that I don't think 'the flag of America's enemy' can be an accurate description of the flag of one half of a civil war. Leaving aside the pendantry of the fact that 'America' refers to a continent, not a country.
I can't speak for the people who choose to fly the flag (unlike everyone else here who apparently has access to their innermost thoughts) but I would suggest that in addition to being a racist dogwhistle for some, it has additional connotations of a distinctly Southern identity and pride, and furthermore of a rebellious nature and disdain for authority. The people who fly it would regard themselves as 'true American patriots' and probably wouldn't care much for Barty's approval.
What I have said is that I don't think 'the flag of America's enemy' can be an accurate description of the flag of one half of a civil war.
Of course it can.
The half that wanted to continue with America flew the American flag and were victorious.
The half that didn't want to be Americans, wanted to leave the country and lost were not.
The latter half were traitors and enemies who wanted to destroy America. Had they won, then they wouldn't be Americans today.
The fact they consider themselves "true American patriots" while flying the flag of enemies of America just shows how stupid and ignorant they are.
Are secessionists inevitably traitors, and liable to be punished as such?
Ireland, Ukraine, Slovakia, Singapore, Bangladesh ... where does it end?
UKIP, SNP, Plaid Cymru?
It depends if they seek to secede via democratic means, or via bloodshed.
It also depends on if they win or lose.
Treason never prospers. What's the reason? If treason prospers None dare call it treason.
It's time to outline £100bn in spending cuts and tax rises, split 75% towards spending cuts with the majority coming from welfare and entitlements. If the government doesn't do this and continues to borrow like a drunken sailor we're heading for a bond vigilante strike and another bout of QE which will push inflation up and destroy people's disposable incomes.
The only way out is to cut welfare spending and get people back into work. We can't afford to pay the lazy to sit at home doing nothing on benefits.
'Benefits' according to the OBR are £150bn on Pensioners; £88bn on UC; and £74bn on other benefits. Where would you axe to get the £100bn?
Should we get pensioners back into work?
£20bn each out of UC and "other" benefits.
Cut the triple lock entirely.
£20bn out of the state pension by tapering above £40k, spend half of the saving on increasing the state pension for those who don't have any or significant private income in retirement.
NI payable on all income types/merge NI and income tax.
50% haircut on defined benefit public sector pensions for amounts over £40k (so a £60k DB pension becomes £50k).
Freeze thresholds for a further 3 years.
Cut at least 500k public sector jobs within two years, ban use of agency staff and severely limit the use of consultants and contractors. Use half of those savings to offer competitive salaries for technical roles.
I think that would probably make a £100bn worth of closing the deficit, the resulting fall in bond yields and inflation would probably add another £20bn saving per year on the interest bill.
And means test the NHS for the wealthy
Define wealthy.
Otherwise people like me will either die because they can't afford treatment (and I am already at high risk of early death because of the NHS's failures to spot stages 1, 2 or 3 of my cancer) - and I can't - or be bankrupted and made homeless.
As for the state pension, it gets taxed if the pensioner has other income.
One of the reasons for the deficit is the amount spent on furlough during Covid - money largely spent on those in jobs and to keep them in jobs. It was about £140 billion. They too should contribute.
- 1p on income tax. - Extend VAT to food, books/newspapers & children's clothes. - NI for everyone who works. - Limit or abolish tax relief for those giving to charity and place an upper limit on the tax saved by those contributing to charity whether alive or after death. - Limit tax relief for pension contributions to the basic rate. - Extend VAT on education to all education providers, including universities. - Freeze thresholds. - Place a limit on public sector pay increases (the amount shovelled at train drivers by Reeves never gets mentioned here but it was a stupid move). - Abolish the WFA and other pension-specific benefits. Aim for the state pension to be the same as the tax free income as and when we can afford it. - Abolish the triple lock. - Those with assets should contribute something towards social care. - Introduce council tax bands for higher value houses. - Increase or widen the charges for council services beyond the basic. - Ensure that overseas visitors pay for the NHS. Other countries manage this. So can we. - Limit tax relief for private equity companies loading companies up with debt, taking dividends and asset stripping. (Thames Water and other companies in a similar position should be allowed to go bust and then nationalised for a £. Too often asset stripping has been presented as overseas investment. It is a gigantic con.)
And so on.
There is a nasty streak among some of the commentary on here. Everyone seems to want others to pay taxes and those who work on here seem to think that they should be exempt from any measures to help pay down the deficit, thinking it must all be done by the poor and the old. It also gives the impression that some welcome AD because they will be able to pressure the old and sick into killing themselves to save money or withhold treatment so that they suffer. It is disgustingly frankly. I am surprised to see @Big_G_NorthWales among their number
One reason that I am opposed to the assisted dying stuff is that I have met several people in healthcare who were against the continued existence of others, who they deemed "a waste of resources".
I could see them telling a blind person who wanted a ramp to her door - "Have you considered killing yourself". Yes, very easily.
That actually happened in canada which has ad.....a paraolympian wanted a ramp to get in her house they suggested MAID
There is a minority (very small, but it exists), of the medical profession who do enjoy murdering people (although, they would not see it as murder, but simply getting rid of people whose existence is pointless).
I defy anyone to watch this and NOT conclude the system is irretrievably broken, is being gamed against us, and will have to be smashed so we can start again
This is why people will take a punt with Reform in 2029. It's clear that the two major parties don't have the answers and don't have the stomach for mass deportations of illegals and halting asylum seeking. Going into the election I think if the Tories want to get anywhere they will need to make manifesto commitments to halt all asylum seeking except for those who are specifically invited to apply and deport all current and failed asylum seekers from nations who were not invited to apply with economic sanctions on the likes of Pakistan, Egypt, Nigeria etc... who don't take back their citizens including blocking all visitor visa applications and halting direct and some common indirect routes to/from those countries.
Reform are surely going to make ending asylum seeking and deporting illegal immigrants the centre of their manifesto and I have no doubt that in the privacy of the polling booth it is going to be extremely popular. The government is no longer able to control the narrative on this subject now.
I wonder if Reform have the stomach for it. Millions need to go home, and that, in the end, is what will happen
But my fear is that Reform will also flinch and then a new party will arise and it might all get much darker
You always seem to be fearing that if we don't do what you want we'll end up doing even more of what you want.
See also his earlier "now look what you made us do" comments re the US.
Politicians have done the make us do thing though.....immigration has been an issue for a while, time and again voters have said so and voted for parties promising to bring it down and the parties once elected have done the opposite....cf the boris wave and now the starmer wave.
Sooner or later they lose patience and vote for someone more extreme when they are not listened too
The UK government is a currency creator, not a currency user… Financial markets are accommodated by the government, not the other way around.
MMT is Keynesian economics for slow learners.
Unfortunately, the slow learners in question have only learnt the first half of the message. The second half, that unfunded government spending in a fiat economy is ultimately limited by inflation & therefore only works when the private sector is in recession, appears to be written in a foreign tongue as far as these people are concerned.
One FBI guy's experience of the 'new' FBI under Trump:
"I recount those events more in sorrow than in anger. I love my country and our Constitution with a fervor that mere language will not allow me to articulate, and it pains me that my profession will no longer entail being their servant. As you know, my wife and I are expecting our first child this summer, and this decision will entail no small degree of hardship for us. But as our organization began to decay, I made a vow that I would comport myself in a manner that would allow me to look my son in the eye as I raised him."
The political capture of both law enforcement and the justice system is happening very rapidly, and far more blatantly than even I expected.
But at least it’s being captured by the right side. By American patriots
In the UK that capture is being done by people, agencies, cultures - that actively hate the UK
A true American patriot would be someone who respected the US Constitution, and was glad the US won the Civil War and World War II.
Not someone who hates the US Constitution (besides the 2nd Amendment), and flies the flag of America's enemy in either the Civil War or WWII.
I don't know if you can really call flying the Confederate flag flying the flag of America's enemy. It was part of America.
Well: aren't you signalling support for the reasons why the Confederacy ceceeded from the Union?
Quite possibly, but I still don't think it was 'America's enemy'. It's like saying the Saltire flag is the flag of 'Britain's enemy' - there are senses in which it was true (wrt England), and there are people who probably still regard it to be true, but there's another sense in which it's a proud part of the identity and history of that location.
I know you would like to have the Russian Tricolour flapping over London, but I wonder what you think the Confederate flag stands for that is *good* in your mind?
I haven't said it is good.
So you think Americans should fly a bad flag, one with utterly negative connotations?
I haven't said I think Americans should fly it. And I haven't said that it has 'utterly negative connotations' either. Your entire posting oeuvre consists of inventing things that people have said and attacking them for it doesn't it?
What I have said is that I don't think 'the flag of America's enemy' can be an accurate description of the flag of one half of a civil war. Leaving aside the pendantry of the fact that 'America' refers to a continent, not a country.
I can't speak for the people who choose to fly the flag (unlike everyone else here who apparently has access to their innermost thoughts) but I would suggest that in addition to being a racist dogwhistle for some, it has additional connotations of a distinctly Southern identity and pride, and furthermore of a rebellious nature and disdain for authority. The people who fly it would regard themselves as 'true American patriots' and probably wouldn't care much for Barty's approval.
What I have said is that I don't think 'the flag of America's enemy' can be an accurate description of the flag of one half of a civil war.
Of course it can.
The half that wanted to continue with America flew the American flag and were victorious.
The half that didn't want to be Americans, wanted to leave the country and lost were not.
The latter half were traitors and enemies who wanted to destroy America. Had they won, then they wouldn't be Americans today.
The fact they consider themselves "true American patriots" while flying the flag of enemies of America just shows how stupid and ignorant they are.
Are secessionists inevitably traitors, and liable to be punished as such?
Ireland, Ukraine, Slovakia, Singapore, Bangladesh ... where does it end?
UKIP, SNP, Plaid Cymru?
It depends if they seek to secede via democratic means, or via bloodshed.
It also depends on if they win or lose.
Treason never prospers. What's the reason? If treason prospers None dare call it treason.
Anyway this week there will be the first part of Sir Wyn Williams Post Office Report - on the impact on SPMs and compensation.
It will (likely) say that the human impact was awful and made worse by the conduct of the PO and others over many years. Compensation is due, is too slow and the government needs to get a move on because the current situation is disgraceful. 350 of the ca. 900 SPMs affected have died without getting compensation and the return of the money fraudulently taken from them.
The government will welcome the report, say how terrible it all is and then continue doing the square root of fuck all.
This is how all governments since at least Aberfan have operated. Potemkin justice.
What I find fascinating is the systemic resistance.
A government with a substantial majority and the support of the opposition parties had to pass a reverse bill of attainder, declaring the SPOs innocent. Because the judicial system wouldn't.
Arbitrary justice. But on the side of innocence.
Doesn't that disturb people?
That's not quite true. The Court of Appeal did overthrow the convictions of some SPMs in 2021. The slowness of the remainder was because of a lack of resources, the PO dragging its feet and the criminal under-funding of the justice system by every government.
It's time to outline £100bn in spending cuts and tax rises, split 75% towards spending cuts with the majority coming from welfare and entitlements. If the government doesn't do this and continues to borrow like a drunken sailor we're heading for a bond vigilante strike and another bout of QE which will push inflation up and destroy people's disposable incomes.
The only way out is to cut welfare spending and get people back into work. We can't afford to pay the lazy to sit at home doing nothing on benefits.
'Benefits' according to the OBR are £150bn on Pensioners; £88bn on UC; and £74bn on other benefits. Where would you axe to get the £100bn?
Should we get pensioners back into work?
£20bn each out of UC and "other" benefits.
Cut the triple lock entirely.
£20bn out of the state pension by tapering above £40k, spend half of the saving on increasing the state pension for those who don't have any or significant private income in retirement.
NI payable on all income types/merge NI and income tax.
50% haircut on defined benefit public sector pensions for amounts over £40k (so a £60k DB pension becomes £50k).
Freeze thresholds for a further 3 years.
Cut at least 500k public sector jobs within two years, ban use of agency staff and severely limit the use of consultants and contractors. Use half of those savings to offer competitive salaries for technical roles.
I think that would probably make a £100bn worth of closing the deficit, the resulting fall in bond yields and inflation would probably add another £20bn saving per year on the interest bill.
And means test the NHS for the wealthy
Define wealthy.
Otherwise people like me will either die because they can't afford treatment (and I am already at high risk of early death because of the NHS's failures to spot stages 1, 2 or 3 of my cancer) - and I can't - or be bankrupted and made homeless.
As for the state pension, it gets taxed if the pensioner has other income.
One of the reasons for the deficit is the amount spent on furlough during Covid - money largely spent on those in jobs and to keep them in jobs. It was about £140 billion. They too should contribute.
- 1p on income tax. - Extend VAT to food, books/newspapers & children's clothes. - NI for everyone who works. - Limit or abolish tax relief for those giving to charity and place an upper limit on the tax saved by those contributing to charity whether alive or after death. - Limit tax relief for pension contributions to the basic rate. - Extend VAT on education to all education providers, including universities. - Freeze thresholds. - Place a limit on public sector pay increases (the amount shovelled at train drivers by Reeves never gets mentioned here but it was a stupid move). - Abolish the WFA and other pension-specific benefits. Aim for the state pension to be the same as the tax free income as and when we can afford it. - Abolish the triple lock. - Those with assets should contribute something towards social care. - Introduce council tax bands for higher value houses. - Increase or widen the charges for council services beyond the basic. - Ensure that overseas visitors pay for the NHS. Other countries manage this. So can we. - Limit tax relief for private equity companies loading companies up with debt, taking dividends and asset stripping. (Thames Water and other companies in a similar position should be allowed to go bust and then nationalised for a £. Too often asset stripping has been presented as overseas investment. It is a gigantic con.)
And so on.
There is a nasty streak among some of the commentary on here. Everyone seems to want others to pay taxes and those who work on here seem to think that they should be exempt from any measures to help pay down the deficit, thinking it must all be done by the poor and the old. It also gives the impression that some welcome AD because they will be able to pressure the old and sick into killing themselves to save money or withhold treatment so that they suffer. It is disgustingly frankly. I am surprised to see @Big_G_NorthWales among their number
Can I just say that wealthy to me include celebrities and multi millionaires who can contribute to the NHS
As far as your list is concerned I agree with each and every one and it needs a government to accept we cannot continue borrowing, spending and taxing and think the unthinkable
I want the NHS available to all but those with the broadest shoulders should contribute as indeed should the pension be reviewed as to just who should receive this very expensive benefit
They do contribute - as indeed have I - through taxes. In my case for decades. But there is no justification for denying the NHS to people who are seriously or terminally ill. You are advocating for a US style system which will harm the sick. I am one of their number and I think it disgusting that you should wish to deprive me of the NHS when I need it most. You do not define what wealthy means - name a figure and let's see what this actually means.
Indeed, means testing the NHS and barring the wealthy just seems like an odd and very mean spirited thing to do. From a practical sense I doubt it would save very much money given that the "wealthy" that BigG mentions are likely to have private health insurance and it breaks the idea that all British citizens/residents get treated equally by the health service, rich and poor alike get the same (sometimes not very good, sometimes excellent) treatment.
The comment about those with the broadest shoulders contributing is also very off colour for BigG, I think he's been watching too much Jez on Tiktok or something. At my peak earnings a few years ago my net rate of tax was 43% and I paid well into six figures per year in tax, to suggest that the "wealthy" don't already make a huge contribution is factually incorrect. Indeed it is this anti-wealth attitude among those who call themselves conservative that resulted in the previous government just ceding the subject of wealth creation to the left.
No one ever suggests giving a tax rebate/benefit to anyone who has private health insurance which helps take the pressure off our sainted NHS.
Generally the choke point is the same pool of consultants and specialists that you have to see, before (and often during) getting private treatment that also give a proportion of their time to the NHS, with the private patients essentially paying to jump the queue. If there was incentive for a significant batch of people to switch to private, either private waiting times would increase dramatically, or consultants would do more private work and less NHS, making the NHS position worse.
The governments approach of using the over capacity in the private sector to deal with the NHS backlog is the more sensible one. Continuing what the Tories were doing before.
The absurd rationing of testing continues.
I know more and more people who pay private facilities to get MRIs etc. XRays seem to be easier in the NHS system.
Early detection of problems is cheaper.
Indeed, my dad just had this issue (hence my suggestion in the previous comment). He has had a knee problem for about 15 years, it's suddenly got a lot worse so he went to see the doctor. Long story short, after about 6 months of hearing nothing back from the NHS on getting a scan he went private and got a scan done - they said his right knee is basically completely deteriorated and he needs surgery.
He wanted to make sure that this was necessary so he arranged finally got an appointment with the NHS specialist a few months down the road who looked at the scan and said words to the effect of "we wouldn't recommend surgery at this stage because the degradation doesn't meet our requirements for it, basically you can still walk around for up to a mile or so before it starts really hurting". He then asked if he could go private would that advice change and the specialist said "yes, get this done ASAP because it will seriously improve your life quality and in 10 years when this gets to the point where the NHS will consider it degraded enough to operate you may not be eligible due to age and poor likelihood of recovery". It's a completely mental situation. They're knowingly saying no/delaying huge life improving surgery to people knowing that 10 years down the road it will cause huge issues for these people, well at least for those people who can't afford to go private.
This is the kind of stuff that I really think is low hanging fruit for the NHS, cheap preventative care today reduces our future liability by huge amounts and that's where I would be looking for gains. They may not show immediately but in 2-3 years there would be a noticeable drop in resource demand.
Our youngest had an ingrown toenail a couple of years ago. After going through the initial stages of treatment with our NHS GP (which consisted understandably of “give it a couple of weeks to see if it sorts itself out”) the GP referred him to get it looked at by a specialist. By the time the letter from the specialist dept had arrived to tell us we had been booked for an initial appointment another four months later we had already given up on the NHS & taken him to a private specialist who had diagnosed it as needing surgery & carried that surgery out that week - removing an impressively large chunk of toenail that had grown off sideways into the depths of his big toe in the process!
The specialist said the likely time from initial diagnostic appointment to actual surgery on the NHS was between 9-12 months in his experience.
The NHS is just broken for ordinary people it seems. If you fit into one of the “pathways” (cancer, stroke, heart disease) then you get treated in a timely fashion (most of the time), but those are mostly the diseases of old people. For the young, the NHS is a failure that pretends to treat them & then keeps them dangling with the hope of treatment that might manifest itself sometime, maybe.
We need to get back to the idea that the NHS sees getting working age people back into work as quickly as reasonably possible a priority.
I know of people waiting over two years to get access to CAMHS in Edinburgh.
Two years is quick, for most.
The rape case I did last week involved a young woman whose legal guardian claimed had a mental age of 6. She was in residential care but had freedom of movement. She was raped and enormously distressed. Medical evidence said, remarkably, that she understood enough about sex to consent or withhold her consent.
Her guardian contacted Social work the night it happened who did ...nothing. When the guardian got back from her holiday she took her to the police but it was too late to get medical support for the claim. The man was convicted by the evidence of the distress and what was said to the guardian hours after the assault. It was close, a majority verdict.
The lack of care of such an obviously vulnerable young woman frankly made me incandescent. So many jobsworths are paid to look after people and just don't give a damn. This case involved an indigenous Scot but it demonstrated all so clearly how the victims we are not supposed to talk about get taken advantage of.
We are spending a fortune on these services. We are not getting results.
That's absolutely shocking and glad the jury came back with the correct decision, even by majority verdict. These are the kinds of cases why people like me suggest that burning it all down and starting again can't be worse than what we have now. People are being failed by the state at an alarming rate, whether that's cases like these which are absolutely awful, the NHS in lots of areas, the police are failing the public at large on crime, the judiciary are failing the public in deportations, politicians are failing us on all fronts.
The UK is getting closer and closer to becoming a failed state so maybe some tough medicine is what the state needs, not more of the same.
What does "burning it all down" mean for those in care ?
I don't know, but how could it be worse than today, knowing everything we know about what has already happened.
Some Cyclefrees in the system would help.
Trying to reconstruct it from scratch might just replicate the problems we have now - and what happens to the children while that is being done ?
Again, knowing everything we know about the current failures in the system. Everything that happened in the 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s and even today in the case mentioned by David it's got to be worth a try.
As with everything we do in this country more needs to be done with preventative measures. Why does the UK have such a large proportion of it's child population in care, why are there so many delinquent parents and what can be done to ensure that children's residential care homes aren't staffed by abusers or those who simply look aside when the abuse takes place. I don't think those are easy questions to answer, of course, but it doesn't feel as though anyone in power is trying to find them. Instead it's cover ups and protecting the system at the expense of the kids, every single time. How many times have we seen horrific cases where social workers handed kids back to clearly unfit parents who then beat and murdered the kids? How many institutional failures have we seen with sexual abuse and rape within residential services for children? How many scandals do we need to read about in the news where whistleblowers were not only ignored but threatened by management for raising serious failings within protective services?
I don't know the answer to the question, but I do know that the current system isn't it. Surely admitting there's a problem is the first step to actually solving it. Simply continuing as if nothing is wrong will just allow the rot to depeen (not that I think it's possible).
I haven't being arguing for doing nothing.
The system definitely needs a Cyclefree style approach to listening to whistleblowers / making it possible for them to come forward.
It desperately needs more foster parents - the lack of which leaves the care system as the only option.
The problem is delinquent families is more complicated.
I don't have any grand plan - and neither does anyone else.
Anyway this week there will be the first part of Sir Wyn Williams Post Office Report - on the impact on SPMs and compensation.
It will (likely) say that the human impact was awful and made worse by the conduct of the PO and others over many years. Compensation is due, is too slow and the government needs to get a move on because the current situation is disgraceful. 350 of the ca. 900 SPMs affected have died without getting compensation and the return of the money fraudulently taken from them.
The government will welcome the report, say how terrible it all is and then continue doing the square root of fuck all.
This is how all governments since at least Aberfan have operated. Potemkin justice.
What I find fascinating is the systemic resistance.
A government with a substantial majority and the support of the opposition parties had to pass a reverse bill of attainder, declaring the SPOs innocent. Because the judicial system wouldn't.
Arbitrary justice. But on the side of innocence.
Doesn't that disturb people?
That's not quite true. The Court of Appeal did overthrow the convictions of some SPMs in 2021. The slowness of the remainder was because of a lack of resources, the PO dragging its feet and the criminal under-funding of the justice system by every government.
It does create an interesting precedent. And represented a massive over-ruling of the courts.
I was surprised that the Supreme Court didn't intervene to offer to hear each case for half an hour or something. Why would the Post Office have anything to do with what happened?
The NHS is just broken for ordinary people it seems. If you fit into one of the “pathways” (cancer, stroke, heart disease) then you get treated in a timely fashion (most of the time), but those are mostly the diseases of old people. For the young, the NHS is a failure that pretends to treat them & then keeps them dangling with the hope of treatment that might manifest itself sometime, maybe.
I'm currently awaiting eye surgery for the second time. First it was the left eye which took three years from initial referral to surgery. Now with the right eye I'm told it's likely to be over a year just to get an initial consultation and two and a half to three years after that for surgery.
So in total I'll likely have spent seven or more years partially sighted because of a condition that is easily treated with a fairly minor, if delicate, procedure. I'm lucky, I've always had one functioning eye and can keep on working. But I wonder just how much of our bloated benefits bill is due to people who can't work because the NHS is incapable of fixing their problems in any reasonable time frame.
That surprises me. I was favourably impressed with the speed and efficiency of my surgery, which took a few months from diagnosis at a Specsavers checkup, rather than years.
I sometimes wonder if the GP/NHS is like the Police (of which I have somewhat more family experience).
If you're good at your job, you get to work in a 'posh' area, lower workload, spend more time on the job helping the somewhat affluent avoid the ills of affluence.
If you're bad at it - get transferred to Scumsville and continue failing where it "doesn't matter" in the least.
I think you are right in outcome not motivation.
If you are good at your job you will disproportionately apply for / secure jobs in better areas for the reasons you articulate.
Less nice areas find it harder to recruit and therefore lower their standards to fill positions.
If only someone hadn’t thought that national wage scales were a good idea…
It does even out quite a bit.
So there are some excellent GP practices in deprived parts of Leicester because that is also where the major teaching hospitals are, and the GPs are active medical educators.
Similarly, while Consultant salaries are the same in Scunthorpe and Dorchester, housing costs are very different, getting a lot more for your money in North Lincs.
It's more about reputation and management culture. There are a couple of hospitals in my region that have such toxic management that they cannot retain staff, while nearby Trusts do not have the same issue. They are not the most socially deprived areas either.
In the end I think Leon is right, the mood music in the country has turned decisively against immigration and asylum seekers, it is only going to get more negative towards it as Labour are unable to deport the illegal immigrants or stop the boats so of Reform don't have the stomach then the public will inevitably vote in a party that does or the Tories will step in and become that party.
The prevailing view when the modern experiment in mass migration began was that people might be a bit angry in the short term, but they'll get over it and we'll all be better off in the long run, so any opposition should just be ignored or managed. It's proving to have been a terrible mistake.
I think if immigration had been limited to people with earnings over the higher rate threshold then this might have been the case. As it is with millions of people arriving on unskilled, student and dependent visas who contribute far, far less than they receive in state services it has been an unmitigated disaster since about 2005. Wrt illegal immigration the current or next government will need to get a Rwanda style agreement up and running, clear any and all legal hurdles with primary legislation, abrogating treaties and agreements if necessary and just putting people on planes and deporting them to somewhere not the UK or giving them a chance to self deport if they don't want to do that (see the illegal immigrants in the US self deporting rather than risk ending up in El Salvador).
Make clear that there is no chance of staying in the UK under any circumstances so it's go home on a commercial flight or go to Rwanda, if they've burned their passports etc... then it's go to Rwanda by default unless they can arrange for a new passport to be issued by their home country.
There is an argument that high-skilled migration crowds out the current population from the best paying jobs. Instead of having a half-decent education system or allowing people to progress from the bottom rung to the top, just get some foreign graduate in to do the job instead.
Both my grandfathers did not have degrees yet ended up in relatively senior positions in international firms. One literally started washing windows aged 16, the other on the factory floor. Both were trained up by their firms, sent abroad to get some experience, had their childcare and sometimes housing paid for etc etc. That must be pretty rare nowadays.
Wages are far too crude a measure anyway. I like the idea of a visa that allows people to install solar panels for four years. That won't be particularly well-paid, but it will mean we get over the hump of the Green transition more quickly and cheaply than otherwise. Then we can have a smaller workforce of technicians who replace them when need or fix any problems for the next 30+ years.
The NHS is just broken for ordinary people it seems. If you fit into one of the “pathways” (cancer, stroke, heart disease) then you get treated in a timely fashion (most of the time), but those are mostly the diseases of old people. For the young, the NHS is a failure that pretends to treat them & then keeps them dangling with the hope of treatment that might manifest itself sometime, maybe.
I'm currently awaiting eye surgery for the second time. First it was the left eye which took three years from initial referral to surgery. Now with the right eye I'm told it's likely to be over a year just to get an initial consultation and two and a half to three years after that for surgery.
So in total I'll likely have spent seven or more years partially sighted because of a condition that is easily treated with a fairly minor, if delicate, procedure. I'm lucky, I've always had one functioning eye and can keep on working. But I wonder just how much of our bloated benefits bill is due to people who can't work because the NHS is incapable of fixing their problems in any reasonable time frame.
That surprises me. I was favourably impressed with the speed and efficiency of my surgery, which took a few months from diagnosis at a Specsavers checkup, rather than years.
Unfortunately, if my family's recent experiences are anything to go by I suspect the NHS in my part of Scotland (Greater Glasgow) is even more broken than elsewhere in the UK.
My sister is seriously disabled and needs ambulance transport to get to hospital appointments and recently we had to involve our MSP just to stop the Scottish Ambulance Service from continually cancelling her transport the day before.
I could go on at length about other failings, but in summary I honestly can't recall a single positive interaction with the NHS in the last five years.
I've experienced very poor treatment, too, notably when my father was hospitalised. But eye treatment - possibly since much of it is elective outpatient surgery with relatively predictable outcomes - seems (anecdotally) to be above the average.
Anyway this week there will be the first part of Sir Wyn Williams Post Office Report - on the impact on SPMs and compensation.
It will (likely) say that the human impact was awful and made worse by the conduct of the PO and others over many years. Compensation is due, is too slow and the government needs to get a move on because the current situation is disgraceful. 350 of the ca. 900 SPMs affected have died without getting compensation and the return of the money fraudulently taken from them.
The government will welcome the report, say how terrible it all is and then continue doing the square root of fuck all.
This is how all governments since at least Aberfan have operated. Potemkin justice.
What I find fascinating is the systemic resistance.
A government with a substantial majority and the support of the opposition parties had to pass a reverse bill of attainder, declaring the SPOs innocent. Because the judicial system wouldn't.
Arbitrary justice. But on the side of innocence.
Doesn't that disturb people?
That's not quite true. The Court of Appeal did overthrow the convictions of some SPMs in 2021. The slowness of the remainder was because of a lack of resources, the PO dragging its feet and the criminal under-funding of the justice system by every government.
It does create an interesting precedent. And represented a massive over-ruling of the courts.
I was surprised that the Supreme Court didn't intervene to offer to hear each case for half an hour or something. Why would the Post Office have anything to do with what happened?
You would have thought the court of appeal could handle every case in a week. 1 special seating mid summer holidays
Case abc Did the evidence come from horizon. Evidence invalid, appeal granted - next Case abd Did the evidence come from horizon. Evidence invalid, appeal granted - next
It's time to outline £100bn in spending cuts and tax rises, split 75% towards spending cuts with the majority coming from welfare and entitlements. If the government doesn't do this and continues to borrow like a drunken sailor we're heading for a bond vigilante strike and another bout of QE which will push inflation up and destroy people's disposable incomes.
The only way out is to cut welfare spending and get people back into work. We can't afford to pay the lazy to sit at home doing nothing on benefits.
'Benefits' according to the OBR are £150bn on Pensioners; £88bn on UC; and £74bn on other benefits. Where would you axe to get the £100bn?
Should we get pensioners back into work?
£20bn each out of UC and "other" benefits.
Cut the triple lock entirely.
£20bn out of the state pension by tapering above £40k, spend half of the saving on increasing the state pension for those who don't have any or significant private income in retirement.
NI payable on all income types/merge NI and income tax.
50% haircut on defined benefit public sector pensions for amounts over £40k (so a £60k DB pension becomes £50k).
Freeze thresholds for a further 3 years.
Cut at least 500k public sector jobs within two years, ban use of agency staff and severely limit the use of consultants and contractors. Use half of those savings to offer competitive salaries for technical roles.
I think that would probably make a £100bn worth of closing the deficit, the resulting fall in bond yields and inflation would probably add another £20bn saving per year on the interest bill.
And means test the NHS for the wealthy
Define wealthy.
Otherwise people like me will either die because they can't afford treatment (and I am already at high risk of early death because of the NHS's failures to spot stages 1, 2 or 3 of my cancer) - and I can't - or be bankrupted and made homeless.
As for the state pension, it gets taxed if the pensioner has other income.
One of the reasons for the deficit is the amount spent on furlough during Covid - money largely spent on those in jobs and to keep them in jobs. It was about £140 billion. They too should contribute.
- 1p on income tax. - Extend VAT to food, books/newspapers & children's clothes. - NI for everyone who works. - Limit or abolish tax relief for those giving to charity and place an upper limit on the tax saved by those contributing to charity whether alive or after death. - Limit tax relief for pension contributions to the basic rate. - Extend VAT on education to all education providers, including universities. - Freeze thresholds. - Place a limit on public sector pay increases (the amount shovelled at train drivers by Reeves never gets mentioned here but it was a stupid move). - Abolish the WFA and other pension-specific benefits. Aim for the state pension to be the same as the tax free income as and when we can afford it. - Abolish the triple lock. - Those with assets should contribute something towards social care. - Introduce council tax bands for higher value houses. - Increase or widen the charges for council services beyond the basic. - Ensure that overseas visitors pay for the NHS. Other countries manage this. So can we. - Limit tax relief for private equity companies loading companies up with debt, taking dividends and asset stripping. (Thames Water and other companies in a similar position should be allowed to go bust and then nationalised for a £. Too often asset stripping has been presented as overseas investment. It is a gigantic con.)
And so on.
There is a nasty streak among some of the commentary on here. Everyone seems to want others to pay taxes and those who work on here seem to think that they should be exempt from any measures to help pay down the deficit, thinking it must all be done by the poor and the old. It also gives the impression that some welcome AD because they will be able to pressure the old and sick into killing themselves to save money or withhold treatment so that they suffer. It is disgustingly frankly. I am surprised to see @Big_G_NorthWales among their number
Can I just say that wealthy to me include celebrities and multi millionaires who can contribute to the NHS
As far as your list is concerned I agree with each and every one and it needs a government to accept we cannot continue borrowing, spending and taxing and think the unthinkable
I want the NHS available to all but those with the broadest shoulders should contribute as indeed should the pension be reviewed as to just who should receive this very expensive benefit
They do contribute - as indeed have I - through taxes. In my case for decades. But there is no justification for denying the NHS to people who are seriously or terminally ill. You are advocating for a US style system which will harm the sick. I am one of their number and I think it disgusting that you should wish to deprive me of the NHS when I need it most. You do not define what wealthy means - name a figure and let's see what this actually means.
Indeed, means testing the NHS and barring the wealthy just seems like an odd and very mean spirited thing to do. From a practical sense I doubt it would save very much money given that the "wealthy" that BigG mentions are likely to have private health insurance and it breaks the idea that all British citizens/residents get treated equally by the health service, rich and poor alike get the same (sometimes not very good, sometimes excellent) treatment.
The comment about those with the broadest shoulders contributing is also very off colour for BigG, I think he's been watching too much Jez on Tiktok or something. At my peak earnings a few years ago my net rate of tax was 43% and I paid well into six figures per year in tax, to suggest that the "wealthy" don't already make a huge contribution is factually incorrect. Indeed it is this anti-wealth attitude among those who call themselves conservative that resulted in the previous government just ceding the subject of wealth creation to the left.
No one ever suggests giving a tax rebate/benefit to anyone who has private health insurance which helps take the pressure off our sainted NHS.
Generally the choke point is the same pool of consultants and specialists that you have to see, before (and often during) getting private treatment that also give a proportion of their time to the NHS, with the private patients essentially paying to jump the queue. If there was incentive for a significant batch of people to switch to private, either private waiting times would increase dramatically, or consultants would do more private work and less NHS, making the NHS position worse.
The governments approach of using the over capacity in the private sector to deal with the NHS backlog is the more sensible one. Continuing what the Tories were doing before.
The absurd rationing of testing continues.
I know more and more people who pay private facilities to get MRIs etc. XRays seem to be easier in the NHS system.
Early detection of problems is cheaper.
Indeed, my dad just had this issue (hence my suggestion in the previous comment). He has had a knee problem for about 15 years, it's suddenly got a lot worse so he went to see the doctor. Long story short, after about 6 months of hearing nothing back from the NHS on getting a scan he went private and got a scan done - they said his right knee is basically completely deteriorated and he needs surgery.
He wanted to make sure that this was necessary so he arranged finally got an appointment with the NHS specialist a few months down the road who looked at the scan and said words to the effect of "we wouldn't recommend surgery at this stage because the degradation doesn't meet our requirements for it, basically you can still walk around for up to a mile or so before it starts really hurting". He then asked if he could go private would that advice change and the specialist said "yes, get this done ASAP because it will seriously improve your life quality and in 10 years when this gets to the point where the NHS will consider it degraded enough to operate you may not be eligible due to age and poor likelihood of recovery". It's a completely mental situation. They're knowingly saying no/delaying huge life improving surgery to people knowing that 10 years down the road it will cause huge issues for these people, well at least for those people who can't afford to go private.
This is the kind of stuff that I really think is low hanging fruit for the NHS, cheap preventative care today reduces our future liability by huge amounts and that's where I would be looking for gains. They may not show immediately but in 2-3 years there would be a noticeable drop in resource demand.
Our youngest had an ingrown toenail a couple of years ago. After going through the initial stages of treatment with our NHS GP (which consisted understandably of “give it a couple of weeks to see if it sorts itself out”) the GP referred him to get it looked at by a specialist. By the time the letter from the specialist dept had arrived to tell us we had been booked for an initial appointment another four months later we had already given up on the NHS & taken him to a private specialist who had diagnosed it as needing surgery & carried that surgery out that week - removing an impressively large chunk of toenail that had grown off sideways into the depths of his big toe in the process!
The specialist said the likely time from initial diagnostic appointment to actual surgery on the NHS was between 9-12 months in his experience.
The NHS is just broken for ordinary people it seems. If you fit into one of the “pathways” (cancer, stroke, heart disease) then you get treated in a timely fashion (most of the time), but those are mostly the diseases of old people. For the young, the NHS is a failure that pretends to treat them & then keeps them dangling with the hope of treatment that might manifest itself sometime, maybe.
We need to get back to the idea that the NHS sees getting working age people back into work as quickly as reasonably possible a priority.
I know of people waiting over two years to get access to CAMHS in Edinburgh.
Two years is quick, for most.
The rape case I did last week involved a young woman whose legal guardian claimed had a mental age of 6. She was in residential care but had freedom of movement. She was raped and enormously distressed. Medical evidence said, remarkably, that she understood enough about sex to consent or withhold her consent.
Her guardian contacted Social work the night it happened who did ...nothing. When the guardian got back from her holiday she took her to the police but it was too late to get medical support for the claim. The man was convicted by the evidence of the distress and what was said to the guardian hours after the assault. It was close, a majority verdict.
The lack of care of such an obviously vulnerable young woman frankly made me incandescent. So many jobsworths are paid to look after people and just don't give a damn. This case involved an indigenous Scot but it demonstrated all so clearly how the victims we are not supposed to talk about get taken advantage of.
We are spending a fortune on these services. We are not getting results.
That's absolutely shocking and glad the jury came back with the correct decision, even by majority verdict. These are the kinds of cases why people like me suggest that burning it all down and starting again can't be worse than what we have now. People are being failed by the state at an alarming rate, whether that's cases like these which are absolutely awful, the NHS in lots of areas, the police are failing the public at large on crime, the judiciary are failing the public in deportations, politicians are failing us on all fronts.
The UK is getting closer and closer to becoming a failed state so maybe some tough medicine is what the state needs, not more of the same.
What does "burning it all down" mean for those in care ?
I don't know, but how could it be worse than today, knowing everything we know about what has already happened.
Some Cyclefrees in the system would help.
Trying to reconstruct it from scratch might just replicate the problems we have now - and what happens to the children while that is being done ?
Again, knowing everything we know about the current failures in the system. Everything that happened in the 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s and even today in the case mentioned by David it's got to be worth a try.
As with everything we do in this country more needs to be done with preventative measures. Why does the UK have such a large proportion of it's child population in care, why are there so many delinquent parents and what can be done to ensure that children's residential care homes aren't staffed by abusers or those who simply look aside when the abuse takes place. I don't think those are easy questions to answer, of course, but it doesn't feel as though anyone in power is trying to find them. Instead it's cover ups and protecting the system at the expense of the kids, every single time. How many times have we seen horrific cases where social workers handed kids back to clearly unfit parents who then beat and murdered the kids? How many institutional failures have we seen with sexual abuse and rape within residential services for children? How many scandals do we need to read about in the news where whistleblowers were not only ignored but threatened by management for raising serious failings within protective services?
I don't know the answer to the question, but I do know that the current system isn't it. Surely admitting there's a problem is the first step to actually solving it. Simply continuing as if nothing is wrong will just allow the rot to depeen (not that I think it's possible).
I haven't being arguing for doing nothing.
The system definitely needs a Cyclefree style approach to listening to whistleblowers / making it possible for them to come forward.
It desperately needs more foster parents - the lack of which leaves the care system as the only option.
The problem is delinquent families is more complicated.
I don't have any grand plan - and neither does anyone else.
I don't think "delinquent families" is the best term, and how do we punish these? By putting their children in care? 🤔
The problem is obviously complex, but we did have a system that was designed to support these families and improve outcomes, the Sure Start programme, and there was considerable evidence for its success. The programme was gutted financially after 2010, with over 1000 Sure Start centres closing, and we are now living with the consequences of that short termism.
In the end I think Leon is right, the mood music in the country has turned decisively against immigration and asylum seekers, it is only going to get more negative towards it as Labour are unable to deport the illegal immigrants or stop the boats so of Reform don't have the stomach then the public will inevitably vote in a party that does or the Tories will step in and become that party.
The prevailing view when the modern experiment in mass migration began was that people might be a bit angry in the short term, but they'll get over it and we'll all be better off in the long run, so any opposition should just be ignored or managed. It's proving to have been a terrible mistake.
I think if immigration had been limited to people with earnings over the higher rate threshold then this might have been the case. As it is with millions of people arriving on unskilled, student and dependent visas who contribute far, far less than they receive in state services it has been an unmitigated disaster since about 2005. Wrt illegal immigration the current or next government will need to get a Rwanda style agreement up and running, clear any and all legal hurdles with primary legislation, abrogating treaties and agreements if necessary and just putting people on planes and deporting them to somewhere not the UK or giving them a chance to self deport if they don't want to do that (see the illegal immigrants in the US self deporting rather than risk ending up in El Salvador).
Make clear that there is no chance of staying in the UK under any circumstances so it's go home on a commercial flight or go to Rwanda, if they've burned their passports etc... then it's go to Rwanda by default unless they can arrange for a new passport to be issued by their home country.
There is an argument that high-skilled migration crowds out the current population from the best paying jobs. Instead of having a half-decent education system or allowing people to progress from the bottom rung to the top, just get some foreign graduate in to do the job instead.
Both my grandfathers did not have degrees yet ended up in relatively senior positions in international firms. One literally started washing windows aged 16, the other on the factory floor. Both were trained up by their firms, sent abroad to get some experience, had their childcare and sometimes housing paid for etc etc. That must be pretty rare nowadays.
Wages are far too crude a measure anyway. I like the idea of a visa that allows people to install solar panels for four years. That won't be particularly well-paid, but it will mean we get over the hump of the Green transition more quickly and cheaply than otherwise. Then we can have a smaller workforce of technicians who replace them when need or fix any problems for the next 30+ years.
Which is why you'd set a much higher bar than graduate salaries. I'd have put the £38.9k up to £55k nationally and £75k for jobs in London already to ensure that companies still have an interest in upskilling and training for juniors rather than just hiring someone from overseas.
I'm not opposed to temporary single time or seasonal work visas for specific projects, however they shouldn't be allowed to import labour for the whole thing even if it makes the project or company unviable. Fundamentally what's the point in having an industry or company if it's low margin, employs and entirely foreign workforce of temporary visa holders and creates little wealth beyond that of the owners/shareholders who are likely to also be foreign.
Wages are market pricing of value, it's the fairest way to measure who should or shouldn't come to the UK. There may be some outliers in some industries but I doubt it's worth it.
It's time to outline £100bn in spending cuts and tax rises, split 75% towards spending cuts with the majority coming from welfare and entitlements. If the government doesn't do this and continues to borrow like a drunken sailor we're heading for a bond vigilante strike and another bout of QE which will push inflation up and destroy people's disposable incomes.
The only way out is to cut welfare spending and get people back into work. We can't afford to pay the lazy to sit at home doing nothing on benefits.
'Benefits' according to the OBR are £150bn on Pensioners; £88bn on UC; and £74bn on other benefits. Where would you axe to get the £100bn?
Should we get pensioners back into work?
£20bn each out of UC and "other" benefits.
Cut the triple lock entirely.
£20bn out of the state pension by tapering above £40k, spend half of the saving on increasing the state pension for those who don't have any or significant private income in retirement.
NI payable on all income types/merge NI and income tax.
50% haircut on defined benefit public sector pensions for amounts over £40k (so a £60k DB pension becomes £50k).
Freeze thresholds for a further 3 years.
Cut at least 500k public sector jobs within two years, ban use of agency staff and severely limit the use of consultants and contractors. Use half of those savings to offer competitive salaries for technical roles.
I think that would probably make a £100bn worth of closing the deficit, the resulting fall in bond yields and inflation would probably add another £20bn saving per year on the interest bill.
And means test the NHS for the wealthy
Define wealthy.
Otherwise people like me will either die because they can't afford treatment (and I am already at high risk of early death because of the NHS's failures to spot stages 1, 2 or 3 of my cancer) - and I can't - or be bankrupted and made homeless.
As for the state pension, it gets taxed if the pensioner has other income.
One of the reasons for the deficit is the amount spent on furlough during Covid - money largely spent on those in jobs and to keep them in jobs. It was about £140 billion. They too should contribute.
- 1p on income tax. - Extend VAT to food, books/newspapers & children's clothes. - NI for everyone who works. - Limit or abolish tax relief for those giving to charity and place an upper limit on the tax saved by those contributing to charity whether alive or after death. - Limit tax relief for pension contributions to the basic rate. - Extend VAT on education to all education providers, including universities. - Freeze thresholds. - Place a limit on public sector pay increases (the amount shovelled at train drivers by Reeves never gets mentioned here but it was a stupid move). - Abolish the WFA and other pension-specific benefits. Aim for the state pension to be the same as the tax free income as and when we can afford it. - Abolish the triple lock. - Those with assets should contribute something towards social care. - Introduce council tax bands for higher value houses. - Increase or widen the charges for council services beyond the basic. - Ensure that overseas visitors pay for the NHS. Other countries manage this. So can we. - Limit tax relief for private equity companies loading companies up with debt, taking dividends and asset stripping. (Thames Water and other companies in a similar position should be allowed to go bust and then nationalised for a £. Too often asset stripping has been presented as overseas investment. It is a gigantic con.)
And so on.
There is a nasty streak among some of the commentary on here. Everyone seems to want others to pay taxes and those who work on here seem to think that they should be exempt from any measures to help pay down the deficit, thinking it must all be done by the poor and the old. It also gives the impression that some welcome AD because they will be able to pressure the old and sick into killing themselves to save money or withhold treatment so that they suffer. It is disgustingly frankly. I am surprised to see @Big_G_NorthWales among their number
Can I just say that wealthy to me include celebrities and multi millionaires who can contribute to the NHS
As far as your list is concerned I agree with each and every one and it needs a government to accept we cannot continue borrowing, spending and taxing and think the unthinkable
I want the NHS available to all but those with the broadest shoulders should contribute as indeed should the pension be reviewed as to just who should receive this very expensive benefit
They do contribute - as indeed have I - through taxes. In my case for decades. But there is no justification for denying the NHS to people who are seriously or terminally ill. You are advocating for a US style system which will harm the sick. I am one of their number and I think it disgusting that you should wish to deprive me of the NHS when I need it most. You do not define what wealthy means - name a figure and let's see what this actually means.
Indeed, means testing the NHS and barring the wealthy just seems like an odd and very mean spirited thing to do. From a practical sense I doubt it would save very much money given that the "wealthy" that BigG mentions are likely to have private health insurance and it breaks the idea that all British citizens/residents get treated equally by the health service, rich and poor alike get the same (sometimes not very good, sometimes excellent) treatment.
The comment about those with the broadest shoulders contributing is also very off colour for BigG, I think he's been watching too much Jez on Tiktok or something. At my peak earnings a few years ago my net rate of tax was 43% and I paid well into six figures per year in tax, to suggest that the "wealthy" don't already make a huge contribution is factually incorrect. Indeed it is this anti-wealth attitude among those who call themselves conservative that resulted in the previous government just ceding the subject of wealth creation to the left.
No one ever suggests giving a tax rebate/benefit to anyone who has private health insurance which helps take the pressure off our sainted NHS.
Generally the choke point is the same pool of consultants and specialists that you have to see, before (and often during) getting private treatment that also give a proportion of their time to the NHS, with the private patients essentially paying to jump the queue. If there was incentive for a significant batch of people to switch to private, either private waiting times would increase dramatically, or consultants would do more private work and less NHS, making the NHS position worse.
The governments approach of using the over capacity in the private sector to deal with the NHS backlog is the more sensible one. Continuing what the Tories were doing before.
The absurd rationing of testing continues.
I know more and more people who pay private facilities to get MRIs etc. XRays seem to be easier in the NHS system.
Early detection of problems is cheaper.
Indeed, my dad just had this issue (hence my suggestion in the previous comment). He has had a knee problem for about 15 years, it's suddenly got a lot worse so he went to see the doctor. Long story short, after about 6 months of hearing nothing back from the NHS on getting a scan he went private and got a scan done - they said his right knee is basically completely deteriorated and he needs surgery.
He wanted to make sure that this was necessary so he arranged finally got an appointment with the NHS specialist a few months down the road who looked at the scan and said words to the effect of "we wouldn't recommend surgery at this stage because the degradation doesn't meet our requirements for it, basically you can still walk around for up to a mile or so before it starts really hurting". He then asked if he could go private would that advice change and the specialist said "yes, get this done ASAP because it will seriously improve your life quality and in 10 years when this gets to the point where the NHS will consider it degraded enough to operate you may not be eligible due to age and poor likelihood of recovery". It's a completely mental situation. They're knowingly saying no/delaying huge life improving surgery to people knowing that 10 years down the road it will cause huge issues for these people, well at least for those people who can't afford to go private.
This is the kind of stuff that I really think is low hanging fruit for the NHS, cheap preventative care today reduces our future liability by huge amounts and that's where I would be looking for gains. They may not show immediately but in 2-3 years there would be a noticeable drop in resource demand.
Our youngest had an ingrown toenail a couple of years ago. After going through the initial stages of treatment with our NHS GP (which consisted understandably of “give it a couple of weeks to see if it sorts itself out”) the GP referred him to get it looked at by a specialist. By the time the letter from the specialist dept had arrived to tell us we had been booked for an initial appointment another four months later we had already given up on the NHS & taken him to a private specialist who had diagnosed it as needing surgery & carried that surgery out that week - removing an impressively large chunk of toenail that had grown off sideways into the depths of his big toe in the process!
The specialist said the likely time from initial diagnostic appointment to actual surgery on the NHS was between 9-12 months in his experience.
The NHS is just broken for ordinary people it seems. If you fit into one of the “pathways” (cancer, stroke, heart disease) then you get treated in a timely fashion (most of the time), but those are mostly the diseases of old people. For the young, the NHS is a failure that pretends to treat them & then keeps them dangling with the hope of treatment that might manifest itself sometime, maybe.
We need to get back to the idea that the NHS sees getting working age people back into work as quickly as reasonably possible a priority.
I know of people waiting over two years to get access to CAMHS in Edinburgh.
Two years is quick, for most.
The rape case I did last week involved a young woman whose legal guardian claimed had a mental age of 6. She was in residential care but had freedom of movement. She was raped and enormously distressed. Medical evidence said, remarkably, that she understood enough about sex to consent or withhold her consent.
Her guardian contacted Social work the night it happened who did ...nothing. When the guardian got back from her holiday she took her to the police but it was too late to get medical support for the claim. The man was convicted by the evidence of the distress and what was said to the guardian hours after the assault. It was close, a majority verdict.
The lack of care of such an obviously vulnerable young woman frankly made me incandescent. So many jobsworths are paid to look after people and just don't give a damn. This case involved an indigenous Scot but it demonstrated all so clearly how the victims we are not supposed to talk about get taken advantage of.
We are spending a fortune on these services. We are not getting results.
That's absolutely shocking and glad the jury came back with the correct decision, even by majority verdict. These are the kinds of cases why people like me suggest that burning it all down and starting again can't be worse than what we have now. People are being failed by the state at an alarming rate, whether that's cases like these which are absolutely awful, the NHS in lots of areas, the police are failing the public at large on crime, the judiciary are failing the public in deportations, politicians are failing us on all fronts.
The UK is getting closer and closer to becoming a failed state so maybe some tough medicine is what the state needs, not more of the same.
What does "burning it all down" mean for those in care ?
I don't know, but how could it be worse than today, knowing everything we know about what has already happened.
Some Cyclefrees in the system would help.
Trying to reconstruct it from scratch might just replicate the problems we have now - and what happens to the children while that is being done ?
Again, knowing everything we know about the current failures in the system. Everything that happened in the 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s and even today in the case mentioned by David it's got to be worth a try.
As with everything we do in this country more needs to be done with preventative measures. Why does the UK have such a large proportion of it's child population in care, why are there so many delinquent parents and what can be done to ensure that children's residential care homes aren't staffed by abusers or those who simply look aside when the abuse takes place. I don't think those are easy questions to answer, of course, but it doesn't feel as though anyone in power is trying to find them. Instead it's cover ups and protecting the system at the expense of the kids, every single time. How many times have we seen horrific cases where social workers handed kids back to clearly unfit parents who then beat and murdered the kids? How many institutional failures have we seen with sexual abuse and rape within residential services for children? How many scandals do we need to read about in the news where whistleblowers were not only ignored but threatened by management for raising serious failings within protective services?
I don't know the answer to the question, but I do know that the current system isn't it. Surely admitting there's a problem is the first step to actually solving it. Simply continuing as if nothing is wrong will just allow the rot to depeen (not that I think it's possible).
I haven't being arguing for doing nothing.
The system definitely needs a Cyclefree style approach to listening to whistleblowers / making it possible for them to come forward.
It desperately needs more foster parents - the lack of which leaves the care system as the only option.
The problem is delinquent families is more complicated.
I don't have any grand plan - and neither does anyone else.
I don't think "delinquent families" is the best term, and how do we punish these? By putting their children in care? 🤔
The problem is obviously complex, but we did have a system that was designed to support these families and improve outcomes, the Sure Start programme, and there was considerable evidence for its success. The programme was gutted financially after 2010, with over 1000 Sure Start centres closing, and we are now living with the consequences of that short termism.
And in "doing the right thing, however pastel the shades are" news,
Family hubs offering parenting support and youth services will be rolled out across every local authority in England, the government has announced.
The £500 million plan aims to support 500,000 more children in the most disadvantaged areas.
In other news I have accepted a new job for a British startup at C-Level, I start in September and I'm very excited at the prospect. There are only ~30 people at the company, I'll be the second person in at exec level. I've obviously taken a pretty drastic pay cut to do this from my finance and fintech days but for the first time in ages I'm really looking forwards to going back to work.
I think it will be about 11 months off in total spent with the family, which is the best year I've had since the year my then girlfriend (now wife) and I went travelling together for six months and got married a few months after we got back. If you can afford to take the time off, I'd highly recommend doing a year(ish) long career break and just spending the time with family and not worrying about work stuff. I'm obviously very lucky that I have earned well in my previous roles and that my wife also has a high income so I do recognise that not everyone would be able to do it.
Congratulations. What does "C-level" mean?
Chief level.
Chief Executive, Chief Operating Officer, Chief Financial Officer etc.
Anyhoo, the best people have General in their title, such as General Counsel.
Ahem. The bestest best people have "statistician" in their title. We outrank everybody
A statistician is a man who uses statistics like a drunk uses a lamppost: for support not illumination
Wasn't there research that said the most pro-Trump demographic was people who identified as regular churchgoers who rarely went to church?
If the polling Leon has found identifies a growth of such identity, or Potemkin, Christians in Britain, then it could be very politically significant.
That's certainly one way to square the circle, though an alarming one if it is what's going on. We don't have the same televangelist culture in the UK as in the US, and that's a very good thing. The massive downside of broadcast religion is that it tends to sidestep the difficult "who, exactly, is my neighbour, and who isn't?" question.
And that leads fairly smoothly to the consequences we are currently seeing Stateside.
(Much more likely is that using polling to identify small percentages is blooming difficult. And that calculating a change by subtracting one blurry number from another is a mug's game.)
If it is at least part of what's going on then it will be because English-language social media is dominated by Americans.
People adopting Christianity as a badge of political identity, without being regular attendees, is quite believable.
Quite a lot of people say they are Christian but would never bother to attend church - except for weddings and maybe baptism.
And about 100% of people who go to church would never dream of selling all their possessions and giving the money to the poor.
Roman Catholic priests and nuns effectively do exactly that, give up their worldly goods and take a lifetime vow of poverty. Only getting housing from the church and pocket money for food and basic necessities from their congregation
I don't know about Catholic Priests elsewhere, but that's not how it works in Ireland. It's certainly not pocket money that is paying for holidays in Spain and the like. The collections from the congregation for the Priest at Easter are taken very seriously.
'In the Southwark diocese, where Kurt is based, priests are paid through stipends - donations from parishioners in exchange for holding a service or saying a prayer - and the collections at Christmas and Easter. They are given accommodation in their parish.
In a big, wealthy parish, a priest could earn around £10,000 a year, but in a small parish this could be as little as £1,500. This could be topped up by Catholic charities to £4,000.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11202429
It's time to outline £100bn in spending cuts and tax rises, split 75% towards spending cuts with the majority coming from welfare and entitlements. If the government doesn't do this and continues to borrow like a drunken sailor we're heading for a bond vigilante strike and another bout of QE which will push inflation up and destroy people's disposable incomes.
The only way out is to cut welfare spending and get people back into work. We can't afford to pay the lazy to sit at home doing nothing on benefits.
'Benefits' according to the OBR are £150bn on Pensioners; £88bn on UC; and £74bn on other benefits. Where would you axe to get the £100bn?
Should we get pensioners back into work?
£20bn each out of UC and "other" benefits.
Cut the triple lock entirely.
£20bn out of the state pension by tapering above £40k, spend half of the saving on increasing the state pension for those who don't have any or significant private income in retirement.
NI payable on all income types/merge NI and income tax.
50% haircut on defined benefit public sector pensions for amounts over £40k (so a £60k DB pension becomes £50k).
Freeze thresholds for a further 3 years.
Cut at least 500k public sector jobs within two years, ban use of agency staff and severely limit the use of consultants and contractors. Use half of those savings to offer competitive salaries for technical roles.
I think that would probably make a £100bn worth of closing the deficit, the resulting fall in bond yields and inflation would probably add another £20bn saving per year on the interest bill.
And means test the NHS for the wealthy
Define wealthy.
Otherwise people like me will either die because they can't afford treatment (and I am already at high risk of early death because of the NHS's failures to spot stages 1, 2 or 3 of my cancer) - and I can't - or be bankrupted and made homeless.
As for the state pension, it gets taxed if the pensioner has other income.
One of the reasons for the deficit is the amount spent on furlough during Covid - money largely spent on those in jobs and to keep them in jobs. It was about £140 billion. They too should contribute.
- 1p on income tax. - Extend VAT to food, books/newspapers & children's clothes. - NI for everyone who works. - Limit or abolish tax relief for those giving to charity and place an upper limit on the tax saved by those contributing to charity whether alive or after death. - Limit tax relief for pension contributions to the basic rate. - Extend VAT on education to all education providers, including universities. - Freeze thresholds. - Place a limit on public sector pay increases (the amount shovelled at train drivers by Reeves never gets mentioned here but it was a stupid move). - Abolish the WFA and other pension-specific benefits. Aim for the state pension to be the same as the tax free income as and when we can afford it. - Abolish the triple lock. - Those with assets should contribute something towards social care. - Introduce council tax bands for higher value houses. - Increase or widen the charges for council services beyond the basic. - Ensure that overseas visitors pay for the NHS. Other countries manage this. So can we. - Limit tax relief for private equity companies loading companies up with debt, taking dividends and asset stripping. (Thames Water and other companies in a similar position should be allowed to go bust and then nationalised for a £. Too often asset stripping has been presented as overseas investment. It is a gigantic con.)
And so on.
There is a nasty streak among some of the commentary on here. Everyone seems to want others to pay taxes and those who work on here seem to think that they should be exempt from any measures to help pay down the deficit, thinking it must all be done by the poor and the old. It also gives the impression that some welcome AD because they will be able to pressure the old and sick into killing themselves to save money or withhold treatment so that they suffer. It is disgustingly frankly. I am surprised to see @Big_G_NorthWales among their number
Can I just say that wealthy to me include celebrities and multi millionaires who can contribute to the NHS
As far as your list is concerned I agree with each and every one and it needs a government to accept we cannot continue borrowing, spending and taxing and think the unthinkable
I want the NHS available to all but those with the broadest shoulders should contribute as indeed should the pension be reviewed as to just who should receive this very expensive benefit
They do contribute - as indeed have I - through taxes. In my case for decades. But there is no justification for denying the NHS to people who are seriously or terminally ill. You are advocating for a US style system which will harm the sick. I am one of their number and I think it disgusting that you should wish to deprive me of the NHS when I need it most. You do not define what wealthy means - name a figure and let's see what this actually means.
Indeed, means testing the NHS and barring the wealthy just seems like an odd and very mean spirited thing to do. From a practical sense I doubt it would save very much money given that the "wealthy" that BigG mentions are likely to have private health insurance and it breaks the idea that all British citizens/residents get treated equally by the health service, rich and poor alike get the same (sometimes not very good, sometimes excellent) treatment.
The comment about those with the broadest shoulders contributing is also very off colour for BigG, I think he's been watching too much Jez on Tiktok or something. At my peak earnings a few years ago my net rate of tax was 43% and I paid well into six figures per year in tax, to suggest that the "wealthy" don't already make a huge contribution is factually incorrect. Indeed it is this anti-wealth attitude among those who call themselves conservative that resulted in the previous government just ceding the subject of wealth creation to the left.
No one ever suggests giving a tax rebate/benefit to anyone who has private health insurance which helps take the pressure off our sainted NHS.
Generally the choke point is the same pool of consultants and specialists that you have to see, before (and often during) getting private treatment that also give a proportion of their time to the NHS, with the private patients essentially paying to jump the queue. If there was incentive for a significant batch of people to switch to private, either private waiting times would increase dramatically, or consultants would do more private work and less NHS, making the NHS position worse.
The governments approach of using the over capacity in the private sector to deal with the NHS backlog is the more sensible one. Continuing what the Tories were doing before.
The absurd rationing of testing continues.
I know more and more people who pay private facilities to get MRIs etc. XRays seem to be easier in the NHS system.
Early detection of problems is cheaper.
Indeed, my dad just had this issue (hence my suggestion in the previous comment). He has had a knee problem for about 15 years, it's suddenly got a lot worse so he went to see the doctor. Long story short, after about 6 months of hearing nothing back from the NHS on getting a scan he went private and got a scan done - they said his right knee is basically completely deteriorated and he needs surgery.
He wanted to make sure that this was necessary so he arranged finally got an appointment with the NHS specialist a few months down the road who looked at the scan and said words to the effect of "we wouldn't recommend surgery at this stage because the degradation doesn't meet our requirements for it, basically you can still walk around for up to a mile or so before it starts really hurting". He then asked if he could go private would that advice change and the specialist said "yes, get this done ASAP because it will seriously improve your life quality and in 10 years when this gets to the point where the NHS will consider it degraded enough to operate you may not be eligible due to age and poor likelihood of recovery". It's a completely mental situation. They're knowingly saying no/delaying huge life improving surgery to people knowing that 10 years down the road it will cause huge issues for these people, well at least for those people who can't afford to go private.
This is the kind of stuff that I really think is low hanging fruit for the NHS, cheap preventative care today reduces our future liability by huge amounts and that's where I would be looking for gains. They may not show immediately but in 2-3 years there would be a noticeable drop in resource demand.
Our youngest had an ingrown toenail a couple of years ago. After going through the initial stages of treatment with our NHS GP (which consisted understandably of “give it a couple of weeks to see if it sorts itself out”) the GP referred him to get it looked at by a specialist. By the time the letter from the specialist dept had arrived to tell us we had been booked for an initial appointment another four months later we had already given up on the NHS & taken him to a private specialist who had diagnosed it as needing surgery & carried that surgery out that week - removing an impressively large chunk of toenail that had grown off sideways into the depths of his big toe in the process!
The specialist said the likely time from initial diagnostic appointment to actual surgery on the NHS was between 9-12 months in his experience.
The NHS is just broken for ordinary people it seems. If you fit into one of the “pathways” (cancer, stroke, heart disease) then you get treated in a timely fashion (most of the time), but those are mostly the diseases of old people. For the young, the NHS is a failure that pretends to treat them & then keeps them dangling with the hope of treatment that might manifest itself sometime, maybe.
We need to get back to the idea that the NHS sees getting working age people back into work as quickly as reasonably possible a priority.
I know of people waiting over two years to get access to CAMHS in Edinburgh.
Two years is quick, for most.
The rape case I did last week involved a young woman whose legal guardian claimed had a mental age of 6. She was in residential care but had freedom of movement. She was raped and enormously distressed. Medical evidence said, remarkably, that she understood enough about sex to consent or withhold her consent.
Her guardian contacted Social work the night it happened who did ...nothing. When the guardian got back from her holiday she took her to the police but it was too late to get medical support for the claim. The man was convicted by the evidence of the distress and what was said to the guardian hours after the assault. It was close, a majority verdict.
The lack of care of such an obviously vulnerable young woman frankly made me incandescent. So many jobsworths are paid to look after people and just don't give a damn. This case involved an indigenous Scot but it demonstrated all so clearly how the victims we are not supposed to talk about get taken advantage of.
We are spending a fortune on these services. We are not getting results.
That's absolutely shocking and glad the jury came back with the correct decision, even by majority verdict. These are the kinds of cases why people like me suggest that burning it all down and starting again can't be worse than what we have now. People are being failed by the state at an alarming rate, whether that's cases like these which are absolutely awful, the NHS in lots of areas, the police are failing the public at large on crime, the judiciary are failing the public in deportations, politicians are failing us on all fronts.
The UK is getting closer and closer to becoming a failed state so maybe some tough medicine is what the state needs, not more of the same.
What does "burning it all down" mean for those in care ?
I don't know, but how could it be worse than today, knowing everything we know about what has already happened.
Some Cyclefrees in the system would help.
Trying to reconstruct it from scratch might just replicate the problems we have now - and what happens to the children while that is being done ?
Again, knowing everything we know about the current failures in the system. Everything that happened in the 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s and even today in the case mentioned by David it's got to be worth a try.
As with everything we do in this country more needs to be done with preventative measures. Why does the UK have such a large proportion of it's child population in care, why are there so many delinquent parents and what can be done to ensure that children's residential care homes aren't staffed by abusers or those who simply look aside when the abuse takes place. I don't think those are easy questions to answer, of course, but it doesn't feel as though anyone in power is trying to find them. Instead it's cover ups and protecting the system at the expense of the kids, every single time. How many times have we seen horrific cases where social workers handed kids back to clearly unfit parents who then beat and murdered the kids? How many institutional failures have we seen with sexual abuse and rape within residential services for children? How many scandals do we need to read about in the news where whistleblowers were not only ignored but threatened by management for raising serious failings within protective services?
I don't know the answer to the question, but I do know that the current system isn't it. Surely admitting there's a problem is the first step to actually solving it. Simply continuing as if nothing is wrong will just allow the rot to depeen (not that I think it's possible).
I haven't being arguing for doing nothing.
The system definitely needs a Cyclefree style approach to listening to whistleblowers / making it possible for them to come forward.
It desperately needs more foster parents - the lack of which leaves the care system as the only option.
The problem is delinquent families is more complicated.
I don't have any grand plan - and neither does anyone else.
I don't think "delinquent families" is the best term, and how do we punish these? By putting their children in care? 🤔
The problem is obviously complex, but we did have a system that was designed to support these families and improve outcomes, the Sure Start programme, and there was considerable evidence for its success. The programme was gutted financially after 2010, with over 1000 Sure Start centres closing, and we are now living with the consequences of that short termism.
Max's term, not mine (and apols for minor typos, as I'm using a phone). I agree about Sure Start.
It's time to outline £100bn in spending cuts and tax rises, split 75% towards spending cuts with the majority coming from welfare and entitlements. If the government doesn't do this and continues to borrow like a drunken sailor we're heading for a bond vigilante strike and another bout of QE which will push inflation up and destroy people's disposable incomes.
The only way out is to cut welfare spending and get people back into work. We can't afford to pay the lazy to sit at home doing nothing on benefits.
'Benefits' according to the OBR are £150bn on Pensioners; £88bn on UC; and £74bn on other benefits. Where would you axe to get the £100bn?
Should we get pensioners back into work?
£20bn each out of UC and "other" benefits.
Cut the triple lock entirely.
£20bn out of the state pension by tapering above £40k, spend half of the saving on increasing the state pension for those who don't have any or significant private income in retirement.
NI payable on all income types/merge NI and income tax.
50% haircut on defined benefit public sector pensions for amounts over £40k (so a £60k DB pension becomes £50k).
Freeze thresholds for a further 3 years.
Cut at least 500k public sector jobs within two years, ban use of agency staff and severely limit the use of consultants and contractors. Use half of those savings to offer competitive salaries for technical roles.
I think that would probably make a £100bn worth of closing the deficit, the resulting fall in bond yields and inflation would probably add another £20bn saving per year on the interest bill.
And means test the NHS for the wealthy
Define wealthy.
Otherwise people like me will either die because they can't afford treatment (and I am already at high risk of early death because of the NHS's failures to spot stages 1, 2 or 3 of my cancer) - and I can't - or be bankrupted and made homeless.
As for the state pension, it gets taxed if the pensioner has other income.
One of the reasons for the deficit is the amount spent on furlough during Covid - money largely spent on those in jobs and to keep them in jobs. It was about £140 billion. They too should contribute.
- 1p on income tax. - Extend VAT to food, books/newspapers & children's clothes. - NI for everyone who works. - Limit or abolish tax relief for those giving to charity and place an upper limit on the tax saved by those contributing to charity whether alive or after death. - Limit tax relief for pension contributions to the basic rate. - Extend VAT on education to all education providers, including universities. - Freeze thresholds. - Place a limit on public sector pay increases (the amount shovelled at train drivers by Reeves never gets mentioned here but it was a stupid move). - Abolish the WFA and other pension-specific benefits. Aim for the state pension to be the same as the tax free income as and when we can afford it. - Abolish the triple lock. - Those with assets should contribute something towards social care. - Introduce council tax bands for higher value houses. - Increase or widen the charges for council services beyond the basic. - Ensure that overseas visitors pay for the NHS. Other countries manage this. So can we. - Limit tax relief for private equity companies loading companies up with debt, taking dividends and asset stripping. (Thames Water and other companies in a similar position should be allowed to go bust and then nationalised for a £. Too often asset stripping has been presented as overseas investment. It is a gigantic con.)
And so on.
There is a nasty streak among some of the commentary on here. Everyone seems to want others to pay taxes and those who work on here seem to think that they should be exempt from any measures to help pay down the deficit, thinking it must all be done by the poor and the old. It also gives the impression that some welcome AD because they will be able to pressure the old and sick into killing themselves to save money or withhold treatment so that they suffer. It is disgustingly frankly. I am surprised to see @Big_G_NorthWales among their number
One reason that I am opposed to the assisted dying stuff is that I have met several people in healthcare who were against the continued existence of others, who they deemed "a waste of resources".
I could see them telling a blind person who wanted a ramp to her door - "Have you considered killing yourself". Yes, very easily.
There was an instance of exactly that with a paralympic athlete in Canada.
If I live that long and the AD Bill becomes law, that is exactly what I fear too - that some NHS manager will decide my life is not worth living and will instruct doctors to stop treatment. I will be lied to just as I was lied to by the screening programme.
I have nothing but contempt for those promoting this Bill, including those on here wittering about choice and autonomy. I will face an added worry on top of what I already have to face and will be denied the choice, if I need it, of palliative care by a hospice which promises not to kill me. Plus the trust I ought to be able to have in those providing me with care will be broken if they now decide to suggest suicide to me.
Oh and the recent 10 year plan for the NHS mentioned palliative care once - in 170 pages or however long it was.
I'm glad some days I won't live long because society is becoming nastier and more selfish and lacking in any sense of decency or morality and I see no reason why this will not continue and worsen. There is very little that is hopeful on the horizon.
In other news I have accepted a new job for a British startup at C-Level, I start in September and I'm very excited at the prospect. There are only ~30 people at the company, I'll be the second person in at exec level. I've obviously taken a pretty drastic pay cut to do this from my finance and fintech days but for the first time in ages I'm really looking forwards to going back to work.
I think it will be about 11 months off in total spent with the family, which is the best year I've had since the year my then girlfriend (now wife) and I went travelling together for six months and got married a few months after we got back. If you can afford to take the time off, I'd highly recommend doing a year(ish) long career break and just spending the time with family and not worrying about work stuff. I'm obviously very lucky that I have earned well in my previous roles and that my wife also has a high income so I do recognise that not everyone would be able to do it.
Congratulations. What does "C-level" mean?
Chief level.
Chief Executive, Chief Operating Officer, Chief Financial Officer etc.
Anyhoo, the best people have General in their title, such as General Counsel.
Ahem. The bestest best people have "statistician" in their title. We outrank everybody
A statistician is a man who uses statistics like a drunk uses a lamppost: for support not illumination
In other news I have accepted a new job for a British startup at C-Level, I start in September and I'm very excited at the prospect. There are only ~30 people at the company, I'll be the second person in at exec level. I've obviously taken a pretty drastic pay cut to do this from my finance and fintech days but for the first time in ages I'm really looking forwards to going back to work.
I think it will be about 11 months off in total spent with the family, which is the best year I've had since the year my then girlfriend (now wife) and I went travelling together for six months and got married a few months after we got back. If you can afford to take the time off, I'd highly recommend doing a year(ish) long career break and just spending the time with family and not worrying about work stuff. I'm obviously very lucky that I have earned well in my previous roles and that my wife also has a high income so I do recognise that not everyone would be able to do it.
Congratulations. What does "C-level" mean?
Chief level.
Chief Executive, Chief Operating Officer, Chief Financial Officer etc.
Anyhoo, the best people have General in their title, such as General Counsel.
Ahem. The bestest best people have "statistician" in their title. We outrank everybody
A statistician is a man who uses statistics like a drunk uses a lamppost: for support not illumination
Statistics are like bikinis, what they reveal is fascinating but what they hide is much more interesting.
In the end I think Leon is right, the mood music in the country has turned decisively against immigration and asylum seekers, it is only going to get more negative towards it as Labour are unable to deport the illegal immigrants or stop the boats so of Reform don't have the stomach then the public will inevitably vote in a party that does or the Tories will step in and become that party.
The prevailing view when the modern experiment in mass migration began was that people might be a bit angry in the short term, but they'll get over it and we'll all be better off in the long run, so any opposition should just be ignored or managed. It's proving to have been a terrible mistake.
I think if immigration had been limited to people with earnings over the higher rate threshold then this might have been the case. As it is with millions of people arriving on unskilled, student and dependent visas who contribute far, far less than they receive in state services it has been an unmitigated disaster since about 2005. Wrt illegal immigration the current or next government will need to get a Rwanda style agreement up and running, clear any and all legal hurdles with primary legislation, abrogating treaties and agreements if necessary and just putting people on planes and deporting them to somewhere not the UK or giving them a chance to self deport if they don't want to do that (see the illegal immigrants in the US self deporting rather than risk ending up in El Salvador).
Make clear that there is no chance of staying in the UK under any circumstances so it's go home on a commercial flight or go to Rwanda, if they've burned their passports etc... then it's go to Rwanda by default unless they can arrange for a new passport to be issued by their home country.
There is an argument that high-skilled migration crowds out the current population from the best paying jobs. Instead of having a half-decent education system or allowing people to progress from the bottom rung to the top, just get some foreign graduate in to do the job instead.
Both my grandfathers did not have degrees yet ended up in relatively senior positions in international firms. One literally started washing windows aged 16, the other on the factory floor. Both were trained up by their firms, sent abroad to get some experience, had their childcare and sometimes housing paid for etc etc. That must be pretty rare nowadays.
Wages are far too crude a measure anyway. I like the idea of a visa that allows people to install solar panels for four years. That won't be particularly well-paid, but it will mean we get over the hump of the Green transition more quickly and cheaply than otherwise. Then we can have a smaller workforce of technicians who replace them when need or fix any problems for the next 30+ years.
Which is why you'd set a much higher bar than graduate salaries. I'd have put the £38.9k up to £55k nationally and £75k for jobs in London already to ensure that companies still have an interest in upskilling and training for juniors rather than just hiring someone from overseas.
I'm not opposed to temporary single time or seasonal work visas for specific projects, however they shouldn't be allowed to import labour for the whole thing even if it makes the project or company unviable. Fundamentally what's the point in having an industry or company if it's low margin, employs and entirely foreign workforce of temporary visa holders and creates little wealth beyond that of the owners/shareholders who are likely to also be foreign.
Wages are market pricing of value, it's the fairest way to measure who should or shouldn't come to the UK. There may be some outliers in some industries but I doubt it's worth it.
Sorry Max, but your last paragraph is balls. The market is far too sticky, and the information is so patchy, that the market doesn't get to equilibrium. In the short run, wages have a huge component of how much individuals are willing to haggle and how careless with cash an employer can afford to be (or wants to be- expensive = reassuring and all that). There's also nebulous job satisfaction, which is why individuals are happy to take pay cuts
Some of those factors will settle in the long run, but the long run is a long way away.
It's time to outline £100bn in spending cuts and tax rises, split 75% towards spending cuts with the majority coming from welfare and entitlements. If the government doesn't do this and continues to borrow like a drunken sailor we're heading for a bond vigilante strike and another bout of QE which will push inflation up and destroy people's disposable incomes.
The only way out is to cut welfare spending and get people back into work. We can't afford to pay the lazy to sit at home doing nothing on benefits.
'Benefits' according to the OBR are £150bn on Pensioners; £88bn on UC; and £74bn on other benefits. Where would you axe to get the £100bn?
Should we get pensioners back into work?
£20bn each out of UC and "other" benefits.
Cut the triple lock entirely.
£20bn out of the state pension by tapering above £40k, spend half of the saving on increasing the state pension for those who don't have any or significant private income in retirement.
NI payable on all income types/merge NI and income tax.
50% haircut on defined benefit public sector pensions for amounts over £40k (so a £60k DB pension becomes £50k).
Freeze thresholds for a further 3 years.
Cut at least 500k public sector jobs within two years, ban use of agency staff and severely limit the use of consultants and contractors. Use half of those savings to offer competitive salaries for technical roles.
I think that would probably make a £100bn worth of closing the deficit, the resulting fall in bond yields and inflation would probably add another £20bn saving per year on the interest bill.
And means test the NHS for the wealthy
Define wealthy.
Otherwise people like me will either die because they can't afford treatment (and I am already at high risk of early death because of the NHS's failures to spot stages 1, 2 or 3 of my cancer) - and I can't - or be bankrupted and made homeless.
As for the state pension, it gets taxed if the pensioner has other income.
One of the reasons for the deficit is the amount spent on furlough during Covid - money largely spent on those in jobs and to keep them in jobs. It was about £140 billion. They too should contribute.
- 1p on income tax. - Extend VAT to food, books/newspapers & children's clothes. - NI for everyone who works. - Limit or abolish tax relief for those giving to charity and place an upper limit on the tax saved by those contributing to charity whether alive or after death. - Limit tax relief for pension contributions to the basic rate. - Extend VAT on education to all education providers, including universities. - Freeze thresholds. - Place a limit on public sector pay increases (the amount shovelled at train drivers by Reeves never gets mentioned here but it was a stupid move). - Abolish the WFA and other pension-specific benefits. Aim for the state pension to be the same as the tax free income as and when we can afford it. - Abolish the triple lock. - Those with assets should contribute something towards social care. - Introduce council tax bands for higher value houses. - Increase or widen the charges for council services beyond the basic. - Ensure that overseas visitors pay for the NHS. Other countries manage this. So can we. - Limit tax relief for private equity companies loading companies up with debt, taking dividends and asset stripping. (Thames Water and other companies in a similar position should be allowed to go bust and then nationalised for a £. Too often asset stripping has been presented as overseas investment. It is a gigantic con.)
And so on.
There is a nasty streak among some of the commentary on here. Everyone seems to want others to pay taxes and those who work on here seem to think that they should be exempt from any measures to help pay down the deficit, thinking it must all be done by the poor and the old. It also gives the impression that some welcome AD because they will be able to pressure the old and sick into killing themselves to save money or withhold treatment so that they suffer. It is disgustingly frankly. I am surprised to see @Big_G_NorthWales among their number
One reason that I am opposed to the assisted dying stuff is that I have met several people in healthcare who were against the continued existence of others, who they deemed "a waste of resources".
I could see them telling a blind person who wanted a ramp to her door - "Have you considered killing yourself". Yes, very easily.
There was an instance of exactly that with a paralympic athlete in Canada.
If I live that long and the AD Bill becomes law, that is exactly what I fear too - that some NHS manager will decide my life is not worth living and will instruct doctors to stop treatment. I will be lied to just as I was lied to by the screening programme.
I have nothing but contempt for those promoting this Bill, including those on here wittering about choice and autonomy. I will face an added worry on top of what I already have to face and will be denied the choice, if I need it, of palliative care by a hospice which promises not to kill me. Plus the trust I ought to be able to have in those providing me with care will be broken if they now decide to suggest suicide to me.
Oh and the recent 10 year plan for the NHS mentioned palliative care once - in 170 pages or however long it was.
I'm glad some days I won't live long because society is becoming nastier and more selfish and lacking in any sense of decency or morality and I see no reason why this will not continue and worsen. There is very little that is hopeful on the horizon.
You have my sympathy for your illness, but as far as choice is concerned, that's for many of us a very deeply and sincerely held belief. Just as sincerely held, and just as deep, as your own beliefs.
I believe that anyone who wishes to do so should be free to end their own life, if that is their considered opinion. With safeguards, but anyone at all. That comes from my liberal beliefs that people should be free to determine how they live their life, including the end of it. It is your life, and it should be up to you if you wish to end it or not.
What to be frank you and Malmesbury and others are in denial about is that there have always been some who want to die, and always been some who have sympathy for that, and always been some facilitation of it. However because its illegal, that facilitation is done on a 'nod and a wink' without safeguards and means people who haven't asked for it and don't want it can end up on that.
Honesty and transparency is the best policy. A good AD system should eliminate the 'nod and a wink' culture that far too often sees people put on a 'pathway' to death without their choice, and without their consent.
We should get to choose what we want - nobody else.
In the end I think Leon is right, the mood music in the country has turned decisively against immigration and asylum seekers, it is only going to get more negative towards it as Labour are unable to deport the illegal immigrants or stop the boats so of Reform don't have the stomach then the public will inevitably vote in a party that does or the Tories will step in and become that party.
The prevailing view when the modern experiment in mass migration began was that people might be a bit angry in the short term, but they'll get over it and we'll all be better off in the long run, so any opposition should just be ignored or managed. It's proving to have been a terrible mistake.
I think if immigration had been limited to people with earnings over the higher rate threshold then this might have been the case. As it is with millions of people arriving on unskilled, student and dependent visas who contribute far, far less than they receive in state services it has been an unmitigated disaster since about 2005. Wrt illegal immigration the current or next government will need to get a Rwanda style agreement up and running, clear any and all legal hurdles with primary legislation, abrogating treaties and agreements if necessary and just putting people on planes and deporting them to somewhere not the UK or giving them a chance to self deport if they don't want to do that (see the illegal immigrants in the US self deporting rather than risk ending up in El Salvador).
Make clear that there is no chance of staying in the UK under any circumstances so it's go home on a commercial flight or go to Rwanda, if they've burned their passports etc... then it's go to Rwanda by default unless they can arrange for a new passport to be issued by their home country.
I write this with some regret, but this is where I've ended up. And I'm a centrist dad type in the process of marrying an immigrant. So the policies described above are never gonna happen under labour, and nothing I've seen from Reform leads me to believe they would be competent to deliver, at least while Farage remains at the helm. So is the country in for a brush with the hard right in the next 10 years? It's not especially in my interests, but maybe the best thing for the UK in the round?
Quite funny that a few errors causes a big story, when every year up to now human line judges made plenty of mistakes and no one batted an eyelid… I imagine if driverless cars do get going big time the accidental deaths on the road will probably reduce but will recieve far more scrutiny!
Anyway this week there will be the first part of Sir Wyn Williams Post Office Report - on the impact on SPMs and compensation.
It will (likely) say that the human impact was awful and made worse by the conduct of the PO and others over many years. Compensation is due, is too slow and the government needs to get a move on because the current situation is disgraceful. 350 of the ca. 900 SPMs affected have died without getting compensation and the return of the money fraudulently taken from them.
The government will welcome the report, say how terrible it all is and then continue doing the square root of fuck all.
This is how all governments since at least Aberfan have operated. Potemkin justice.
What I find fascinating is the systemic resistance.
A government with a substantial majority and the support of the opposition parties had to pass a reverse bill of attainder, declaring the SPOs innocent. Because the judicial system wouldn't.
Arbitrary justice. But on the side of innocence.
Doesn't that disturb people?
That's not quite true. The Court of Appeal did overthrow the convictions of some SPMs in 2021. The slowness of the remainder was because of a lack of resources, the PO dragging its feet and the criminal under-funding of the justice system by every government.
I discussed the concerns with what the government did at the time - see here - https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php /archives/2024/01/11/hobsons-choice-the- subpostmaster-issue/.
That’s what I don’t understand: why did the PO drag their feet at this point. Surely push it through quickly “not on my watch” and get the bad headlines out of the way?
Quite funny that a few errors causes a big story, when every year up to now human line judges made plenty of mistakes and no one batted an eyelid… I imagine if driverless cars do get going big time the accidental deaths on the road will probably reduce but will recieve far more scrutiny!
Yeah, it was inevitable mistakes like this would happen when they got rid of line judges.
Quite funny that a few errors causes a big story, when every year up to now human line judges made plenty of mistakes and no one batted an eyelid… I imagine if driverless cars do get going big time the accidental deaths on the road will probably reduce but will recieve far more scrutiny!
Yeah, it was inevitable mistakes like this would happen when they got rid of line judges.
Can the chief umpire not overrule the automatic line call?
In other news I have accepted a new job for a British startup at C-Level, I start in September and I'm very excited at the prospect. There are only ~30 people at the company, I'll be the second person in at exec level. I've obviously taken a pretty drastic pay cut to do this from my finance and fintech days but for the first time in ages I'm really looking forwards to going back to work.
I think it will be about 11 months off in total spent with the family, which is the best year I've had since the year my then girlfriend (now wife) and I went travelling together for six months and got married a few months after we got back. If you can afford to take the time off, I'd highly recommend doing a year(ish) long career break and just spending the time with family and not worrying about work stuff. I'm obviously very lucky that I have earned well in my previous roles and that my wife also has a high income so I do recognise that not everyone would be able to do it.
Congratulations. What does "C-level" mean?
Chief level.
Chief Executive, Chief Operating Officer, Chief Financial Officer etc.
Anyhoo, the best people have General in their title, such as General Counsel.
Ahem. The bestest best people have "statistician" in their title. We outrank everybody
A statistician is a man who uses statistics like a drunk uses a lamppost: for support not illumination
Statistics are like bikinis, what they reveal is fascinating but what they hide is much more interesting.
A good speech should be like a mini skirt: short enough to be interesting but long enough to cover the important bits
In the end I think Leon is right, the mood music in the country has turned decisively against immigration and asylum seekers, it is only going to get more negative towards it as Labour are unable to deport the illegal immigrants or stop the boats so of Reform don't have the stomach then the public will inevitably vote in a party that does or the Tories will step in and become that party.
The prevailing view when the modern experiment in mass migration began was that people might be a bit angry in the short term, but they'll get over it and we'll all be better off in the long run, so any opposition should just be ignored or managed. It's proving to have been a terrible mistake.
I think if immigration had been limited to people with earnings over the higher rate threshold then this might have been the case. As it is with millions of people arriving on unskilled, student and dependent visas who contribute far, far less than they receive in state services it has been an unmitigated disaster since about 2005. Wrt illegal immigration the current or next government will need to get a Rwanda style agreement up and running, clear any and all legal hurdles with primary legislation, abrogating treaties and agreements if necessary and just putting people on planes and deporting them to somewhere not the UK or giving them a chance to self deport if they don't want to do that (see the illegal immigrants in the US self deporting rather than risk ending up in El Salvador).
Make clear that there is no chance of staying in the UK under any circumstances so it's go home on a commercial flight or go to Rwanda, if they've burned their passports etc... then it's go to Rwanda by default unless they can arrange for a new passport to be issued by their home country.
There is an argument that high-skilled migration crowds out the current population from the best paying jobs. Instead of having a half-decent education system or allowing people to progress from the bottom rung to the top, just get some foreign graduate in to do the job instead.
Both my grandfathers did not have degrees yet ended up in relatively senior positions in international firms. One literally started washing windows aged 16, the other on the factory floor. Both were trained up by their firms, sent abroad to get some experience, had their childcare and sometimes housing paid for etc etc. That must be pretty rare nowadays.
Wages are far too crude a measure anyway. I like the idea of a visa that allows people to install solar panels for four years. That won't be particularly well-paid, but it will mean we get over the hump of the Green transition more quickly and cheaply than otherwise. Then we can have a smaller workforce of technicians who replace them when need or fix any problems for the next 30+ years.
Which is why you'd set a much higher bar than graduate salaries. I'd have put the £38.9k up to £55k nationally and £75k for jobs in London already to ensure that companies still have an interest in upskilling and training for juniors rather than just hiring someone from overseas.
I'm not opposed to temporary single time or seasonal work visas for specific projects, however they shouldn't be allowed to import labour for the whole thing even if it makes the project or company unviable. Fundamentally what's the point in having an industry or company if it's low margin, employs and entirely foreign workforce of temporary visa holders and creates little wealth beyond that of the owners/shareholders who are likely to also be foreign.
Wages are market pricing of value, it's the fairest way to measure who should or shouldn't come to the UK. There may be some outliers in some industries but I doubt it's worth it.
As an employer of around 80 mixed skill staff I have a pretty good perspective on the jobs market. There are a large number of young UK graduates who get paid relatively little on an international scale. These graduates are competing with a vast quantity of mostly Indian and African recently arrived graduates on variable quality. We recently hired a recent graduate in Birmingham area. Over 300 applications with 90% of foreign heritage. Ended up hiring Indian recent graduate. Note their salary will be less than 10% above minimum wage. There appear to be large number of UK local graduates who are not really trying to get a job. They apply and don't turn up for interviews or respond to emails.
For non skilled workers recruiting UK workers is becoming very difficult. Many of them have chaotic lives which sooner or later impact on their work. For many the differential between benefits and paid work is marginal. In addition with all the recent changes the pressure on them to perform is huge to justify their wage plus NI plus pension etc. The majority of our unskilled staff are now East European.
The jobs market was in trouble and is now completely broken. Labour ramped up salary costs dramatically, For us this was the equivalent of losing 2 staff members, We have also like many others looked to both increase automation and outsource labour internationally. I recently listened to the head of Reed on LBC who was explaining we are in the worst job recession for his 30 years experience. Private sector has shed 250,000 jobs in the last year, This at a tine where the country is awash with new labour. Maybe 100,000 graduates have gone onto PIP in last year and others on UC. Others are becoming perpetual students. The chance of following your grandfather route is close to zero.
The Government has to stop worrying about supply of labour which is already too much and focus on the creation of good quality jobs in large numbers within the private sector. I see no evidence of this and so the resentment will continue to grow,
"Paul Embery @PaulEmbery · 3h Rod Liddle, in a satirical piece in the Spectator, joked about dropping a nuclear bomb on Glastonbury. The leader of Brighton and Hove city council has reported him to the police. Utterly ludicrous. These people are beyond parody."
In the end I think Leon is right, the mood music in the country has turned decisively against immigration and asylum seekers, it is only going to get more negative towards it as Labour are unable to deport the illegal immigrants or stop the boats so of Reform don't have the stomach then the public will inevitably vote in a party that does or the Tories will step in and become that party.
The prevailing view when the modern experiment in mass migration began was that people might be a bit angry in the short term, but they'll get over it and we'll all be better off in the long run, so any opposition should just be ignored or managed. It's proving to have been a terrible mistake.
I think if immigration had been limited to people with earnings over the higher rate threshold then this might have been the case. As it is with millions of people arriving on unskilled, student and dependent visas who contribute far, far less than they receive in state services it has been an unmitigated disaster since about 2005. Wrt illegal immigration the current or next government will need to get a Rwanda style agreement up and running, clear any and all legal hurdles with primary legislation, abrogating treaties and agreements if necessary and just putting people on planes and deporting them to somewhere not the UK or giving them a chance to self deport if they don't want to do that (see the illegal immigrants in the US self deporting rather than risk ending up in El Salvador).
Make clear that there is no chance of staying in the UK under any circumstances so it's go home on a commercial flight or go to Rwanda, if they've burned their passports etc... then it's go to Rwanda by default unless they can arrange for a new passport to be issued by their home country.
I write this with some regret, but this is where I've ended up. And I'm a centrist dad type in the process of marrying an immigrant. So the policies described above are never gonna happen under labour, and nothing I've seen from Reform leads me to believe they would be competent to deliver, at least while Farage remains at the helm. So is the country in for a brush with the hard right in the next 10 years? It's not especially in my interests, but maybe the best thing for the UK in the round?
Rwanda was never a free for all dumping ground for failed British immigrants. The proposal was to pay them to take a limited amount
Anyway this week there will be the first part of Sir Wyn Williams Post Office Report - on the impact on SPMs and compensation.
It will (likely) say that the human impact was awful and made worse by the conduct of the PO and others over many years. Compensation is due, is too slow and the government needs to get a move on because the current situation is disgraceful. 350 of the ca. 900 SPMs affected have died without getting compensation and the return of the money fraudulently taken from them.
The government will welcome the report, say how terrible it all is and then continue doing the square root of fuck all.
This is how all governments since at least Aberfan have operated. Potemkin justice.
What I find fascinating is the systemic resistance.
A government with a substantial majority and the support of the opposition parties had to pass a reverse bill of attainder, declaring the SPOs innocent. Because the judicial system wouldn't.
Arbitrary justice. But on the side of innocence.
Doesn't that disturb people?
That's not quite true. The Court of Appeal did overthrow the convictions of some SPMs in 2021. The slowness of the remainder was because of a lack of resources, the PO dragging its feet and the criminal under-funding of the justice system by every government.
It does create an interesting precedent. And represented a massive over-ruling of the courts.
I was surprised that the Supreme Court didn't intervene to offer to hear each case for half an hour or something. Why would the Post Office have anything to do with what happened?
It's time to outline £100bn in spending cuts and tax rises, split 75% towards spending cuts with the majority coming from welfare and entitlements. If the government doesn't do this and continues to borrow like a drunken sailor we're heading for a bond vigilante strike and another bout of QE which will push inflation up and destroy people's disposable incomes.
The only way out is to cut welfare spending and get people back into work. We can't afford to pay the lazy to sit at home doing nothing on benefits.
'Benefits' according to the OBR are £150bn on Pensioners; £88bn on UC; and £74bn on other benefits. Where would you axe to get the £100bn?
Should we get pensioners back into work?
£20bn each out of UC and "other" benefits.
Cut the triple lock entirely.
£20bn out of the state pension by tapering above £40k, spend half of the saving on increasing the state pension for those who don't have any or significant private income in retirement.
NI payable on all income types/merge NI and income tax.
50% haircut on defined benefit public sector pensions for amounts over £40k (so a £60k DB pension becomes £50k).
Freeze thresholds for a further 3 years.
Cut at least 500k public sector jobs within two years, ban use of agency staff and severely limit the use of consultants and contractors. Use half of those savings to offer competitive salaries for technical roles.
I think that would probably make a £100bn worth of closing the deficit, the resulting fall in bond yields and inflation would probably add another £20bn saving per year on the interest bill.
And means test the NHS for the wealthy
Define wealthy.
Otherwise people like me will either die because they can't afford treatment (and I am already at high risk of early death because of the NHS's failures to spot stages 1, 2 or 3 of my cancer) - and I can't - or be bankrupted and made homeless.
As for the state pension, it gets taxed if the pensioner has other income.
One of the reasons for the deficit is the amount spent on furlough during Covid - money largely spent on those in jobs and to keep them in jobs. It was about £140 billion. They too should contribute.
- 1p on income tax. - Extend VAT to food, books/newspapers & children's clothes. - NI for everyone who works. - Limit or abolish tax relief for those giving to charity and place an upper limit on the tax saved by those contributing to charity whether alive or after death. - Limit tax relief for pension contributions to the basic rate. - Extend VAT on education to all education providers, including universities. - Freeze thresholds. - Place a limit on public sector pay increases (the amount shovelled at train drivers by Reeves never gets mentioned here but it was a stupid move). - Abolish the WFA and other pension-specific benefits. Aim for the state pension to be the same as the tax free income as and when we can afford it. - Abolish the triple lock. - Those with assets should contribute something towards social care. - Introduce council tax bands for higher value houses. - Increase or widen the charges for council services beyond the basic. - Ensure that overseas visitors pay for the NHS. Other countries manage this. So can we. - Limit tax relief for private equity companies loading companies up with debt, taking dividends and asset stripping. (Thames Water and other companies in a similar position should be allowed to go bust and then nationalised for a £. Too often asset stripping has been presented as overseas investment. It is a gigantic con.)
And so on.
There is a nasty streak among some of the commentary on here. Everyone seems to want others to pay taxes and those who work on here seem to think that they should be exempt from any measures to help pay down the deficit, thinking it must all be done by the poor and the old. It also gives the impression that some welcome AD because they will be able to pressure the old and sick into killing themselves to save money or withhold treatment so that they suffer. It is disgustingly frankly. I am surprised to see @Big_G_NorthWales among their number
One reason that I am opposed to the assisted dying stuff is that I have met several people in healthcare who were against the continued existence of others, who they deemed "a waste of resources".
I could see them telling a blind person who wanted a ramp to her door - "Have you considered killing yourself". Yes, very easily.
There was an instance of exactly that with a paralympic athlete in Canada.
If I live that long and the AD Bill becomes law, that is exactly what I fear too - that some NHS manager will decide my life is not worth living and will instruct doctors to stop treatment. I will be lied to just as I was lied to by the screening programme.
I have nothing but contempt for those promoting this Bill, including those on here wittering about choice and autonomy. I will face an added worry on top of what I already have to face and will be denied the choice, if I need it, of palliative care by a hospice which promises not to kill me. Plus the trust I ought to be able to have in those providing me with care will be broken if they now decide to suggest suicide to me.
Oh and the recent 10 year plan for the NHS mentioned palliative care once - in 170 pages or however long it was.
I'm glad some days I won't live long because society is becoming nastier and more selfish and lacking in any sense of decency or morality and I see no reason why this will not continue and worsen. There is very little that is hopeful on the horizon.
You have my sympathy for your illness, but as far as choice is concerned, that's for many of us a very deeply and sincerely held belief. Just as sincerely held, and just as deep, as your own beliefs.
I believe that anyone who wishes to do so should be free to end their own life, if that is their considered opinion. With safeguards, but anyone at all. That comes from my liberal beliefs that people should be free to determine how they live their life, including the end of it. It is your life, and it should be up to you if you wish to end it or not.
What to be frank you and Malmesbury and others are in denial about is that there have always been some who want to die, and always been some who have sympathy for that, and always been some facilitation of it. However because its illegal, that facilitation is done on a 'nod and a wink' without safeguards and means people who haven't asked for it and don't want it can end up on that.
Honesty and transparency is the best policy. A good AD system should eliminate the 'nod and a wink' culture that far too often sees people put on a 'pathway' to death without their choice, and without their consent.
We should get to choose what we want - nobody else.
You are already free to kill yourself. I am not preventing you from doing that. (Though I obviously hope that you would not want to do that.)
You are denying me choice by denying hospices the right opt out and you are putting me at risk of coercion by the very medical professionals who should be caring for me.
What you are in denial about is that you value selfish individualism above any obligation to care for or prevent abuse of the vulnerable. That is your choice but do not for a moment try to pretend that it is anything other than a fundamentally selfish choice which is content to see harm come to others so long as you get what you want.
Anyway this week there will be the first part of Sir Wyn Williams Post Office Report - on the impact on SPMs and compensation.
It will (likely) say that the human impact was awful and made worse by the conduct of the PO and others over many years. Compensation is due, is too slow and the government needs to get a move on because the current situation is disgraceful. 350 of the ca. 900 SPMs affected have died without getting compensation and the return of the money fraudulently taken from them.
The government will welcome the report, say how terrible it all is and then continue doing the square root of fuck all.
This is how all governments since at least Aberfan have operated. Potemkin justice.
What I find fascinating is the systemic resistance.
A government with a substantial majority and the support of the opposition parties had to pass a reverse bill of attainder, declaring the SPOs innocent. Because the judicial system wouldn't.
Arbitrary justice. But on the side of innocence.
Doesn't that disturb people?
That's not quite true. The Court of Appeal did overthrow the convictions of some SPMs in 2021. The slowness of the remainder was because of a lack of resources, the PO dragging its feet and the criminal under-funding of the justice system by every government.
I discussed the concerns with what the government did at the time - see here - https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php /archives/2024/01/11/hobsons-choice-the- subpostmaster-issue/.
That’s what I don’t understand: why did the PO drag their feet at this point. Surely push it through quickly “not on my watch” and get the bad headlines out of the way?
Rule 1 of NU10K - "Protect, to the maximum extent possible, other NU10K"
You will often see senior individuals in one domain protecting senior individuals in another.
I remember this when I was in my later primary years. The reception class kids were being taught it. I remember the posters on their classroom wall. Luckily my teacher was an old-fashioned lady who I'm sure had no truck with that.
It's time to outline £100bn in spending cuts and tax rises, split 75% towards spending cuts with the majority coming from welfare and entitlements. If the government doesn't do this and continues to borrow like a drunken sailor we're heading for a bond vigilante strike and another bout of QE which will push inflation up and destroy people's disposable incomes.
The only way out is to cut welfare spending and get people back into work. We can't afford to pay the lazy to sit at home doing nothing on benefits.
'Benefits' according to the OBR are £150bn on Pensioners; £88bn on UC; and £74bn on other benefits. Where would you axe to get the £100bn?
Should we get pensioners back into work?
£20bn each out of UC and "other" benefits.
Cut the triple lock entirely.
£20bn out of the state pension by tapering above £40k, spend half of the saving on increasing the state pension for those who don't have any or significant private income in retirement.
NI payable on all income types/merge NI and income tax.
50% haircut on defined benefit public sector pensions for amounts over £40k (so a £60k DB pension becomes £50k).
Freeze thresholds for a further 3 years.
Cut at least 500k public sector jobs within two years, ban use of agency staff and severely limit the use of consultants and contractors. Use half of those savings to offer competitive salaries for technical roles.
I think that would probably make a £100bn worth of closing the deficit, the resulting fall in bond yields and inflation would probably add another £20bn saving per year on the interest bill.
And means test the NHS for the wealthy
Define wealthy.
Otherwise people like me will either die because they can't afford treatment (and I am already at high risk of early death because of the NHS's failures to spot stages 1, 2 or 3 of my cancer) - and I can't - or be bankrupted and made homeless.
As for the state pension, it gets taxed if the pensioner has other income.
One of the reasons for the deficit is the amount spent on furlough during Covid - money largely spent on those in jobs and to keep them in jobs. It was about £140 billion. They too should contribute.
- 1p on income tax. - Extend VAT to food, books/newspapers & children's clothes. - NI for everyone who works. - Limit or abolish tax relief for those giving to charity and place an upper limit on the tax saved by those contributing to charity whether alive or after death. - Limit tax relief for pension contributions to the basic rate. - Extend VAT on education to all education providers, including universities. - Freeze thresholds. - Place a limit on public sector pay increases (the amount shovelled at train drivers by Reeves never gets mentioned here but it was a stupid move). - Abolish the WFA and other pension-specific benefits. Aim for the state pension to be the same as the tax free income as and when we can afford it. - Abolish the triple lock. - Those with assets should contribute something towards social care. - Introduce council tax bands for higher value houses. - Increase or widen the charges for council services beyond the basic. - Ensure that overseas visitors pay for the NHS. Other countries manage this. So can we. - Limit tax relief for private equity companies loading companies up with debt, taking dividends and asset stripping. (Thames Water and other companies in a similar position should be allowed to go bust and then nationalised for a £. Too often asset stripping has been presented as overseas investment. It is a gigantic con.)
And so on.
There is a nasty streak among some of the commentary on here. Everyone seems to want others to pay taxes and those who work on here seem to think that they should be exempt from any measures to help pay down the deficit, thinking it must all be done by the poor and the old. It also gives the impression that some welcome AD because they will be able to pressure the old and sick into killing themselves to save money or withhold treatment so that they suffer. It is disgustingly frankly. I am surprised to see @Big_G_NorthWales among their number
Can I just say that wealthy to me include celebrities and multi millionaires who can contribute to the NHS
As far as your list is concerned I agree with each and every one and it needs a government to accept we cannot continue borrowing, spending and taxing and think the unthinkable
I want the NHS available to all but those with the broadest shoulders should contribute as indeed should the pension be reviewed as to just who should receive this very expensive benefit
They do contribute - as indeed have I - through taxes. In my case for decades. But there is no justification for denying the NHS to people who are seriously or terminally ill. You are advocating for a US style system which will harm the sick. I am one of their number and I think it disgusting that you should wish to deprive me of the NHS when I need it most. You do not define what wealthy means - name a figure and let's see what this actually means.
Indeed, means testing the NHS and barring the wealthy just seems like an odd and very mean spirited thing to do. From a practical sense I doubt it would save very much money given that the "wealthy" that BigG mentions are likely to have private health insurance and it breaks the idea that all British citizens/residents get treated equally by the health service, rich and poor alike get the same (sometimes not very good, sometimes excellent) treatment.
The comment about those with the broadest shoulders contributing is also very off colour for BigG, I think he's been watching too much Jez on Tiktok or something. At my peak earnings a few years ago my net rate of tax was 43% and I paid well into six figures per year in tax, to suggest that the "wealthy" don't already make a huge contribution is factually incorrect. Indeed it is this anti-wealth attitude among those who call themselves conservative that resulted in the previous government just ceding the subject of wealth creation to the left.
No one ever suggests giving a tax rebate/benefit to anyone who has private health insurance which helps take the pressure off our sainted NHS.
Generally the choke point is the same pool of consultants and specialists that you have to see, before (and often during) getting private treatment that also give a proportion of their time to the NHS, with the private patients essentially paying to jump the queue. If there was incentive for a significant batch of people to switch to private, either private waiting times would increase dramatically, or consultants would do more private work and less NHS, making the NHS position worse.
The governments approach of using the over capacity in the private sector to deal with the NHS backlog is the more sensible one. Continuing what the Tories were doing before.
The absurd rationing of testing continues.
I know more and more people who pay private facilities to get MRIs etc. XRays seem to be easier in the NHS system.
Early detection of problems is cheaper.
Indeed, my dad just had this issue (hence my suggestion in the previous comment). He has had a knee problem for about 15 years, it's suddenly got a lot worse so he went to see the doctor. Long story short, after about 6 months of hearing nothing back from the NHS on getting a scan he went private and got a scan done - they said his right knee is basically completely deteriorated and he needs surgery.
He wanted to make sure that this was necessary so he arranged finally got an appointment with the NHS specialist a few months down the road who looked at the scan and said words to the effect of "we wouldn't recommend surgery at this stage because the degradation doesn't meet our requirements for it, basically you can still walk around for up to a mile or so before it starts really hurting". He then asked if he could go private would that advice change and the specialist said "yes, get this done ASAP because it will seriously improve your life quality and in 10 years when this gets to the point where the NHS will consider it degraded enough to operate you may not be eligible due to age and poor likelihood of recovery". It's a completely mental situation. They're knowingly saying no/delaying huge life improving surgery to people knowing that 10 years down the road it will cause huge issues for these people, well at least for those people who can't afford to go private.
This is the kind of stuff that I really think is low hanging fruit for the NHS, cheap preventative care today reduces our future liability by huge amounts and that's where I would be looking for gains. They may not show immediately but in 2-3 years there would be a noticeable drop in resource demand.
Our youngest had an ingrown toenail a couple of years ago. After going through the initial stages of treatment with our NHS GP (which consisted understandably of “give it a couple of weeks to see if it sorts itself out”) the GP referred him to get it looked at by a specialist. By the time the letter from the specialist dept had arrived to tell us we had been booked for an initial appointment another four months later we had already given up on the NHS & taken him to a private specialist who had diagnosed it as needing surgery & carried that surgery out that week - removing an impressively large chunk of toenail that had grown off sideways into the depths of his big toe in the process!
The specialist said the likely time from initial diagnostic appointment to actual surgery on the NHS was between 9-12 months in his experience.
The NHS is just broken for ordinary people it seems. If you fit into one of the “pathways” (cancer, stroke, heart disease) then you get treated in a timely fashion (most of the time), but those are mostly the diseases of old people. For the young, the NHS is a failure that pretends to treat them & then keeps them dangling with the hope of treatment that might manifest itself sometime, maybe.
We need to get back to the idea that the NHS sees getting working age people back into work as quickly as reasonably possible a priority.
I know of people waiting over two years to get access to CAMHS in Edinburgh.
Two years is quick, for most.
The rape case I did last week involved a young woman whose legal guardian claimed had a mental age of 6. She was in residential care but had freedom of movement. She was raped and enormously distressed. Medical evidence said, remarkably, that she understood enough about sex to consent or withhold her consent.
Her guardian contacted Social work the night it happened who did ...nothing. When the guardian got back from her holiday she took her to the police but it was too late to get medical support for the claim. The man was convicted by the evidence of the distress and what was said to the guardian hours after the assault. It was close, a majority verdict.
The lack of care of such an obviously vulnerable young woman frankly made me incandescent. So many jobsworths are paid to look after people and just don't give a damn. This case involved an indigenous Scot but it demonstrated all so clearly how the victims we are not supposed to talk about get taken advantage of.
We are spending a fortune on these services. We are not getting results.
That's absolutely shocking and glad the jury came back with the correct decision, even by majority verdict. These are the kinds of cases why people like me suggest that burning it all down and starting again can't be worse than what we have now. People are being failed by the state at an alarming rate, whether that's cases like these which are absolutely awful, the NHS in lots of areas, the police are failing the public at large on crime, the judiciary are failing the public in deportations, politicians are failing us on all fronts.
The UK is getting closer and closer to becoming a failed state so maybe some tough medicine is what the state needs, not more of the same.
What does "burning it all down" mean for those in care ?
I don't know, but how could it be worse than today, knowing everything we know about what has already happened.
Anyway this week there will be the first part of Sir Wyn Williams Post Office Report - on the impact on SPMs and compensation.
It will (likely) say that the human impact was awful and made worse by the conduct of the PO and others over many years. Compensation is due, is too slow and the government needs to get a move on because the current situation is disgraceful. 350 of the ca. 900 SPMs affected have died without getting compensation and the return of the money fraudulently taken from them.
The government will welcome the report, say how terrible it all is and then continue doing the square root of fuck all.
This is how all governments since at least Aberfan have operated. Potemkin justice.
What I find fascinating is the systemic resistance.
A government with a substantial majority and the support of the opposition parties had to pass a reverse bill of attainder, declaring the SPOs innocent. Because the judicial system wouldn't.
Arbitrary justice. But on the side of innocence.
Doesn't that disturb people?
That's not quite true. The Court of Appeal did overthrow the convictions of some SPMs in 2021. The slowness of the remainder was because of a lack of resources, the PO dragging its feet and the criminal under-funding of the justice system by every government.
I discussed the concerns with what the government did at the time - see here - https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php /archives/2024/01/11/hobsons-choice-the- subpostmaster-issue/.
That’s what I don’t understand: why did the PO drag their feet at this point. Surely push it through quickly “not on my watch” and get the bad headlines out of the way?
Rule 1 of NU10K - "Protect, to the maximum extent possible, other NU10K"
You will often see senior individuals in one domain protecting senior individuals in another.
The system was better protected by sacrificing a few guilty lawyers. No one of any consequence
In the end I think Leon is right, the mood music in the country has turned decisively against immigration and asylum seekers, it is only going to get more negative towards it as Labour are unable to deport the illegal immigrants or stop the boats so of Reform don't have the stomach then the public will inevitably vote in a party that does or the Tories will step in and become that party.
The prevailing view when the modern experiment in mass migration began was that people might be a bit angry in the short term, but they'll get over it and we'll all be better off in the long run, so any opposition should just be ignored or managed. It's proving to have been a terrible mistake.
I think if immigration had been limited to people with earnings over the higher rate threshold then this might have been the case. As it is with millions of people arriving on unskilled, student and dependent visas who contribute far, far less than they receive in state services it has been an unmitigated disaster since about 2005. Wrt illegal immigration the current or next government will need to get a Rwanda style agreement up and running, clear any and all legal hurdles with primary legislation, abrogating treaties and agreements if necessary and just putting people on planes and deporting them to somewhere not the UK or giving them a chance to self deport if they don't want to do that (see the illegal immigrants in the US self deporting rather than risk ending up in El Salvador).
Make clear that there is no chance of staying in the UK under any circumstances so it's go home on a commercial flight or go to Rwanda, if they've burned their passports etc... then it's go to Rwanda by default unless they can arrange for a new passport to be issued by their home country.
I write this with some regret, but this is where I've ended up. And I'm a centrist dad type in the process of marrying an immigrant. So the policies described above are never gonna happen under labour, and nothing I've seen from Reform leads me to believe they would be competent to deliver, at least while Farage remains at the helm. So is the country in for a brush with the hard right in the next 10 years? It's not especially in my interests, but maybe the best thing for the UK in the round?
Rwanda was never a free for all dumping ground for failed British immigrants. The proposal was to pay them to take a limited amount
That's how it started with the equivalent Australian scheme, pay to take some. Then once the scheme was off the ground, it became pay to take all - and once it was take all, people stopped making the journey, so not many had to be sent.
There is no reason why the same couldn't have happened, except our own domestic politics. Rwanda are quite happy to take our money.
I remember this when I was in my later primary years. The reception class kids were being taught it. I remember the posters on their classroom wall. Luckily my teacher was an old-fashioned lady who I'm sure had no truck with that.
Wasn't this called phonics back in the day. I remember my Infant/Junior school rejected it out of hand.
"Paul Embery @PaulEmbery · 3h Rod Liddle, in a satirical piece in the Spectator, joked about dropping a nuclear bomb on Glastonbury. The leader of Brighton and Hove city council has reported him to the police. Utterly ludicrous. These people are beyond parody."
I've lost track of who is a parody. It's just a confusing mish-mash of not very good Carry On films at this point. Sadly without the vampish quality of Carry on Screaming - necklace or not.
Anyway this week there will be the first part of Sir Wyn Williams Post Office Report - on the impact on SPMs and compensation.
It will (likely) say that the human impact was awful and made worse by the conduct of the PO and others over many years. Compensation is due, is too slow and the government needs to get a move on because the current situation is disgraceful. 350 of the ca. 900 SPMs affected have died without getting compensation and the return of the money fraudulently taken from them.
The government will welcome the report, say how terrible it all is and then continue doing the square root of fuck all.
This is how all governments since at least Aberfan have operated. Potemkin justice.
What I find fascinating is the systemic resistance.
A government with a substantial majority and the support of the opposition parties had to pass a reverse bill of attainder, declaring the SPOs innocent. Because the judicial system wouldn't.
Arbitrary justice. But on the side of innocence.
Doesn't that disturb people?
That's not quite true. The Court of Appeal did overthrow the convictions of some SPMs in 2021. The slowness of the remainder was because of a lack of resources, the PO dragging its feet and the criminal under-funding of the justice system by every government.
It does create an interesting precedent. And represented a massive over-ruling of the courts.
I was surprised that the Supreme Court didn't intervene to offer to hear each case for half an hour or something. Why would the Post Office have anything to do with what happened?
It's time to outline £100bn in spending cuts and tax rises, split 75% towards spending cuts with the majority coming from welfare and entitlements. If the government doesn't do this and continues to borrow like a drunken sailor we're heading for a bond vigilante strike and another bout of QE which will push inflation up and destroy people's disposable incomes.
The only way out is to cut welfare spending and get people back into work. We can't afford to pay the lazy to sit at home doing nothing on benefits.
'Benefits' according to the OBR are £150bn on Pensioners; £88bn on UC; and £74bn on other benefits. Where would you axe to get the £100bn?
Should we get pensioners back into work?
£20bn each out of UC and "other" benefits.
Cut the triple lock entirely.
£20bn out of the state pension by tapering above £40k, spend half of the saving on increasing the state pension for those who don't have any or significant private income in retirement.
NI payable on all income types/merge NI and income tax.
50% haircut on defined benefit public sector pensions for amounts over £40k (so a £60k DB pension becomes £50k).
Freeze thresholds for a further 3 years.
Cut at least 500k public sector jobs within two years, ban use of agency staff and severely limit the use of consultants and contractors. Use half of those savings to offer competitive salaries for technical roles.
I think that would probably make a £100bn worth of closing the deficit, the resulting fall in bond yields and inflation would probably add another £20bn saving per year on the interest bill.
And means test the NHS for the wealthy
Define wealthy.
Otherwise people like me will either die because they can't afford treatment (and I am already at high risk of early death because of the NHS's failures to spot stages 1, 2 or 3 of my cancer) - and I can't - or be bankrupted and made homeless.
As for the state pension, it gets taxed if the pensioner has other income.
One of the reasons for the deficit is the amount spent on furlough during Covid - money largely spent on those in jobs and to keep them in jobs. It was about £140 billion. They too should contribute.
- 1p on income tax. - Extend VAT to food, books/newspapers & children's clothes. - NI for everyone who works. - Limit or abolish tax relief for those giving to charity and place an upper limit on the tax saved by those contributing to charity whether alive or after death. - Limit tax relief for pension contributions to the basic rate. - Extend VAT on education to all education providers, including universities. - Freeze thresholds. - Place a limit on public sector pay increases (the amount shovelled at train drivers by Reeves never gets mentioned here but it was a stupid move). - Abolish the WFA and other pension-specific benefits. Aim for the state pension to be the same as the tax free income as and when we can afford it. - Abolish the triple lock. - Those with assets should contribute something towards social care. - Introduce council tax bands for higher value houses. - Increase or widen the charges for council services beyond the basic. - Ensure that overseas visitors pay for the NHS. Other countries manage this. So can we. - Limit tax relief for private equity companies loading companies up with debt, taking dividends and asset stripping. (Thames Water and other companies in a similar position should be allowed to go bust and then nationalised for a £. Too often asset stripping has been presented as overseas investment. It is a gigantic con.)
And so on.
There is a nasty streak among some of the commentary on here. Everyone seems to want others to pay taxes and those who work on here seem to think that they should be exempt from any measures to help pay down the deficit, thinking it must all be done by the poor and the old. It also gives the impression that some welcome AD because they will be able to pressure the old and sick into killing themselves to save money or withhold treatment so that they suffer. It is disgustingly frankly. I am surprised to see @Big_G_NorthWales among their number
One reason that I am opposed to the assisted dying stuff is that I have met several people in healthcare who were against the continued existence of others, who they deemed "a waste of resources".
I could see them telling a blind person who wanted a ramp to her door - "Have you considered killing yourself". Yes, very easily.
There was an instance of exactly that with a paralympic athlete in Canada.
If I live that long and the AD Bill becomes law, that is exactly what I fear too - that some NHS manager will decide my life is not worth living and will instruct doctors to stop treatment. I will be lied to just as I was lied to by the screening programme.
I have nothing but contempt for those promoting this Bill, including those on here wittering about choice and autonomy. I will face an added worry on top of what I already have to face and will be denied the choice, if I need it, of palliative care by a hospice which promises not to kill me. Plus the trust I ought to be able to have in those providing me with care will be broken if they now decide to suggest suicide to me.
Oh and the recent 10 year plan for the NHS mentioned palliative care once - in 170 pages or however long it was.
I'm glad some days I won't live long because society is becoming nastier and more selfish and lacking in any sense of decency or morality and I see no reason why this will not continue and worsen. There is very little that is hopeful on the horizon.
You have my sympathy for your illness, but as far as choice is concerned, that's for many of us a very deeply and sincerely held belief. Just as sincerely held, and just as deep, as your own beliefs.
I believe that anyone who wishes to do so should be free to end their own life, if that is their considered opinion. With safeguards, but anyone at all. That comes from my liberal beliefs that people should be free to determine how they live their life, including the end of it. It is your life, and it should be up to you if you wish to end it or not.
What to be frank you and Malmesbury and others are in denial about is that there have always been some who want to die, and always been some who have sympathy for that, and always been some facilitation of it. However because its illegal, that facilitation is done on a 'nod and a wink' without safeguards and means people who haven't asked for it and don't want it can end up on that.
Honesty and transparency is the best policy. A good AD system should eliminate the 'nod and a wink' culture that far too often sees people put on a 'pathway' to death without their choice, and without their consent.
We should get to choose what we want - nobody else.
You are already free to kill yourself. I am not preventing you from doing that. (Though I obviously hope that you would not want to do that.)
You are denying me choice by denying hospices the right opt out and you are putting me at risk of coercion by the very medical professionals who should be caring for me.
What you are in denial about is that you value selfish individualism above any obligation to care for or prevent abuse of the vulnerable. That is your choice but do not for a moment try to pretend that it is anything other than a fundamentally selfish choice which is content to see harm come to others so long as you get what you want.
I am not free to have a clinical, medical end of life at a time of my own choosing. Suicide is not the same thing at all.
I have no objection to hospices and those are being denied under our existing system which forbids assisted deaths too. You are the one in denial, our current system is failing dreadfully and you wanting to be illiberal and deny choices to others doesn't improve it one jot.
If you want improved hospice care, then campaign for that. No reason why that shouldn't happen alongside, not instead of, liberalising the provision of humane deaths.
You're also in denial of the fact that the 'nod and a wink' culture will continue as long as this is driven underground, just like backstreet abortions were. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. You know that in every other walk of life, but are too blinded on this one topic to see it.
Zarah Sultana MP @zarahsultana · 1h Since announcing the formation of a new left party just three days ago, over 72,000 people have signed up to get involved.
I remember this when I was in my later primary years. The reception class kids were being taught it. I remember the posters on their classroom wall. Luckily my teacher was an old-fashioned lady who I'm sure had no truck with that.
Wasn't this called phonics back in the day. I remember my Infant/Junior school rejected it out of hand.
In lockdown I had to teach my children's lessons which the school sent to us and they were learning phonics (Reception/Year 1/Year 2 across the lockdowns and the 2 girls) but it was phonics with the real alphabet and real words, not bastardised spellings of the words.
In the end I think Leon is right, the mood music in the country has turned decisively against immigration and asylum seekers, it is only going to get more negative towards it as Labour are unable to deport the illegal immigrants or stop the boats so of Reform don't have the stomach then the public will inevitably vote in a party that does or the Tories will step in and become that party.
The prevailing view when the modern experiment in mass migration began was that people might be a bit angry in the short term, but they'll get over it and we'll all be better off in the long run, so any opposition should just be ignored or managed. It's proving to have been a terrible mistake.
I think if immigration had been limited to people with earnings over the higher rate threshold then this might have been the case. As it is with millions of people arriving on unskilled, student and dependent visas who contribute far, far less than they receive in state services it has been an unmitigated disaster since about 2005. Wrt illegal immigration the current or next government will need to get a Rwanda style agreement up and running, clear any and all legal hurdles with primary legislation, abrogating treaties and agreements if necessary and just putting people on planes and deporting them to somewhere not the UK or giving them a chance to self deport if they don't want to do that (see the illegal immigrants in the US self deporting rather than risk ending up in El Salvador).
Make clear that there is no chance of staying in the UK under any circumstances so it's go home on a commercial flight or go to Rwanda, if they've burned their passports etc... then it's go to Rwanda by default unless they can arrange for a new passport to be issued by their home country.
I write this with some regret, but this is where I've ended up. And I'm a centrist dad type in the process of marrying an immigrant. So the policies described above are never gonna happen under labour, and nothing I've seen from Reform leads me to believe they would be competent to deliver, at least while Farage remains at the helm. So is the country in for a brush with the hard right in the next 10 years? It's not especially in my interests, but maybe the best thing for the UK in the round?
Rwanda was never a free for all dumping ground for failed British immigrants. The proposal was to pay them to take a limited amount
That's how it started with the equivalent Australian scheme, pay to take some. Then once the scheme was off the ground, it became pay to take all - and once it was take all, people stopped making the journey, so not many had to be sent.
There is no reason why the same couldn't have happened, except our own domestic politics. Rwanda are quite happy to take our money.
There were two important reasons why the Rwanda scheme was and is wrong and cannot be compared to the Australian scheme (which incidently is also a breach of article 31 of the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees)
Firstly the Australian used places that were either their own territory or were stable and safe. Rwanda certainly was not stable or safe.
Secondly, and most importantly, the Australian centres are for processing. Successful adylum seekers are then taken back to the mainland and sette in Australia. The Rwanda scheme was clear that even if you were processed and accepted as an asylum seeker you could not return to the UK.
The Rwanda scheme was immoral and deserved to be scrapped.
In the end I think Leon is right, the mood music in the country has turned decisively against immigration and asylum seekers, it is only going to get more negative towards it as Labour are unable to deport the illegal immigrants or stop the boats so of Reform don't have the stomach then the public will inevitably vote in a party that does or the Tories will step in and become that party.
The prevailing view when the modern experiment in mass migration began was that people might be a bit angry in the short term, but they'll get over it and we'll all be better off in the long run, so any opposition should just be ignored or managed. It's proving to have been a terrible mistake.
I think if immigration had been limited to people with earnings over the higher rate threshold then this might have been the case. As it is with millions of people arriving on unskilled, student and dependent visas who contribute far, far less than they receive in state services it has been an unmitigated disaster since about 2005. Wrt illegal immigration the current or next government will need to get a Rwanda style agreement up and running, clear any and all legal hurdles with primary legislation, abrogating treaties and agreements if necessary and just putting people on planes and deporting them to somewhere not the UK or giving them a chance to self deport if they don't want to do that (see the illegal immigrants in the US self deporting rather than risk ending up in El Salvador).
Make clear that there is no chance of staying in the UK under any circumstances so it's go home on a commercial flight or go to Rwanda, if they've burned their passports etc... then it's go to Rwanda by default unless they can arrange for a new passport to be issued by their home country.
I write this with some regret, but this is where I've ended up. And I'm a centrist dad type in the process of marrying an immigrant. So the policies described above are never gonna happen under labour, and nothing I've seen from Reform leads me to believe they would be competent to deliver, at least while Farage remains at the helm. So is the country in for a brush with the hard right in the next 10 years? It's not especially in my interests, but maybe the best thing for the UK in the round?
Rwanda was never a free for all dumping ground for failed British immigrants. The proposal was to pay them to take a limited amount
That's how it started with the equivalent Australian scheme, pay to take some. Then once the scheme was off the ground, it became pay to take all - and once it was take all, people stopped making the journey, so not many had to be sent.
There is no reason why the same couldn't have happened, except our own domestic politics. Rwanda are quite happy to take our money.
There were two important reasons why the Rwanda scheme was and is wrong and cannot be compared to the Australian scheme (which incidently is also a breach of article 31 of the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees)
Firstly the Australian used places that were either their own territory or were stable and safe. Rwanda certainly was not stable or safe.
Secondly, and most importantly, the Australian centres are for processing. Successful adylum seekers are then taken back to the mainland and sette in Australia. The Rwanda scheme was clear that even if you were processed and accepted as an asylum seeker you could not return to the UK.
The Rwanda scheme was immoral and deserved to be scrapped.
It being immoral is a different matter entirely from it being impractical or unworkable.
And you're wrong about the Australian scheme. The Australian scheme was every bit as 'immoral' the Rwanda scheme, it was not only for processing. Under the Australian 'PNG solution' scheme anyone who travelled by boat and sent to PNG (which is every bit as 'safe and stable' as Rwanda) would get to stay in PNG and would not get transferred to Australia post-processing.
Anyone transferred to Manus or elsewhere for processing who then got processed as approved for refugee status would be transferred to PNG, not Australia.
It's time to outline £100bn in spending cuts and tax rises, split 75% towards spending cuts with the majority coming from welfare and entitlements. If the government doesn't do this and continues to borrow like a drunken sailor we're heading for a bond vigilante strike and another bout of QE which will push inflation up and destroy people's disposable incomes.
The only way out is to cut welfare spending and get people back into work. We can't afford to pay the lazy to sit at home doing nothing on benefits.
'Benefits' according to the OBR are £150bn on Pensioners; £88bn on UC; and £74bn on other benefits. Where would you axe to get the £100bn?
Should we get pensioners back into work?
£20bn each out of UC and "other" benefits.
Cut the triple lock entirely.
£20bn out of the state pension by tapering above £40k, spend half of the saving on increasing the state pension for those who don't have any or significant private income in retirement.
NI payable on all income types/merge NI and income tax.
50% haircut on defined benefit public sector pensions for amounts over £40k (so a £60k DB pension becomes £50k).
Freeze thresholds for a further 3 years.
Cut at least 500k public sector jobs within two years, ban use of agency staff and severely limit the use of consultants and contractors. Use half of those savings to offer competitive salaries for technical roles.
I think that would probably make a £100bn worth of closing the deficit, the resulting fall in bond yields and inflation would probably add another £20bn saving per year on the interest bill.
And means test the NHS for the wealthy
Define wealthy.
Otherwise people like me will either die because they can't afford treatment (and I am already at high risk of early death because of the NHS's failures to spot stages 1, 2 or 3 of my cancer) - and I can't - or be bankrupted and made homeless.
As for the state pension, it gets taxed if the pensioner has other income.
One of the reasons for the deficit is the amount spent on furlough during Covid - money largely spent on those in jobs and to keep them in jobs. It was about £140 billion. They too should contribute.
- 1p on income tax. - Extend VAT to food, books/newspapers & children's clothes. - NI for everyone who works. - Limit or abolish tax relief for those giving to charity and place an upper limit on the tax saved by those contributing to charity whether alive or after death. - Limit tax relief for pension contributions to the basic rate. - Extend VAT on education to all education providers, including universities. - Freeze thresholds. - Place a limit on public sector pay increases (the amount shovelled at train drivers by Reeves never gets mentioned here but it was a stupid move). - Abolish the WFA and other pension-specific benefits. Aim for the state pension to be the same as the tax free income as and when we can afford it. - Abolish the triple lock. - Those with assets should contribute something towards social care. - Introduce council tax bands for higher value houses. - Increase or widen the charges for council services beyond the basic. - Ensure that overseas visitors pay for the NHS. Other countries manage this. So can we. - Limit tax relief for private equity companies loading companies up with debt, taking dividends and asset stripping. (Thames Water and other companies in a similar position should be allowed to go bust and then nationalised for a £. Too often asset stripping has been presented as overseas investment. It is a gigantic con.)
And so on.
There is a nasty streak among some of the commentary on here. Everyone seems to want others to pay taxes and those who work on here seem to think that they should be exempt from any measures to help pay down the deficit, thinking it must all be done by the poor and the old. It also gives the impression that some welcome AD because they will be able to pressure the old and sick into killing themselves to save money or withhold treatment so that they suffer. It is disgustingly frankly. I am surprised to see @Big_G_NorthWales among their number
Coming to this late but I have to say I disagree completely with the idea of VAT on Food, books and childrens clothes.
Value Added Tax is supposed to be levied on those items we can live without. The basic necessities for living should not be subject to a 'Value Added' tax. The same goes for education. We are already pricing far too many people out of Tertiary education. adding VAT would risk making Tertiary education the preserve of the wealthy.
I do however agree with everything else even though many of them would directly hit me either now or in the near future.
In the end I think Leon is right, the mood music in the country has turned decisively against immigration and asylum seekers, it is only going to get more negative towards it as Labour are unable to deport the illegal immigrants or stop the boats so of Reform don't have the stomach then the public will inevitably vote in a party that does or the Tories will step in and become that party.
The prevailing view when the modern experiment in mass migration began was that people might be a bit angry in the short term, but they'll get over it and we'll all be better off in the long run, so any opposition should just be ignored or managed. It's proving to have been a terrible mistake.
I think if immigration had been limited to people with earnings over the higher rate threshold then this might have been the case. As it is with millions of people arriving on unskilled, student and dependent visas who contribute far, far less than they receive in state services it has been an unmitigated disaster since about 2005. Wrt illegal immigration the current or next government will need to get a Rwanda style agreement up and running, clear any and all legal hurdles with primary legislation, abrogating treaties and agreements if necessary and just putting people on planes and deporting them to somewhere not the UK or giving them a chance to self deport if they don't want to do that (see the illegal immigrants in the US self deporting rather than risk ending up in El Salvador).
Make clear that there is no chance of staying in the UK under any circumstances so it's go home on a commercial flight or go to Rwanda, if they've burned their passports etc... then it's go to Rwanda by default unless they can arrange for a new passport to be issued by their home country.
I write this with some regret, but this is where I've ended up. And I'm a centrist dad type in the process of marrying an immigrant. So the policies described above are never gonna happen under labour, and nothing I've seen from Reform leads me to believe they would be competent to deliver, at least while Farage remains at the helm. So is the country in for a brush with the hard right in the next 10 years? It's not especially in my interests, but maybe the best thing for the UK in the round?
Rwanda was never a free for all dumping ground for failed British immigrants. The proposal was to pay them to take a limited amount
That's how it started with the equivalent Australian scheme, pay to take some. Then once the scheme was off the ground, it became pay to take all - and once it was take all, people stopped making the journey, so not many had to be sent.
There is no reason why the same couldn't have happened, except our own domestic politics. Rwanda are quite happy to take our money.
There were two important reasons why the Rwanda scheme was and is wrong and cannot be compared to the Australian scheme (which incidently is also a breach of article 31 of the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees)
Firstly the Australian used places that were either their own territory or were stable and safe. Rwanda certainly was not stable or safe.
Secondly, and most importantly, the Australian centres are for processing. Successful adylum seekers are then taken back to the mainland and sette in Australia. The Rwanda scheme was clear that even if you were processed and accepted as an asylum seeker you could not return to the UK.
The Rwanda scheme was immoral and deserved to be scrapped.
It being immoral is a different matter entirely from it being impractical or unworkable.
And you're wrong about the Australian scheme. The Australian scheme was every bit as 'immoral' the Rwanda scheme, it was not only for processing. Under the Australian 'PNG solution' scheme anyone who travelled by boat and sent to PNG (which is every bit as 'safe and stable' as Rwanda) would get to stay in PNG and would not get transferred to Australia post-processing.
Anyone transferred to Manus or elsewhere for processing who then got processed as approved for refugee status would be transferred to PNG, not Australia.
In the end I think Leon is right, the mood music in the country has turned decisively against immigration and asylum seekers, it is only going to get more negative towards it as Labour are unable to deport the illegal immigrants or stop the boats so of Reform don't have the stomach then the public will inevitably vote in a party that does or the Tories will step in and become that party.
The prevailing view when the modern experiment in mass migration began was that people might be a bit angry in the short term, but they'll get over it and we'll all be better off in the long run, so any opposition should just be ignored or managed. It's proving to have been a terrible mistake.
I think if immigration had been limited to people with earnings over the higher rate threshold then this might have been the case. As it is with millions of people arriving on unskilled, student and dependent visas who contribute far, far less than they receive in state services it has been an unmitigated disaster since about 2005. Wrt illegal immigration the current or next government will need to get a Rwanda style agreement up and running, clear any and all legal hurdles with primary legislation, abrogating treaties and agreements if necessary and just putting people on planes and deporting them to somewhere not the UK or giving them a chance to self deport if they don't want to do that (see the illegal immigrants in the US self deporting rather than risk ending up in El Salvador).
Make clear that there is no chance of staying in the UK under any circumstances so it's go home on a commercial flight or go to Rwanda, if they've burned their passports etc... then it's go to Rwanda by default unless they can arrange for a new passport to be issued by their home country.
There is an argument that high-skilled migration crowds out the current population from the best paying jobs. Instead of having a half-decent education system or allowing people to progress from the bottom rung to the top, just get some foreign graduate in to do the job instead.
Both my grandfathers did not have degrees yet ended up in relatively senior positions in international firms. One literally started washing windows aged 16, the other on the factory floor. Both were trained up by their firms, sent abroad to get some experience, had their childcare and sometimes housing paid for etc etc. That must be pretty rare nowadays.
Wages are far too crude a measure anyway. I like the idea of a visa that allows people to install solar panels for four years. That won't be particularly well-paid, but it will mean we get over the hump of the Green transition more quickly and cheaply than otherwise. Then we can have a smaller workforce of technicians who replace them when need or fix any problems for the next 30+ years.
Yes, I don't understand the fetishization of high-paid immigration. Isn't that basically reproducing the Norman Conquest all over again in the modern world?
I feel like a lot of contemporary British politics can be understood by reference to the country having failed to overthrow Norman oppression, and so internalising it, and similarly not wanting to feel a scintilla of regret for the British Empire.
It creates uniquely British neuroses about class stratification, a preference for importing a boss class for the indigenous population to serve, and the assumption that if Britain wasn't ruling the EU, then the EU was ruling Britain - not being able to see it as a cooperative endeavour.
In the end I think Leon is right, the mood music in the country has turned decisively against immigration and asylum seekers, it is only going to get more negative towards it as Labour are unable to deport the illegal immigrants or stop the boats so of Reform don't have the stomach then the public will inevitably vote in a party that does or the Tories will step in and become that party.
The prevailing view when the modern experiment in mass migration began was that people might be a bit angry in the short term, but they'll get over it and we'll all be better off in the long run, so any opposition should just be ignored or managed. It's proving to have been a terrible mistake.
I think if immigration had been limited to people with earnings over the higher rate threshold then this might have been the case. As it is with millions of people arriving on unskilled, student and dependent visas who contribute far, far less than they receive in state services it has been an unmitigated disaster since about 2005. Wrt illegal immigration the current or next government will need to get a Rwanda style agreement up and running, clear any and all legal hurdles with primary legislation, abrogating treaties and agreements if necessary and just putting people on planes and deporting them to somewhere not the UK or giving them a chance to self deport if they don't want to do that (see the illegal immigrants in the US self deporting rather than risk ending up in El Salvador).
Make clear that there is no chance of staying in the UK under any circumstances so it's go home on a commercial flight or go to Rwanda, if they've burned their passports etc... then it's go to Rwanda by default unless they can arrange for a new passport to be issued by their home country.
I write this with some regret, but this is where I've ended up. And I'm a centrist dad type in the process of marrying an immigrant. So the policies described above are never gonna happen under labour, and nothing I've seen from Reform leads me to believe they would be competent to deliver, at least while Farage remains at the helm. So is the country in for a brush with the hard right in the next 10 years? It's not especially in my interests, but maybe the best thing for the UK in the round?
Rwanda was never a free for all dumping ground for failed British immigrants. The proposal was to pay them to take a limited amount
That's how it started with the equivalent Australian scheme, pay to take some. Then once the scheme was off the ground, it became pay to take all - and once it was take all, people stopped making the journey, so not many had to be sent.
There is no reason why the same couldn't have happened, except our own domestic politics. Rwanda are quite happy to take our money.
There were two important reasons why the Rwanda scheme was and is wrong and cannot be compared to the Australian scheme (which incidently is also a breach of article 31 of the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees)
Firstly the Australian used places that were either their own territory or were stable and safe. Rwanda certainly was not stable or safe.
Secondly, and most importantly, the Australian centres are for processing. Successful adylum seekers are then taken back to the mainland and sette in Australia. The Rwanda scheme was clear that even if you were processed and accepted as an asylum seeker you could not return to the UK.
The Rwanda scheme was immoral and deserved to be scrapped.
It being immoral is a different matter entirely from it being impractical or unworkable.
And you're wrong about the Australian scheme. The Australian scheme was every bit as 'immoral' the Rwanda scheme, it was not only for processing. Under the Australian 'PNG solution' scheme anyone who travelled by boat and sent to PNG (which is every bit as 'safe and stable' as Rwanda) would get to stay in PNG and would not get transferred to Australia post-processing.
Anyone transferred to Manus or elsewhere for processing who then got processed as approved for refugee status would be transferred to PNG, not Australia.
That was not how the scheme was set up. It is how it was later changed by Rudd.
That was precisely my point to Gallowgate. It was set up originally at a small scale, then was expanded to cover everyone.
No reason besides our own politics and morals the UK couldn't do the same as Rudd did. Rwanda are happy to take our money, just as PNG were happy to take Australia's.
Zarah Sultana MP @zarahsultana · 1h Since announcing the formation of a new left party just three days ago, over 72,000 people have signed up to get involved.
Zarah Sultana MP @zarahsultana · 1h Since announcing the formation of a new left party just three days ago, over 72,000 people have signed up to get involved.
It's time to outline £100bn in spending cuts and tax rises, split 75% towards spending cuts with the majority coming from welfare and entitlements. If the government doesn't do this and continues to borrow like a drunken sailor we're heading for a bond vigilante strike and another bout of QE which will push inflation up and destroy people's disposable incomes.
The only way out is to cut welfare spending and get people back into work. We can't afford to pay the lazy to sit at home doing nothing on benefits.
'Benefits' according to the OBR are £150bn on Pensioners; £88bn on UC; and £74bn on other benefits. Where would you axe to get the £100bn?
Should we get pensioners back into work?
£20bn each out of UC and "other" benefits.
Cut the triple lock entirely.
£20bn out of the state pension by tapering above £40k, spend half of the saving on increasing the state pension for those who don't have any or significant private income in retirement.
NI payable on all income types/merge NI and income tax.
50% haircut on defined benefit public sector pensions for amounts over £40k (so a £60k DB pension becomes £50k).
Freeze thresholds for a further 3 years.
Cut at least 500k public sector jobs within two years, ban use of agency staff and severely limit the use of consultants and contractors. Use half of those savings to offer competitive salaries for technical roles.
I think that would probably make a £100bn worth of closing the deficit, the resulting fall in bond yields and inflation would probably add another £20bn saving per year on the interest bill.
And means test the NHS for the wealthy
Define wealthy.
Otherwise people like me will either die because they can't afford treatment (and I am already at high risk of early death because of the NHS's failures to spot stages 1, 2 or 3 of my cancer) - and I can't - or be bankrupted and made homeless.
As for the state pension, it gets taxed if the pensioner has other income.
One of the reasons for the deficit is the amount spent on furlough during Covid - money largely spent on those in jobs and to keep them in jobs. It was about £140 billion. They too should contribute.
- 1p on income tax. - Extend VAT to food, books/newspapers & children's clothes. - NI for everyone who works. - Limit or abolish tax relief for those giving to charity and place an upper limit on the tax saved by those contributing to charity whether alive or after death. - Limit tax relief for pension contributions to the basic rate. - Extend VAT on education to all education providers, including universities. - Freeze thresholds. - Place a limit on public sector pay increases (the amount shovelled at train drivers by Reeves never gets mentioned here but it was a stupid move). - Abolish the WFA and other pension-specific benefits. Aim for the state pension to be the same as the tax free income as and when we can afford it. - Abolish the triple lock. - Those with assets should contribute something towards social care. - Introduce council tax bands for higher value houses. - Increase or widen the charges for council services beyond the basic. - Ensure that overseas visitors pay for the NHS. Other countries manage this. So can we. - Limit tax relief for private equity companies loading companies up with debt, taking dividends and asset stripping. (Thames Water and other companies in a similar position should be allowed to go bust and then nationalised for a £. Too often asset stripping has been presented as overseas investment. It is a gigantic con.)
And so on.
There is a nasty streak among some of the commentary on here. Everyone seems to want others to pay taxes and those who work on here seem to think that they should be exempt from any measures to help pay down the deficit, thinking it must all be done by the poor and the old. It also gives the impression that some welcome AD because they will be able to pressure the old and sick into killing themselves to save money or withhold treatment so that they suffer. It is disgustingly frankly. I am surprised to see @Big_G_NorthWales among their number
Coming to this late but I have to say I disagree completely with the idea of VAT on Food, books and childrens clothes.
Value Added Tax is supposed to be levied on those items we can live without. The basic necessities for living should not be subject to a 'Value Added' tax. The same goes for education. We are already pricing far too many people out of Tertiary education. adding VAT would risk making Tertiary education the preserve of the wealthy.
I do however agree with everything else even though many of them would directly hit me either now or in the near future.
New head of IFS thinks we should put VAT on food, books, newspapers and clothes but adjust the benefits levels to compensate the poorest. It then hits the middle and upper classes quite hard as the Waitrose shopping is unloaded fro the volvo.
iirc she says it would be her no 1 priority for tax.
It's time to outline £100bn in spending cuts and tax rises, split 75% towards spending cuts with the majority coming from welfare and entitlements. If the government doesn't do this and continues to borrow like a drunken sailor we're heading for a bond vigilante strike and another bout of QE which will push inflation up and destroy people's disposable incomes.
The only way out is to cut welfare spending and get people back into work. We can't afford to pay the lazy to sit at home doing nothing on benefits.
'Benefits' according to the OBR are £150bn on Pensioners; £88bn on UC; and £74bn on other benefits. Where would you axe to get the £100bn?
Should we get pensioners back into work?
£20bn each out of UC and "other" benefits.
Cut the triple lock entirely.
£20bn out of the state pension by tapering above £40k, spend half of the saving on increasing the state pension for those who don't have any or significant private income in retirement.
NI payable on all income types/merge NI and income tax.
50% haircut on defined benefit public sector pensions for amounts over £40k (so a £60k DB pension becomes £50k).
Freeze thresholds for a further 3 years.
Cut at least 500k public sector jobs within two years, ban use of agency staff and severely limit the use of consultants and contractors. Use half of those savings to offer competitive salaries for technical roles.
I think that would probably make a £100bn worth of closing the deficit, the resulting fall in bond yields and inflation would probably add another £20bn saving per year on the interest bill.
And means test the NHS for the wealthy
Define wealthy.
Otherwise people like me will either die because they can't afford treatment (and I am already at high risk of early death because of the NHS's failures to spot stages 1, 2 or 3 of my cancer) - and I can't - or be bankrupted and made homeless.
As for the state pension, it gets taxed if the pensioner has other income.
One of the reasons for the deficit is the amount spent on furlough during Covid - money largely spent on those in jobs and to keep them in jobs. It was about £140 billion. They too should contribute.
- 1p on income tax. - Extend VAT to food, books/newspapers & children's clothes. - NI for everyone who works. - Limit or abolish tax relief for those giving to charity and place an upper limit on the tax saved by those contributing to charity whether alive or after death. - Limit tax relief for pension contributions to the basic rate. - Extend VAT on education to all education providers, including universities. - Freeze thresholds. - Place a limit on public sector pay increases (the amount shovelled at train drivers by Reeves never gets mentioned here but it was a stupid move). - Abolish the WFA and other pension-specific benefits. Aim for the state pension to be the same as the tax free income as and when we can afford it. - Abolish the triple lock. - Those with assets should contribute something towards social care. - Introduce council tax bands for higher value houses. - Increase or widen the charges for council services beyond the basic. - Ensure that overseas visitors pay for the NHS. Other countries manage this. So can we. - Limit tax relief for private equity companies loading companies up with debt, taking dividends and asset stripping. (Thames Water and other companies in a similar position should be allowed to go bust and then nationalised for a £. Too often asset stripping has been presented as overseas investment. It is a gigantic con.)
And so on.
There is a nasty streak among some of the commentary on here. Everyone seems to want others to pay taxes and those who work on here seem to think that they should be exempt from any measures to help pay down the deficit, thinking it must all be done by the poor and the old. It also gives the impression that some welcome AD because they will be able to pressure the old and sick into killing themselves to save money or withhold treatment so that they suffer. It is disgustingly frankly. I am surprised to see @Big_G_NorthWales among their number
Coming to this late but I have to say I disagree completely with the idea of VAT on Food, books and childrens clothes.
Value Added Tax is supposed to be levied on those items we can live without. The basic necessities for living should not be subject to a 'Value Added' tax. The same goes for education. We are already pricing far too many people out of Tertiary education. adding VAT would risk making Tertiary education the preserve of the wealthy.
I do however agree with everything else even though many of them would directly hit me either now or in the near future.
New head of IFS thinks we should put VAT on food, books, newspapers and clothes but adjust the benefits levels to compensate the poorest. It then hits the middle and upper classes quite hard as the Waitrose shopping is unloaded fro the volvo.
iirc she says it would be her no 1 priority for tax.
What about the working class who earn just a bit too much to receive any benefits? Are they suggesting we have to expand out more benefits to more working people? Because that sounds a terrible idea.
In the end I think Leon is right, the mood music in the country has turned decisively against immigration and asylum seekers, it is only going to get more negative towards it as Labour are unable to deport the illegal immigrants or stop the boats so of Reform don't have the stomach then the public will inevitably vote in a party that does or the Tories will step in and become that party.
The prevailing view when the modern experiment in mass migration began was that people might be a bit angry in the short term, but they'll get over it and we'll all be better off in the long run, so any opposition should just be ignored or managed. It's proving to have been a terrible mistake.
I think if immigration had been limited to people with earnings over the higher rate threshold then this might have been the case. As it is with millions of people arriving on unskilled, student and dependent visas who contribute far, far less than they receive in state services it has been an unmitigated disaster since about 2005. Wrt illegal immigration the current or next government will need to get a Rwanda style agreement up and running, clear any and all legal hurdles with primary legislation, abrogating treaties and agreements if necessary and just putting people on planes and deporting them to somewhere not the UK or giving them a chance to self deport if they don't want to do that (see the illegal immigrants in the US self deporting rather than risk ending up in El Salvador).
Make clear that there is no chance of staying in the UK under any circumstances so it's go home on a commercial flight or go to Rwanda, if they've burned their passports etc... then it's go to Rwanda by default unless they can arrange for a new passport to be issued by their home country.
There is an argument that high-skilled migration crowds out the current population from the best paying jobs. Instead of having a half-decent education system or allowing people to progress from the bottom rung to the top, just get some foreign graduate in to do the job instead.
Both my grandfathers did not have degrees yet ended up in relatively senior positions in international firms. One literally started washing windows aged 16, the other on the factory floor. Both were trained up by their firms, sent abroad to get some experience, had their childcare and sometimes housing paid for etc etc. That must be pretty rare nowadays.
Wages are far too crude a measure anyway. I like the idea of a visa that allows people to install solar panels for four years. That won't be particularly well-paid, but it will mean we get over the hump of the Green transition more quickly and cheaply than otherwise. Then we can have a smaller workforce of technicians who replace them when need or fix any problems for the next 30+ years.
Yes, I don't understand the fetishization of high-paid immigration. Isn't that basically reproducing the Norman Conquest all over again in the modern world?
I feel like a lot of contemporary British politics can be understood by reference to the country having failed to overthrow Norman oppression, and so internalising it, and similarly not wanting to feel a scintilla of regret for the British Empire.
It creates uniquely British neuroses about class stratification, a preference for importing a boss class for the indigenous population to serve, and the assumption that if Britain wasn't ruling the EU, then the EU was ruling Britain - not being able to see it as a cooperative endeavour.
I think there is a fetishisation of high paid immigration because the British workers in competition with the immigrants in that case are well off anyway, and won’t be pushed into poverty, benefits, loneliness etc as is the case in the real world of low skilled, low pay immigration creating a free market for the crumbs from the captains table
Zarah Sultana MP @zarahsultana · 1h Since announcing the formation of a new left party just three days ago, over 72,000 people have signed up to get involved.
Comments
https://x.com/labourlewis/status/1941931176173735938
Ah the old, ‘the govt is a household,’ line.
The UK government is a currency creator, not a currency user… Financial markets are accommodated by the government, not the other way around.
We don’t even check if people leave once their visas expire so how will we know, presuming you are correct, who these millions are.
I suspect the easiest course of action is just to award them citizenship and carry on as we are.
My sister is seriously disabled and needs ambulance transport to get to hospital appointments and recently we had to involve our MSP just to stop the Scottish Ambulance Service from continually cancelling her transport the day before.
I could go on at length about other failings, but in summary I honestly can't recall a single positive interaction with the NHS in the last five years.
Oddly, my interactions with the Glasgow/Scottish NHS were way improved during lockdown. Then went to sh*t again when it was left back to local surgeries, units etc. It really baffles me how bad they are. Letter through the door telling you about your appointment for yesterday. Or an appointment with the name of a unit, but no address or contact details. Really, really basic stuff.
Anyone that bonkers shouldn't be holding the whip of the party in Government.
I also wouldn't be surprised if very early on Reform suspend or repeal the HRA and suspend our membership of the ECHR to enable deportation of illegals to whatever country they can pay to take them (probably Libya or Rwanda).
In the end I think Leon is right, the mood music in the country has turned decisively against immigration and asylum seekers, it is only going to get more negative towards it as Labour are unable to deport the illegal immigrants or stop the boats so of Reform don't have the stomach then the public will inevitably vote in a party that does or the Tories will step in and become that party.
Is it people who are here on legal visas?
Is it people who migrated here and have gained citizenship?
Is it people who were born here, are citizens of here, but aren't white?
What I have said is that I don't think 'the flag of America's enemy' can be an accurate description of the flag of one half of a civil war. Leaving aside the pendantry of the fact that 'America' refers to a continent, not a country.
I can't speak for the people who choose to fly the flag (unlike everyone else here who apparently has access to their innermost thoughts) but I would suggest that in addition to being a racist dogwhistle for some, it has additional connotations of a distinctly Southern identity and pride, and furthermore of a rebellious nature and disdain for authority. The people who fly it would regard themselves as 'true American patriots' and probably wouldn't care much for Barty's approval.
Of course it can.
The half that wanted to continue with America flew the American flag and were victorious.
The half that didn't want to be Americans, wanted to leave the country and lost were not.
The latter half were traitors and enemies who wanted to destroy America. Had they won, then they wouldn't be Americans today.
The fact they consider themselves "true American patriots" while flying the flag of enemies of America just shows how stupid and ignorant they are.
Yes, looking at you, Yookay
Particularly love the Pokot of Kenya who had a unique treatment for psychosis
When a tribesman became psychotic the Pokot people would grab him and hold him down, then “pound his head with a sizeable rock for a considerable time”
Yes, that should do it
Eg gerontology
If your mother shows early signs of dementia, just pin her forcefully to the ground, then “pound her head with a sizeable rock for a considerable time”
Sorted
I accept that all of this was largely dependent on me driving so maybe there is a problem with patient transport, but as someone once wrote in a note, there is no money. That was 15 years ago and there’s less than no money now. What gets cut to improve this situation?
Why not 1066?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gG3AJ3W_sbI
Ireland, Ukraine, Slovakia, Singapore, Bangladesh ... where does it end?
UKIP, SNP, Plaid Cymru?
When I went to UCL, in the 90s, I was told that students advocating violent fascism should be treated with respect. By the university authorities. This was after some of them used violence against other students.
The ability of people to take an idea to such extremes is an interesting one. I recall the nurse who wanted my mother dead. And her reaction to my reaction - which I explained to the doctor in charge of the ward after I complained.
Some bit of it could be not inaccurately described as scumsville.
Make clear that there is no chance of staying in the UK under any circumstances so it's go home on a commercial flight or go to Rwanda, if they've burned their passports etc... then it's go to Rwanda by default unless they can arrange for a new passport to be issued by their home country.
It also depends on if they win or lose.
What's the reason?
If treason prospers
None dare call it treason.
Sooner or later they lose patience and vote for someone more extreme when they are not listened too
Unfortunately, the slow learners in question have only learnt the first half of the message. The second half, that unfunded government spending in a fiat economy is ultimately limited by inflation & therefore only works when the private sector is in recession, appears to be written in a foreign tongue as far as these people are concerned.
I discussed the concerns with what the government did at the time - see here - https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/01/11/hobsons-choice-the-subpostmaster-issue/.
The system definitely needs a Cyclefree style approach to listening to whistleblowers / making it possible for them to come forward.
It desperately needs more foster parents - the lack of which leaves the care system as the only option.
The problem is delinquent families is more complicated.
I don't have any grand plan - and neither does anyone else.
I was surprised that the Supreme Court didn't intervene to offer to hear each case for half an hour or something. Why would the Post Office have anything to do with what happened?
So there are some excellent GP practices in deprived parts of Leicester because that is also where the major teaching hospitals are, and the GPs are active medical educators.
Similarly, while Consultant salaries are the same in Scunthorpe and Dorchester, housing costs are very different, getting a lot more for your money in North Lincs.
It's more about reputation and management culture. There are a couple of hospitals in my region that have such toxic management that they cannot retain staff, while nearby Trusts do not have the same issue. They are not the most socially deprived areas either.
Both my grandfathers did not have degrees yet ended up in relatively senior positions in international firms. One literally started washing windows aged 16, the other on the factory floor. Both were trained up by their firms, sent abroad to get some experience, had their childcare and sometimes housing paid for etc etc. That must be pretty rare nowadays.
Wages are far too crude a measure anyway. I like the idea of a visa that allows people to install solar panels for four years. That won't be particularly well-paid, but it will mean we get over the hump of the Green transition more quickly and cheaply than otherwise. Then we can have a smaller workforce of technicians who replace them when need or fix any problems for the next 30+ years.
But eye treatment - possibly since much of it is elective outpatient surgery with relatively predictable outcomes - seems (anecdotally) to be above the average.
Case abc
Did the evidence come from horizon. Evidence invalid, appeal granted - next
Case abd
Did the evidence come from horizon. Evidence invalid, appeal granted - next
The problem is obviously complex, but we did have a system that was designed to support these families and improve outcomes, the Sure Start programme, and there was considerable evidence for its success. The programme was gutted financially after 2010, with over 1000 Sure Start centres closing, and we are now living with the consequences of that short termism.
I'm not opposed to temporary single time or seasonal work visas for specific projects, however they shouldn't be allowed to import labour for the whole thing even if it makes the project or company unviable. Fundamentally what's the point in having an industry or company if it's low margin, employs and entirely foreign workforce of temporary visa holders and creates little wealth beyond that of the owners/shareholders who are likely to also be foreign.
Wages are market pricing of value, it's the fairest way to measure who should or shouldn't come to the UK. There may be some outliers in some industries but I doubt it's worth it.
Family hubs offering parenting support and youth services will be rolled out across every local authority in England, the government has announced.
The £500 million plan aims to support 500,000 more children in the most disadvantaged areas.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpvj1jr0kz0o
Part of the British Disease that has brought us here is a terror of the government giving money to any individual who doesn't absolutely need it.
In a big, wealthy parish, a priest could earn around £10,000 a year, but in a small parish this could be as little as £1,500. This could be topped up by Catholic charities to £4,000.'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11202429
I agree about Sure Start.
I have nothing but contempt for those promoting this Bill, including those on here wittering about choice and autonomy. I will face an added worry on top of what I already have to face and will be denied the choice, if I need it, of palliative care by a hospice which promises not to kill me. Plus the trust I ought to be able to have in those providing me with care will be broken if they now decide to suggest suicide to me.
Oh and the recent 10 year plan for the NHS mentioned palliative care once - in 170 pages or however long it was.
I'm glad some days I won't live long because society is becoming nastier and more selfish and lacking in any sense of decency or morality and I see no reason why this will not continue and worsen. There is very little that is hopeful on the horizon.
Some of those factors will settle in the long run, but the long run is a long way away.
I believe that anyone who wishes to do so should be free to end their own life, if that is their considered opinion. With safeguards, but anyone at all. That comes from my liberal beliefs that people should be free to determine how they live their life, including the end of it. It is your life, and it should be up to you if you wish to end it or not.
What to be frank you and Malmesbury and others are in denial about is that there have always been some who want to die, and always been some who have sympathy for that, and always been some facilitation of it. However because its illegal, that facilitation is done on a 'nod and a wink' without safeguards and means people who haven't asked for it and don't want it can end up on that.
Honesty and transparency is the best policy. A good AD system should eliminate the 'nod and a wink' culture that far too often sees people put on a 'pathway' to death without their choice, and without their consent.
We should get to choose what we want - nobody else.
I didn't. I could already read.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2025/jul/06/1960s-schools-experiment-created-new-alphabet-thousands-children-unable-to-spell
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/articles/czry1j5e32ko
I imagine if driverless cars do get going big time the accidental deaths on the road will probably reduce but will recieve far more scrutiny!
As an employer of around 80 mixed skill staff I have a pretty good perspective on the jobs market. There are a large number of young UK graduates who get paid relatively little on an international scale. These graduates are competing with a vast quantity of mostly Indian and African recently arrived graduates on variable quality. We recently hired a recent graduate in Birmingham area. Over 300 applications with 90% of foreign heritage. Ended up hiring Indian recent graduate. Note their salary will be less than 10% above minimum wage. There appear to be large number of UK local graduates who are not really trying to get a job. They apply and don't turn up for interviews or respond to emails.
For non skilled workers recruiting UK workers is becoming very difficult. Many of them have chaotic lives which sooner or later impact on their work. For many the differential between benefits and paid work is marginal. In addition with all the recent changes the pressure on them to perform is huge to justify their wage plus NI plus pension etc. The majority of our unskilled staff are now East European.
The jobs market was in trouble and is now completely broken. Labour ramped up salary costs dramatically, For us this was the equivalent of losing 2 staff members, We have also like many others looked to both increase automation and outsource labour internationally. I recently listened to the head of Reed on LBC who was explaining we are in the worst job recession for his 30 years experience. Private sector has shed 250,000 jobs in the last year, This at a tine where the country is awash with new labour. Maybe 100,000 graduates have gone onto PIP in last year and others on UC. Others are becoming perpetual students. The chance of following your grandfather route is close to zero.
The Government has to stop worrying about supply of labour which is already too much and focus on the creation of good quality jobs in large numbers within the private sector. I see no evidence of this and so the resentment will continue to grow,
@PaulEmbery
·
3h
Rod Liddle, in a satirical piece in the Spectator, joked about dropping a nuclear bomb on Glastonbury. The leader of Brighton and Hove city council has reported him to the police. Utterly ludicrous. These people are beyond parody."
https://x.com/PaulEmbery/status/1941924735199125873
Trump Sons Partner With Bizarre Financial Company
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfLAf-i4YjY
(Though I obviously hope that you would not want to do that.)
You are denying me choice by denying hospices the right opt out and you are putting me at risk of coercion by the very medical professionals who should be caring for me.
What you are in denial about is that you value selfish individualism above any obligation to care for or prevent abuse of the vulnerable. That is your choice but do not for a moment try to pretend that it is anything other than a fundamentally selfish choice which is content to see harm come to others so long as you get what you want.
You will often see senior individuals in one domain protecting senior individuals in another.
https://www.moreincommon.org.uk/latest-insights/more-in-common-s-july-mrp/
There is no reason why the same couldn't have happened, except our own domestic politics. Rwanda are quite happy to take our money.
I have no objection to hospices and those are being denied under our existing system which forbids assisted deaths too. You are the one in denial, our current system is failing dreadfully and you wanting to be illiberal and deny choices to others doesn't improve it one jot.
If you want improved hospice care, then campaign for that. No reason why that shouldn't happen alongside, not instead of, liberalising the provision of humane deaths.
You're also in denial of the fact that the 'nod and a wink' culture will continue as long as this is driven underground, just like backstreet abortions were. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. You know that in every other walk of life, but are too blinded on this one topic to see it.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2025/jul/06/government-faces-battle-over-send-overhaul-as-campaigners-voice-fears
How long until the U-turn?
Too much technology
Machines to save our lives
Machines dehumanise"
Styx — Mr Roboto, 1983. (Newly enhanced music video).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Halx-Xvw-JU
Zarah Sultana MP
@zarahsultana
·
1h
Since announcing the formation of a new left party just three days ago, over 72,000 people have signed up to get involved.
Let’s make it 100,000: https://actionnetwork.org/forms/join-team-zarah 🔥
P.S. The ticker at the bottom of the page is broken — we’re fixing it!
Firstly the Australian used places that were either their own territory or were stable and safe. Rwanda certainly was not stable or safe.
Secondly, and most importantly, the Australian centres are for processing. Successful adylum seekers are then taken back to the mainland and sette in Australia. The Rwanda scheme was clear that even if you were processed and accepted as an asylum seeker you could not return to the UK.
The Rwanda scheme was immoral and deserved to be scrapped.
And you're wrong about the Australian scheme. The Australian scheme was every bit as 'immoral' the Rwanda scheme, it was not only for processing. Under the Australian 'PNG solution' scheme anyone who travelled by boat and sent to PNG (which is every bit as 'safe and stable' as Rwanda) would get to stay in PNG and would not get transferred to Australia post-processing.
Anyone transferred to Manus or elsewhere for processing who then got processed as approved for refugee status would be transferred to PNG, not Australia.
"From now on, any asylum seeker who arrives in Australia by boat will have no chance of being settled in Australia as refugees." - Labor PM Rudd
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-19/manus-island-detention-centre-to-be-expanded-under-rudd27s-asy/4830778
https://web.archive.org/web/20130726153301/http://www.pm.gov.au/press-office/transcript-joint-press-conference-2
Value Added Tax is supposed to be levied on those items we can live without. The basic necessities for living should not be subject to a 'Value Added' tax. The same goes for education. We are already pricing far too many people out of Tertiary education. adding VAT would risk making Tertiary education the preserve of the wealthy.
I do however agree with everything else even though many of them would directly hit me either now or in the near future.
I feel like a lot of contemporary British politics can be understood by reference to the country having failed to overthrow Norman oppression, and so internalising it, and similarly not wanting to feel a scintilla of regret for the British Empire.
It creates uniquely British neuroses about class stratification, a preference for importing a boss class for the indigenous population to serve, and the assumption that if Britain wasn't ruling the EU, then the EU was ruling Britain - not being able to see it as a cooperative endeavour.
No reason besides our own politics and morals the UK couldn't do the same as Rudd did. Rwanda are happy to take our money, just as PNG were happy to take Australia's.
iirc she says it would be her no 1 priority for tax.