Chris Mason introduces the BBC news package on Farage and crime (only 14 mins into the news) by saying it is worth reflecting on how extraordinary it is that there is so much interest in the new policy of a party with four MPs.
That's right Chris it is f£cking extraordinary and your bosses and your channel are a massive part of the problem. Sunday he gets set piece with Laura K. Monday night he gets 5 mins of bbc news.
Stop platforming the guy over the other minor parties. He wont thank you and in the end he will merely close you down just as his lodestar Trump plans to do in America.
They lead every opinion poll, and won hundreds of seats at the last set of elections, which is obviously quite big news in the world of politics. I can’t understand why people are complaining, it would be ludicrous if they weren’t dominating political reports
They were also dominating the reports when they had zero MP's and zero councillors. I think that's the ongoing problematic picture. It's just not a good look. If "Radical Trotskyites For the Abolition of Felt" in the same situation were being invited onto every other episode of Question Time, or the Today programme - then I'd be equally annoyed.
I don’t think they were dominating the reports before the GE. But it’s fair enough that they are dominating political new shows now .The fact the same bloke is on most of them is because there aren’t many Reform politicians, and Farage is probably the most charismatic/news worthy of all MPs.
Why shouldn’t the party you cite be on every QT or Today programme if they were leading the polls and winning most of the current elections? If anything, the number of seats won by Farage parties has misrepresented how popular they are in the country in terms of votes for about a decade. Why should the electoral system’s bugs carry over to news coverage?
Possibly not dominating them before the GE, but wildly over-represented for sure. I don't really care - but compared to coverage other minor parties got it was really very noticeable. The Greens? Plaid? Monster Raving's? OG Liberals? Even the LibDems or SNP.
I don't think I can stomach sharing a space with people advocating self-deportation, or whatever the latest euphemism for being a xenophobic shitbag is. It would just make me too angry, and I have better ways to spend my time. Bamboo doesn't kill itself you know.
The most corrupt administration in history, example 689...
Cantor Fitzerland, the company being ran by Howard Lutnick’s 2 sons, is now buying rights to tariff refunds from small companies that cannot afford to wait a year for either the courts or Trump himself to overrule these tariffs.
Poor people selling their hard earned money for pennies on the dollar to the son of a billionaire who literally gets to decide these policies himself.
This is pure coincidence - I insist - but today I had drinks (in a rather worryingly quiet Soho) with a young journalist friend
He’s quite right wing for his age. I asked him why. He told me he was red pilled by doing court reporting in various London courts, where he realised how social housing has been captured by various ethnic groups in London Borough councils, who work as clans, and almost openly favour their own ethnicity/clan, as social housing is doled out
Interesting.
Why is it interesting? Leon is always spewing far right conspiracy theories with no evidence (beyond mysterious friends). This tells us that Leon is far right. It doesn't tell us much about the reality outside his head.
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
The fact is that William is happily channeling Enoch Powell and you are defending him.
Sorry but that's a weaselly statement in itself. I am sticking to what has actually been said, not who people are alledgedly 'channelling'.
So it's the question mark in "How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?" that makes it a question and gives you (and William) your pretend we're not racists get out clause...
Which tells the rest of us that you fully agree with the statement but love any get out clause you can find to avoid revealing your inner Enoch..
Is the percentage of social housing occupied by foreign-born people not a worthy topic of discussion?
Not once those people have been granted British citizenship. It is pointless. Because when it comes down to it you only have to go back a few generations and millions of us are from foreign born families. But our grandparents or their parents took British citizenship - hundreds of thousands of them after having fought for this country in our many wars - and we galdly granted that to them.
They are now British. That is all that matters. That gives every one of them just as many rights and responsibilities as me, you or anyone else who is British by birth.
Now as I have said many times in the past, I would certainly tighten up on the requiements to gain British citizenship - more along the lines of Norway with the need to properly learn the language and the cultures of these islands. But that is a separate argument. If people show long term commitment to this country by taking citizenship then we should treat them as equals in all matters.
You have to prove proficiency in English (or Welsh or Scottish Gaelic) to get British citizenship. Do you feel the test is insufficiently rigorous?
Yes. If I am being brutally honest.
If you want to gain Norwegian citizenship then you need to take 300 hours of compulsory taught face to face lessons in Norwegian language and culture and then pass exams at the end. Norway has one of the highest proportions of immigrants in the Western world and yet they are also the most integrated. They also pursue settlement policies which prevent the creation of ethnic ghettos. I think we should move much more in that direction.
But I do emphasise that this is not an argument for treating anyone who is already here with British citizenship as anything less than fully British. They have no control over what the Government of the day asks for to obtain citizenship and so should not be penalised for that.
I don't think we have that big of a problem of people not speaking English.
The ghetto issue is probably the better one we could learn from.
It is language and culture. The latter is just as important.
The current Life in the UK test is... not straightforward and requires some work, but I would agree with you that it's not a great test of someone's understanding of British culture. That said, British culture is not a monolith. It is hugely varied. Is the culture of Lisburn the same as the culture of Camden?
Anyway, the last friend of mine to gain UK citizenship is now a signed-up member of Restore Britain. Do you think that would demonstrate he's integrated to the satisfaction of the Reform UK supporters here?
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
The fact is that William is happily channeling Enoch Powell and you are defending him.
Sorry but that's a weaselly statement in itself. I am sticking to what has actually been said, not who people are alledgedly 'channelling'.
So it's the question mark in "How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?" that makes it a question and gives you (and William) your pretend we're not racists get out clause...
Which tells the rest of us that you fully agree with the statement but love any get out clause you can find to avoid revealing your inner Enoch..
Is the percentage of social housing occupied by foreign-born people not a worthy topic of discussion?
More importantly, nobody born abroad should get social housing in zone 1 of London. It is utterly absurd that large Somalian families can waltz into £3m townhouses that native Brits can only dream of, in their wildest dreams
British citizens should be eligible for the same things as other British citizens. That's how citizenship works. You can tighten the rules about who can get citizenship but once someone has it then it shouldn't matter where they are born.
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
The fact is that William is happily channeling Enoch Powell and you are defending him.
Sorry but that's a weaselly statement in itself. I am sticking to what has actually been said, not who people are alledgedly 'channelling'.
So it's the question mark in "How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?" that makes it a question and gives you (and William) your pretend we're not racists get out clause...
Which tells the rest of us that you fully agree with the statement but love any get out clause you can find to avoid revealing your inner Enoch..
Is the percentage of social housing occupied by foreign-born people not a worthy topic of discussion?
More importantly, nobody born abroad should get social housing in zone 1 of London. It is utterly absurd that large Somalian families can waltz into £3m townhouses that native Brits can only dream of, in their wildest dreams
I was born abroad.
You live with your Mum, Sunil
But suppose I wanted to live in social housing in Zone 1?
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
The fact is that William is happily channeling Enoch Powell and you are defending him.
Sorry but that's a weaselly statement in itself. I am sticking to what has actually been said, not who people are alledgedly 'channelling'.
So it's the question mark in "How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?" that makes it a question and gives you (and William) your pretend we're not racists get out clause...
Which tells the rest of us that you fully agree with the statement but love any get out clause you can find to avoid revealing your inner Enoch..
Is the percentage of social housing occupied by foreign-born people not a worthy topic of discussion?
More importantly, nobody born abroad should get social housing in zone 1 of London. It is utterly absurd that large Somalian families can waltz into £3m townhouses that native Brits can only dream of, in their wildest dreams
British citizens should be eligible for the same things as other British citizens. That's how citizenship works. You can tighten the rules about who can get citizenship but once someone has it then it shouldn't matter where they are born.
I disagree. I think we should have a contributory system and the longer you’ve been in the UK, as a taxpayer, with no criminal record, then the greater your rights to state assistance in housing. I would also add points for military service
And I would take this back a few generations, too. So if you’re - say - third generation British, and your family has unblemished legal history and military service, then yes YOU might get social housing in london zone 1
Note: I am not excluding any British citizen from all state assistance. No one should starve or go homeless. But yes, we should use preference and introduce incentives
There is now also a protest in Norfolk, coming after Dover and Epping. I hope the UK state and the Labour government begin to realise what they have created here —a tinderbox.
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
The fact is that William is happily channeling Enoch Powell and you are defending him.
Sorry but that's a weaselly statement in itself. I am sticking to what has actually been said, not who people are alledgedly 'channelling'.
So it's the question mark in "How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?" that makes it a question and gives you (and William) your pretend we're not racists get out clause...
Which tells the rest of us that you fully agree with the statement but love any get out clause you can find to avoid revealing your inner Enoch..
Is the percentage of social housing occupied by foreign-born people not a worthy topic of discussion?
More importantly, nobody born abroad should get social housing in zone 1 of London. It is utterly absurd that large Somalian families can waltz into £3m townhouses that native Brits can only dream of, in their wildest dreams
I was born abroad.
You live with your Mum, Sunil
But suppose I wanted to live in social housing in Zone 1?
Fast forward to 48 mins and watch a very witty evisceration of 'YooKay News" This particular clip about Albert the Great has been watched by 9 million.
#10 Media grid isn't getting much better...today scraping the post-ministerial jobs watchdog, scraping the water watchdog and announcing an inquiry into an incident from 45 years ago...before Starmer crashes the car later in the day with his loads of social housing for all.
Which allows for Farage to rock up and go crime, tough on crime, tough on causes of crime.
There is now also a protest in Norfolk, coming after Dover and Epping. I hope the UK state and the Labour government begin to realise what they have created here —a tinderbox.
Matt Goodwin, Nigel Farage and Tommy Robinson have created the tinderbox, and then seek to blame it on others.
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
The fact is that William is happily channeling Enoch Powell and you are defending him.
Sorry but that's a weaselly statement in itself. I am sticking to what has actually been said, not who people are alledgedly 'channelling'.
So it's the question mark in "How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?" that makes it a question and gives you (and William) your pretend we're not racists get out clause...
Which tells the rest of us that you fully agree with the statement but love any get out clause you can find to avoid revealing your inner Enoch..
Is the percentage of social housing occupied by foreign-born people not a worthy topic of discussion?
More importantly, nobody born abroad should get social housing in zone 1 of London. It is utterly absurd that large Somalian families can waltz into £3m townhouses that native Brits can only dream of, in their wildest dreams
British citizens should be eligible for the same things as other British citizens. That's how citizenship works. You can tighten the rules about who can get citizenship but once someone has it then it shouldn't matter where they are born.
I get what you are saying but that is not how our system actually works.
As an example, you can only get contributory ESA (for illness/disability therefore not working) if you have paid sufficient (and rather complex) NI rules.
I have no idea what the rules are for social housing but there's no reason based on our current system for there not to be rules that rule out actual citizens
I don't think I can stomach sharing a space with people advocating self-deportation, or whatever the latest euphemism for being a xenophobic shitbag is. It would just make me too angry, and I have better ways to spend my time. Bamboo doesn't kill itself you know.
You now live in Ireland. So presumably you can now pop off to irishpoliticalbetting.com and argue about Irish politics there, and everyone’s happy?
#10 Media grid isn't getting much better...today scraping the post-ministerial jobs watchdog, scraping the water watchdog and announcing an inquiry into an incident from 45 years ago...before Starmer crashes the car later in the day with his loads of social housing for all.
Which allows for Farage to rock up and go crime, tough on crime, tough on causes of crime.
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
The fact is that William is happily channeling Enoch Powell and you are defending him.
Sorry but that's a weaselly statement in itself. I am sticking to what has actually been said, not who people are alledgedly 'channelling'.
So it's the question mark in "How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?" that makes it a question and gives you (and William) your pretend we're not racists get out clause...
Which tells the rest of us that you fully agree with the statement but love any get out clause you can find to avoid revealing your inner Enoch..
Is the percentage of social housing occupied by foreign-born people not a worthy topic of discussion?
More importantly, nobody born abroad should get social housing in zone 1 of London. It is utterly absurd that large Somalian families can waltz into £3m townhouses that native Brits can only dream of, in their wildest dreams
I was born abroad.
You live with your Mum, Sunil
But suppose I wanted to live in social housing in Zone 1?
You absolutely should not get it
Why? Maybe I could squat in your flat while you're away? You hardly spend any time there
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
The fact is that William is happily channeling Enoch Powell and you are defending him.
Sorry but that's a weaselly statement in itself. I am sticking to what has actually been said, not who people are alledgedly 'channelling'.
So it's the question mark in "How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?" that makes it a question and gives you (and William) your pretend we're not racists get out clause...
Which tells the rest of us that you fully agree with the statement but love any get out clause you can find to avoid revealing your inner Enoch..
Is the percentage of social housing occupied by foreign-born people not a worthy topic of discussion?
More importantly, nobody born abroad should get social housing in zone 1 of London. It is utterly absurd that large Somalian families can waltz into £3m townhouses that native Brits can only dream of, in their wildest dreams
British citizens should be eligible for the same things as other British citizens. That's how citizenship works. You can tighten the rules about who can get citizenship but once someone has it then it shouldn't matter where they are born.
I disagree. I think we should have a contributory system and the longer you’ve been in the UK, as a taxpayer, with no criminal record, then the greater your rights to state assistance in housing. I would also add points for military service
And I would take this back a few generations, too. So if you’re - say - third generation British, and your family has unblemished legal history and military service, then yes YOU might get social housing in london zone 1
Note: I am not excluding any British citizen from all state assistance. No one should starve or go homeless. But yes, we should use preference and introduce incentives
I see the logic but I don't agree. I'd rather a first generation citizen who works at St Thomas Hospital (for example) was eligible for Zone 1 social housing than a 10th generation British citizen living in Surrey who had no need of it.
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
The fact is that William is happily channeling Enoch Powell and you are defending him.
Sorry but that's a weaselly statement in itself. I am sticking to what has actually been said, not who people are alledgedly 'channelling'.
So it's the question mark in "How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?" that makes it a question and gives you (and William) your pretend we're not racists get out clause...
Which tells the rest of us that you fully agree with the statement but love any get out clause you can find to avoid revealing your inner Enoch..
Is the percentage of social housing occupied by foreign-born people not a worthy topic of discussion?
More importantly, nobody born abroad should get social housing in zone 1 of London. It is utterly absurd that large Somalian families can waltz into £3m townhouses that native Brits can only dream of, in their wildest dreams
British citizens should be eligible for the same things as other British citizens. That's how citizenship works. You can tighten the rules about who can get citizenship but once someone has it then it shouldn't matter where they are born.
I disagree. I think we should have a contributory system and the longer you’ve been in the UK, as a taxpayer, with no criminal record, then the greater your rights to state assistance in housing. I would also add points for military service
And I would take this back a few generations, too. So if you’re - say - third generation British, and your family has unblemished legal history and military service, then yes YOU might get social housing in london zone 1
Note: I am not excluding any British citizen from all state assistance. No one should starve or go homeless. But yes, we should use preference and introduce incentives
I see the logic but I don't agree. I'd rather a first generation citizen who works at St Thomas Hospital (for example) was eligible for Zone 1 social housing than a 10th generation British citizen living in Surrey who had no need of it.
I assume the transport links to St Thomas’ hospital must be atrocious if they can only source employees from central London.
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
The fact is that William is happily channeling Enoch Powell and you are defending him.
Sorry but that's a weaselly statement in itself. I am sticking to what has actually been said, not who people are alledgedly 'channelling'.
So it's the question mark in "How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?" that makes it a question and gives you (and William) your pretend we're not racists get out clause...
Which tells the rest of us that you fully agree with the statement but love any get out clause you can find to avoid revealing your inner Enoch..
Is the percentage of social housing occupied by foreign-born people not a worthy topic of discussion?
More importantly, nobody born abroad should get social housing in zone 1 of London. It is utterly absurd that large Somalian families can waltz into £3m townhouses that native Brits can only dream of, in their wildest dreams
British citizens should be eligible for the same things as other British citizens. That's how citizenship works. You can tighten the rules about who can get citizenship but once someone has it then it shouldn't matter where they are born.
I disagree. I think we should have a contributory system and the longer you’ve been in the UK, as a taxpayer, with no criminal record, then the greater your rights to state assistance in housing. I would also add points for military service
And I would take this back a few generations, too. So if you’re - say - third generation British, and your family has unblemished legal history and military service, then yes YOU might get social housing in london zone 1
Note: I am not excluding any British citizen from all state assistance. No one should starve or go homeless. But yes, we should use preference and introduce incentives
The original old age pension of early 1900s insisted on receiver being a citizen for twenty years.
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
The fact is that William is happily channeling Enoch Powell and you are defending him.
Sorry but that's a weaselly statement in itself. I am sticking to what has actually been said, not who people are alledgedly 'channelling'.
So it's the question mark in "How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?" that makes it a question and gives you (and William) your pretend we're not racists get out clause...
Which tells the rest of us that you fully agree with the statement but love any get out clause you can find to avoid revealing your inner Enoch..
Is the percentage of social housing occupied by foreign-born people not a worthy topic of discussion?
More importantly, nobody born abroad should get social housing in zone 1 of London. It is utterly absurd that large Somalian families can waltz into £3m townhouses that native Brits can only dream of, in their wildest dreams
British citizens should be eligible for the same things as other British citizens. That's how citizenship works. You can tighten the rules about who can get citizenship but once someone has it then it shouldn't matter where they are born.
I get what you are saying but that is not how our system actually works.
As an example, you can only get contributory ESA (for illness/disability therefore not working) if you have paid sufficient (and rather complex) NI rules.
I have no idea what the rules are for social housing but there's no reason based on our current system for there not to be rules that rule out actual citizens
Social housing rules are set by local councils, so they can vary somewhat. They often include a local residency requirement. I'm in Camden. Camden's basic rules are...
lived in Camden for 5 out of the last 7 years a need to move, for example because of ill health, overcrowding, experiencing harassment or have more bedrooms than you need no more than £32,000 in household savings or financial assets no more than 10 weeks rent arrears
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
The fact is that William is happily channeling Enoch Powell and you are defending him.
Sorry but that's a weaselly statement in itself. I am sticking to what has actually been said, not who people are alledgedly 'channelling'.
So it's the question mark in "How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?" that makes it a question and gives you (and William) your pretend we're not racists get out clause...
Which tells the rest of us that you fully agree with the statement but love any get out clause you can find to avoid revealing your inner Enoch..
Is the percentage of social housing occupied by foreign-born people not a worthy topic of discussion?
More importantly, nobody born abroad should get social housing in zone 1 of London. It is utterly absurd that large Somalian families can waltz into £3m townhouses that native Brits can only dream of, in their wildest dreams
British citizens should be eligible for the same things as other British citizens. That's how citizenship works. You can tighten the rules about who can get citizenship but once someone has it then it shouldn't matter where they are born.
I disagree. I think we should have a contributory system and the longer you’ve been in the UK, as a taxpayer, with no criminal record, then the greater your rights to state assistance in housing. I would also add points for military service
And I would take this back a few generations, too. So if you’re - say - third generation British, and your family has unblemished legal history and military service, then yes YOU might get social housing in london zone 1
Note: I am not excluding any British citizen from all state assistance. No one should starve or go homeless. But yes, we should use preference and introduce incentives
I see the logic but I don't agree. I'd rather a first generation citizen who works at St Thomas Hospital (for example) was eligible for Zone 1 social housing than a 10th generation British citizen living in Surrey who had no need of it.
I assume the transport links to St Thomas’ hospital must be atrocious if they can only source employees from central London.
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
The fact is that William is happily channeling Enoch Powell and you are defending him.
Sorry but that's a weaselly statement in itself. I am sticking to what has actually been said, not who people are alledgedly 'channelling'.
So it's the question mark in "How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?" that makes it a comment you are willing to protect.
Which tells the rest of us that you fully agree with the statement but love any get out clause you can find to avoid revealing your inner Enoch..
I didn't care much either way about the original question - a fairly standard piece of William Glennery I thought.
I am interested in policy - and the only actual policy discussed that I am aware of is one of a financial incentive to return to the country of origin - which I am yet to read a convincing argument against, or even an opinion on, from Barty, BigG, Nigel, or yourself.
So which "country of origin" should my household live in?
This one, that my kids and I were born in, and that the entire household has citizenship of?
Or the one my wife was born in, that she has renounced her citizenship to, and that the kids and I have never been to?
There are plenty of blended households, which is why its absurd to ask where an individual was born. It doesn't matter.
Why do you keep applying this to your wife?
If your wife has no former country that she could now legitimately seek citizenship of, then for yet another reason, William's suggested policy has nothing to do with your family.
Yes, there are plenty of blended households, and there are plenty of non-blended ones who still hold citizenship of their country of origin and a strong sense of cultural allegiance to it. So I ask again, what is wrong with offering those people a financial incentive to return to that country if the overall fiscal effect is positive?
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
The fact is that William is happily channeling Enoch Powell and you are defending him.
Sorry but that's a weaselly statement in itself. I am sticking to what has actually been said, not who people are alledgedly 'channelling'.
So it's the question mark in "How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?" that makes it a question and gives you (and William) your pretend we're not racists get out clause...
Which tells the rest of us that you fully agree with the statement but love any get out clause you can find to avoid revealing your inner Enoch..
Is the percentage of social housing occupied by foreign-born people not a worthy topic of discussion?
More importantly, nobody born abroad should get social housing in zone 1 of London. It is utterly absurd that large Somalian families can waltz into £3m townhouses that native Brits can only dream of, in their wildest dreams
British citizens should be eligible for the same things as other British citizens. That's how citizenship works. You can tighten the rules about who can get citizenship but once someone has it then it shouldn't matter where they are born.
I disagree. I think we should have a contributory system and the longer you’ve been in the UK, as a taxpayer, with no criminal record, then the greater your rights to state assistance in housing. I would also add points for military service
And I would take this back a few generations, too. So if you’re - say - third generation British, and your family has unblemished legal history and military service, then yes YOU might get social housing in london zone 1
Note: I am not excluding any British citizen from all state assistance. No one should starve or go homeless. But yes, we should use preference and introduce incentives
The original old age pension of early 1900s insisted on receiver being a citizen for twenty years.
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
The fact is that William is happily channeling Enoch Powell and you are defending him.
Sorry but that's a weaselly statement in itself. I am sticking to what has actually been said, not who people are alledgedly 'channelling'.
So it's the question mark in "How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?" that makes it a question and gives you (and William) your pretend we're not racists get out clause...
Which tells the rest of us that you fully agree with the statement but love any get out clause you can find to avoid revealing your inner Enoch..
Is the percentage of social housing occupied by foreign-born people not a worthy topic of discussion?
More importantly, nobody born abroad should get social housing in zone 1 of London. It is utterly absurd that large Somalian families can waltz into £3m townhouses that native Brits can only dream of, in their wildest dreams
British citizens should be eligible for the same things as other British citizens. That's how citizenship works. You can tighten the rules about who can get citizenship but once someone has it then it shouldn't matter where they are born.
I disagree. I think we should have a contributory system and the longer you’ve been in the UK, as a taxpayer, with no criminal record, then the greater your rights to state assistance in housing. I would also add points for military service
And I would take this back a few generations, too. So if you’re - say - third generation British, and your family has unblemished legal history and military service, then yes YOU might get social housing in london zone 1
Note: I am not excluding any British citizen from all state assistance. No one should starve or go homeless. But yes, we should use preference and introduce incentives
I see the logic but I don't agree. I'd rather a first generation citizen who works at St Thomas Hospital (for example) was eligible for Zone 1 social housing than a 10th generation British citizen living in Surrey who had no need of it.
I assume the transport links to St Thomas’ hospital must be atrocious if they can only source employees from central London.
Quite
Native Brits have to do this thing called “commuting” if they work in central london. They don’t expect big council-owned super-cheap townhouses in Lambeth
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
The fact is that William is happily channeling Enoch Powell and you are defending him.
Sorry but that's a weaselly statement in itself. I am sticking to what has actually been said, not who people are alledgedly 'channelling'.
So it's the question mark in "How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?" that makes it a question and gives you (and William) your pretend we're not racists get out clause...
Which tells the rest of us that you fully agree with the statement but love any get out clause you can find to avoid revealing your inner Enoch..
Is the percentage of social housing occupied by foreign-born people not a worthy topic of discussion?
More importantly, nobody born abroad should get social housing in zone 1 of London. It is utterly absurd that large Somalian families can waltz into £3m townhouses that native Brits can only dream of, in their wildest dreams
British citizens should be eligible for the same things as other British citizens. That's how citizenship works. You can tighten the rules about who can get citizenship but once someone has it then it shouldn't matter where they are born.
I get what you are saying but that is not how our system actually works.
As an example, you can only get contributory ESA (for illness/disability therefore not working) if you have paid sufficient (and rather complex) NI rules.
I have no idea what the rules are for social housing but there's no reason based on our current system for there not to be rules that rule out actual citizens
NI rules have nothing to do with where you are born.
Taking my wife as an example again, she migrated here at 18 and has worked consistently (and paid tax and NI consistently) since then.
So she'll have done so consistently more than many if not most British-born people.
The most corrupt administration in history, example 689...
Cantor Fitzerland, the company being ran by Howard Lutnick’s 2 sons, is now buying rights to tariff refunds from small companies that cannot afford to wait a year for either the courts or Trump himself to overrule these tariffs.
Poor people selling their hard earned money for pennies on the dollar to the son of a billionaire who literally gets to decide these policies himself.
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
The fact is that William is happily channeling Enoch Powell and you are defending him.
Sorry but that's a weaselly statement in itself. I am sticking to what has actually been said, not who people are alledgedly 'channelling'.
So it's the question mark in "How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?" that makes it a question and gives you (and William) your pretend we're not racists get out clause...
Which tells the rest of us that you fully agree with the statement but love any get out clause you can find to avoid revealing your inner Enoch..
Is the percentage of social housing occupied by foreign-born people not a worthy topic of discussion?
More importantly, nobody born abroad should get social housing in zone 1 of London. It is utterly absurd that large Somalian families can waltz into £3m townhouses that native Brits can only dream of, in their wildest dreams
British citizens should be eligible for the same things as other British citizens. That's how citizenship works. You can tighten the rules about who can get citizenship but once someone has it then it shouldn't matter where they are born.
I get what you are saying but that is not how our system actually works.
As an example, you can only get contributory ESA (for illness/disability therefore not working) if you have paid sufficient (and rather complex) NI rules.
I have no idea what the rules are for social housing but there's no reason based on our current system for there not to be rules that rule out actual citizens
Yes sorry I was simplifying. I know and have no issues with the fact that not all citizens qualify for the same benefits. The point is that there's no benefit which discirminates based on where someone is born.
Why do some of us pay to use the underground but others don’t have to? A complete lack of enforcement by @TfL. And the station staff says he doesn’t record it because the system on his iPad doesn’t work properly. Khan’s London is going to the dogs… https://x.com/SimonDanczuk/status/1947199045241389181
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
The fact is that William is happily channeling Enoch Powell and you are defending him.
Sorry but that's a weaselly statement in itself. I am sticking to what has actually been said, not who people are alledgedly 'channelling'.
So it's the question mark in "How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?" that makes it a question and gives you (and William) your pretend we're not racists get out clause...
Which tells the rest of us that you fully agree with the statement but love any get out clause you can find to avoid revealing your inner Enoch..
Is the percentage of social housing occupied by foreign-born people not a worthy topic of discussion?
More importantly, nobody born abroad should get social housing in zone 1 of London. It is utterly absurd that large Somalian families can waltz into £3m townhouses that native Brits can only dream of, in their wildest dreams
British citizens should be eligible for the same things as other British citizens. That's how citizenship works. You can tighten the rules about who can get citizenship but once someone has it then it shouldn't matter where they are born.
I disagree. I think we should have a contributory system and the longer you’ve been in the UK, as a taxpayer, with no criminal record, then the greater your rights to state assistance in housing. I would also add points for military service
And I would take this back a few generations, too. So if you’re - say - third generation British, and your family has unblemished legal history and military service, then yes YOU might get social housing in london zone 1
Note: I am not excluding any British citizen from all state assistance. No one should starve or go homeless. But yes, we should use preference and introduce incentives
I see the logic but I don't agree. I'd rather a first generation citizen who works at St Thomas Hospital (for example) was eligible for Zone 1 social housing than a 10th generation British citizen living in Surrey who had no need of it.
I assume the transport links to St Thomas’ hospital must be atrocious if they can only source employees from central London.
Oh yes very funny it was just an example. Who do you think should qualify for zone 1 social housing then?
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
The fact is that William is happily channeling Enoch Powell and you are defending him.
Sorry but that's a weaselly statement in itself. I am sticking to what has actually been said, not who people are alledgedly 'channelling'.
So it's the question mark in "How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?" that makes it a question and gives you (and William) your pretend we're not racists get out clause...
Which tells the rest of us that you fully agree with the statement but love any get out clause you can find to avoid revealing your inner Enoch..
Is the percentage of social housing occupied by foreign-born people not a worthy topic of discussion?
More importantly, nobody born abroad should get social housing in zone 1 of London. It is utterly absurd that large Somalian families can waltz into £3m townhouses that native Brits can only dream of, in their wildest dreams
I was born abroad.
The gradual process of rad6cslisation on the right is beginning to interfere with PB's gentlemanly rules of conduct.
Hence the more rightwiing sides are gradually becoming even more extreme than our rightwingers here on PB.
Now ask it, who’s the money behind the money? Months after the ‘transfer’, @ObserverUK still hadn’t disclosed its full list of investors despite its promise to do so. Nor will it disclose whether or not it has taken Saudi money.
Why do some of us pay to use the underground but others don’t have to? A complete lack of enforcement by @TfL. And the station staff says he doesn’t record it because the system on his iPad doesn’t work properly. Khan’s London is going to the dogs… https://x.com/SimonDanczuk/status/1947199045241389181
He exaggerates. There is some enforcement, if perhaps not enough.
Transport for London (TfL) prosecuted 3,691 people on the Tube in 2024-25, and also issued 13,118 penalty fare notices (PFNs) and 850 written warnings.
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
The fact is that William is happily channeling Enoch Powell and you are defending him.
Sorry but that's a weaselly statement in itself. I am sticking to what has actually been said, not who people are alledgedly 'channelling'.
So it's the question mark in "How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?" that makes it a comment you are willing to protect.
Which tells the rest of us that you fully agree with the statement but love any get out clause you can find to avoid revealing your inner Enoch..
I didn't care much either way about the original question - a fairly standard piece of William Glennery I thought.
I am interested in policy - and the only actual policy discussed that I am aware of is one of a financial incentive to return to the country of origin - which I am yet to read a convincing argument against, or even an opinion on, from Barty, BigG, Nigel, or yourself.
The strongest argument against it from my perspective, but one that some will doubtless dismiss as woke snowflakery, is that such a policy would stigmatise foreign born citizens, make them feel second class and unwanted, and encourage nationalist thugs to ram that feeling down their throats at every opportunity.
Would it not actually add luster to their chosen British status because they turned down pecuniary advantage in order to commit and put down roots?
Why do some of us pay to use the underground but others don’t have to? A complete lack of enforcement by @TfL. And the station staff says he doesn’t record it because the system on his iPad doesn’t work properly. Khan’s London is going to the dogs… https://x.com/SimonDanczuk/status/1947199045241389181
He exaggerates. There is some enforcement, if perhaps not enough.
Transport for London (TfL) prosecuted 3,691 people on the Tube in 2024-25, and also issued 13,118 penalty fare notices (PFNs) and 850 written warnings.
The person literally walks straight past a TFL employee in a booth....who does nothing.
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
The fact is that William is happily channeling Enoch Powell and you are defending him.
Sorry but that's a weaselly statement in itself. I am sticking to what has actually been said, not who people are alledgedly 'channelling'.
So it's the question mark in "How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?" that makes it a comment you are willing to protect.
Which tells the rest of us that you fully agree with the statement but love any get out clause you can find to avoid revealing your inner Enoch..
I didn't care much either way about the original question - a fairly standard piece of William Glennery I thought.
I am interested in policy - and the only actual policy discussed that I am aware of is one of a financial incentive to return to the country of origin - which I am yet to read a convincing argument against, or even an opinion on, from Barty, BigG, Nigel, or yourself.
The strongest argument against it from my perspective, but one that some will doubtless dismiss as woke snowflakery, is that such a policy would stigmatise foreign born citizens, make them feel second class and unwanted, and encourage nationalist thugs to ram that feeling down their throats at every opportunity.
Would it not actually add lustre to their chosen British status because they turned down pecuniary advantage in order to commit and put down roots?
People already have to pay thousands of pounds to acquire UK citizenship, but that doesn't stop racists being racist at them.
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
The fact is that William is happily channeling Enoch Powell and you are defending him.
Sorry but that's a weaselly statement in itself. I am sticking to what has actually been said, not who people are alledgedly 'channelling'.
So it's the question mark in "How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?" that makes it a question and gives you (and William) your pretend we're not racists get out clause...
Which tells the rest of us that you fully agree with the statement but love any get out clause you can find to avoid revealing your inner Enoch..
Is the percentage of social housing occupied by foreign-born people not a worthy topic of discussion?
More importantly, nobody born abroad should get social housing in zone 1 of London. It is utterly absurd that large Somalian families can waltz into £3m townhouses that native Brits can only dream of, in their wildest dreams
British citizens should be eligible for the same things as other British citizens. That's how citizenship works. You can tighten the rules about who can get citizenship but once someone has it then it shouldn't matter where they are born.
I disagree. I think we should have a contributory system and the longer you’ve been in the UK, as a taxpayer, with no criminal record, then the greater your rights to state assistance in housing. I would also add points for military service
And I would take this back a few generations, too. So if you’re - say - third generation British, and your family has unblemished legal history and military service, then yes YOU might get social housing in london zone 1
Note: I am not excluding any British citizen from all state assistance. No one should starve or go homeless. But yes, we should use preference and introduce incentives
I see the logic but I don't agree. I'd rather a first generation citizen who works at St Thomas Hospital (for example) was eligible for Zone 1 social housing than a 10th generation British citizen living in Surrey who had no need of it.
I assume the transport links to St Thomas’ hospital must be atrocious if they can only source employees from central London.
Oh yes very funny it was just an example. Who do you think should qualify for zone 1 social housing then?
No one? It’s an extremely inefficient use of resources.
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
The fact is that William is happily channeling Enoch Powell and you are defending him.
Sorry but that's a weaselly statement in itself. I am sticking to what has actually been said, not who people are alledgedly 'channelling'.
So it's the question mark in "How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?" that makes it a question and gives you (and William) your pretend we're not racists get out clause...
Which tells the rest of us that you fully agree with the statement but love any get out clause you can find to avoid revealing your inner Enoch..
Is the percentage of social housing occupied by foreign-born people not a worthy topic of discussion?
More importantly, nobody born abroad should get social housing in zone 1 of London. It is utterly absurd that large Somalian families can waltz into £3m townhouses that native Brits can only dream of, in their wildest dreams
British citizens should be eligible for the same things as other British citizens. That's how citizenship works. You can tighten the rules about who can get citizenship but once someone has it then it shouldn't matter where they are born.
I disagree. I think we should have a contributory system and the longer you’ve been in the UK, as a taxpayer, with no criminal record, then the greater your rights to state assistance in housing. I would also add points for military service
And I would take this back a few generations, too. So if you’re - say - third generation British, and your family has unblemished legal history and military service, then yes YOU might get social housing in london zone 1
Note: I am not excluding any British citizen from all state assistance. No one should starve or go homeless. But yes, we should use preference and introduce incentives
I see the logic but I don't agree. I'd rather a first generation citizen who works at St Thomas Hospital (for example) was eligible for Zone 1 social housing than a 10th generation British citizen living in Surrey who had no need of it.
I assume the transport links to St Thomas’ hospital must be atrocious if they can only source employees from central London.
Oh yes very funny it was just an example. Who do you think should qualify for zone 1 social housing then?
Very very few people should qualify for social housing in zone 1. It’s absurd that we have so much and it warps the already fucked property market
But I would reserve ultra-desirable zone 1 housing for 2nd or 3rd generation Brits with NO criminal history, a long record of taxpaying (at least in the family) and more points for military service
What is wrong with providing incentives for good and patriotic behaviour? It’s ridic we don’t do this
If by contrast you’re a large Somalian family who arrived in the last 5 years, with some criminal history, then we will also do our best to help you, but no you’re not gonna get a big house in Westminster
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
The fact is that William is happily channeling Enoch Powell and you are defending him.
Sorry but that's a weaselly statement in itself. I am sticking to what has actually been said, not who people are alledgedly 'channelling'.
So it's the question mark in "How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?" that makes it a comment you are willing to protect.
Which tells the rest of us that you fully agree with the statement but love any get out clause you can find to avoid revealing your inner Enoch..
I didn't care much either way about the original question - a fairly standard piece of William Glennery I thought.
I am interested in policy - and the only actual policy discussed that I am aware of is one of a financial incentive to return to the country of origin - which I am yet to read a convincing argument against, or even an opinion on, from Barty, BigG, Nigel, or yourself.
The strongest argument against it from my perspective, but one that some will doubtless dismiss as woke snowflakery, is that such a policy would stigmatise foreign born citizens, make them feel second class and unwanted, and encourage nationalist thugs to ram that feeling down their throats at every opportunity.
Would it not actually add lustre to their chosen British status because they turned down pecuniary advantage in order to commit and put down roots?
People already have to pay thousands of pounds to acquire UK citizenship, but that doesn't stop racists being racist at them.
No, and it wouldn't in this case either, but it would be proven beyond doubt that there was a commitment and loyalty beyond financial considerations.
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
The fact is that William is happily channeling Enoch Powell and you are defending him.
Sorry but that's a weaselly statement in itself. I am sticking to what has actually been said, not who people are alledgedly 'channelling'.
So it's the question mark in "How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?" that makes it a comment you are willing to protect.
Which tells the rest of us that you fully agree with the statement but love any get out clause you can find to avoid revealing your inner Enoch..
I didn't care much either way about the original question - a fairly standard piece of William Glennery I thought.
I am interested in policy - and the only actual policy discussed that I am aware of is one of a financial incentive to return to the country of origin - which I am yet to read a convincing argument against, or even an opinion on, from Barty, BigG, Nigel, or yourself.
The strongest argument against it from my perspective, but one that some will doubtless dismiss as woke snowflakery, is that such a policy would stigmatise foreign born citizens, make them feel second class and unwanted, and encourage nationalist thugs to ram that feeling down their throats at every opportunity.
Would it not actually add luster to their chosen British status because they turned down pecuniary advantage in order to commit and put down roots?
That's what people who live in social housing are trying to do. Raise their family, work and then get on in life. Social housing in Zone 1 isn't free or even that cheap. I know a bit about the Peabody Key Workers Scheme. It's open to teachers, police, medical staff and the like. A two bedroom flat on it's Pimlico Estate is about £1500 a month. It's there because Peabody believe that even wealthy areas benefit from having people who provide essential services actually living there
Why do some of us pay to use the underground but others don’t have to? A complete lack of enforcement by @TfL. And the station staff says he doesn’t record it because the system on his iPad doesn’t work properly. Khan’s London is going to the dogs… https://x.com/SimonDanczuk/status/1947199045241389181
Dunno, why do some middle-aged men try to groom teenage girls while others behave appropriately? "That Simon Danczuk's a gent, he always paid his tube fare when he was trying to get off with my 17 year old daughter"
This is why you don't apologise to bad faith actors, they will never accept it.
Editor's note on the removal of the SAF cartoon from our 20 July edition: We are genuinely sorry for causing offence, and we are taking the cartoon down.
If they hadn't drawn the character as brown, she would have accused them of whitewashing. It wasn't particular funny or clever, but I rarely seen one in the Guardian or Observer that is, the bloke they sacked for one too many antisemitic ones was offensive basically every cartoon to all and sundry.
Now ask it, who’s the money behind the money? Months after the ‘transfer’, @ObserverUK still hadn’t disclosed its full list of investors despite its promise to do so. Nor will it disclose whether or not it has taken Saudi money.
Now ask it, who’s the money behind the money? Months after the ‘transfer’, @ObserverUK still hadn’t disclosed its full list of investors despite its promise to do so. Nor will it disclose whether or not it has taken Saudi money.
This is why you don't apologise to bad faith actors, they will never accept it.
Editor's note on the removal of the SAF cartoon from our 20 July edition: We are genuinely sorry for causing offence, and we are taking the cartoon down.
If they hadn't drawn the character as brown, she would have accused them of whitewashing. It wasn't particular funny or clever, but I rarely seen one in the Guardian or Observer that is, the bloke they sacked for one too many antisemitic ones was offensive basically every cartoon to all and sundry.
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
The fact is that William is happily channeling Enoch Powell and you are defending him.
Sorry but that's a weaselly statement in itself. I am sticking to what has actually been said, not who people are alledgedly 'channelling'.
So it's the question mark in "How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?" that makes it a question and gives you (and William) your pretend we're not racists get out clause...
Which tells the rest of us that you fully agree with the statement but love any get out clause you can find to avoid revealing your inner Enoch..
Is the percentage of social housing occupied by foreign-born people not a worthy topic of discussion?
More importantly, nobody born abroad should get social housing in zone 1 of London. It is utterly absurd that large Somalian families can waltz into £3m townhouses that native Brits can only dream of, in their wildest dreams
British citizens should be eligible for the same things as other British citizens. That's how citizenship works. You can tighten the rules about who can get citizenship but once someone has it then it shouldn't matter where they are born.
I disagree. I think we should have a contributory system and the longer you’ve been in the UK, as a taxpayer, with no criminal record, then the greater your rights to state assistance in housing. I would also add points for military service
And I would take this back a few generations, too. So if you’re - say - third generation British, and your family has unblemished legal history and military service, then yes YOU might get social housing in london zone 1
Note: I am not excluding any British citizen from all state assistance. No one should starve or go homeless. But yes, we should use preference and introduce incentives
The original old age pension of early 1900s insisted on receiver being a citizen for twenty years.
I'm waiting for the 30 year old asylum seekers pretending to be 17 to reach pension age. Suspect they will magically locate their birth certificates when the time comes...
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
The fact is that William is happily channeling Enoch Powell and you are defending him.
Sorry but that's a weaselly statement in itself. I am sticking to what has actually been said, not who people are alledgedly 'channelling'.
So it's the question mark in "How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?" that makes it a question and gives you (and William) your pretend we're not racists get out clause...
Which tells the rest of us that you fully agree with the statement but love any get out clause you can find to avoid revealing your inner Enoch..
Is the percentage of social housing occupied by foreign-born people not a worthy topic of discussion?
More importantly, nobody born abroad should get social housing in zone 1 of London. It is utterly absurd that large Somalian families can waltz into £3m townhouses that native Brits can only dream of, in their wildest dreams
British citizens should be eligible for the same things as other British citizens. That's how citizenship works. You can tighten the rules about who can get citizenship but once someone has it then it shouldn't matter where they are born.
I disagree. I think we should have a contributory system and the longer you’ve been in the UK, as a taxpayer, with no criminal record, then the greater your rights to state assistance in housing. I would also add points for military service
And I would take this back a few generations, too. So if you’re - say - third generation British, and your family has unblemished legal history and military service, then yes YOU might get social housing in london zone 1
Note: I am not excluding any British citizen from all state assistance. No one should starve or go homeless. But yes, we should use preference and introduce incentives
The original old age pension of early 1900s insisted on receiver being a citizen for twenty years.
I'm waiting for the 30 year old asylum seekers pretending to be 17 to reach pension age. Suspect they will magically locate their birth certificates when the time comes...
Why do some of us pay to use the underground but others don’t have to? A complete lack of enforcement by @TfL. And the station staff says he doesn’t record it because the system on his iPad doesn’t work properly. Khan’s London is going to the dogs… https://x.com/SimonDanczuk/status/1947199045241389181
Every time I visit London now I see fare dodging. It used to be only occasionally.
This is pure coincidence - I insist - but today I had drinks (in a rather worryingly quiet Soho) with a young journalist friend
He’s quite right wing for his age. I asked him why. He told me he was red pilled by doing court reporting in various London courts, where he realised how social housing has been captured by various ethnic groups in London Borough councils, who work as clans, and almost openly favour their own ethnicity/clan, as social housing is doled out
Interesting.
Why is it interesting? Leon is always spewing far right conspiracy theories with no evidence (beyond mysterious friends). This tells us that Leon is far right. It doesn't tell us much about the reality outside his head.
I can see why it might be described as populist or right-wing. But calling it far-right is just silly.
This is pure coincidence - I insist - but today I had drinks (in a rather worryingly quiet Soho) with a young journalist friend
He’s quite right wing for his age. I asked him why. He told me he was red pilled by doing court reporting in various London courts, where he realised how social housing has been captured by various ethnic groups in London Borough councils, who work as clans, and almost openly favour their own ethnicity/clan, as social housing is doled out
Interesting.
Why is it interesting? Leon is always spewing far right conspiracy theories with no evidence (beyond mysterious friends). This tells us that Leon is far right. It doesn't tell us much about the reality outside his head.
I can see why it might be described as populist or right-wing. But calling it far-right is just silly.
Its blood and soil racism. The normal term for that is far right.
As opposed to non-racist low tax economics of the right, which is not what he is engaging in.
Chris Mason introduces the BBC news package on Farage and crime (only 14 mins into the news) by saying it is worth reflecting on how extraordinary it is that there is so much interest in the new policy of a party with four MPs.
That's right Chris it is f£cking extraordinary and your bosses and your channel are a massive part of the problem. Sunday he gets set piece with Laura K. Monday night he gets 5 mins of bbc news.
Stop platforming the guy over the other minor parties. He wont thank you and in the end he will merely close you down just as his lodestar Trump plans to do in America.
They lead every opinion poll, and won hundreds of seats at the last set of elections, which is obviously quite big news in the world of politics. I can’t understand why people are complaining, it would be ludicrous if they weren’t dominating political reports
They were also dominating the reports when they had zero MP's and zero councillors. I think that's the ongoing problematic picture. It's just not a good look. If "Radical Trotskyites For the Abolition of Felt" in the same situation were being invited onto every other episode of Question Time, or the Today programme - then I'd be equally annoyed.
I don’t think they were dominating the reports before the GE. But it’s fair enough that they are dominating political new shows now .The fact the same bloke is on most of them is because there aren’t many Reform politicians, and Farage is probably the most charismatic/news worthy of all MPs.
Why shouldn’t the party you cite be on every QT or Today programme if they were leading the polls and winning most of the current elections? If anything, the number of seats won by Farage parties has misrepresented how popular they are in the country in terms of votes for about a decade. Why should the electoral system’s bugs carry over to news coverage?
Possibly not dominating them before the GE, but wildly over-represented for sure. I don't really care - but compared to coverage other minor parties got it was really very noticeable. The Greens? Plaid? Monster Raving's? OG Liberals? Even the LibDems or SNP.
Thing is, at the last GE, they were the 3rd largest block by votes, even if the inefficient spread didn't turn that into many seats. The polling showed this pretty clearly too beforehand (indeed they slightly underperfomed their polling). Thus it was hardly inappropriate for the media to take more interest in them than all the other minor parties.
The LibDems got plenty of airtime too, they just blew it on their leader doing waterslides.
Now, they are the leading party in the polls, and have just convincingly won the last set of large scale elections at a canter. They have more relevance and right to be heard than the Tories right now, even if the Tories do have a legacy of a lot of seats in the commons.
Lord Mandelson enlisted the help of a former BBC boss in a desperate bid to get back into government after twice being forced to resign from Sir Tony Blair’s cabinet, newly released files show.
Papers released by the National Archives show Lord Mandelson hoped Lord Birt, the former BBC director-general, would help him to secure another top job and “fulfil his promise”.
Britain will have to pay the EU a percentage of the value of any weapons bought from UK companies via a Brussels-led defence fund, under plans being drawn up by the bloc to counter the growing threat from Russia. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer in May said the UK would join the EU’s new €150bn Security Action for Europe (Safe) project to boost military spending across the continent, as part of a “reset” of bilateral relations.
Britain will have to pay the EU a percentage of the value of any weapons bought from UK companies via a Brussels-led defence fund, under plans being drawn up by the bloc to counter the growing threat from Russia. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer in May said the UK would join the EU’s new €150bn Security Action for Europe (Safe) project to boost military spending across the continent, as part of a “reset” of bilateral relations.
Britain will have to pay the EU a percentage of the value of any weapons bought from UK companies via a Brussels-led defence fund, under plans being drawn up by the bloc to counter the growing threat from Russia. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer in May said the UK would join the EU’s new €150bn Security Action for Europe (Safe) project to boost military spending across the continent, as part of a “reset” of bilateral relations.
Seems reasonable in principle, since we don't contribute to the fund itself, don't you think ?
What's the percentage, though ?
If UK companies won contracts funded by Safe money, the UK government must pay a percentage into the fund to help balance out the economic benefit of the contracts, the diplomat added.
Sounds like the contribution will “balance” the value of the economic benefit of the contract. Which makes one wonder that the benefit of joining in the first place is.
Britain will have to pay the EU a percentage of the value of any weapons bought from UK companies via a Brussels-led defence fund, under plans being drawn up by the bloc to counter the growing threat from Russia. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer in May said the UK would join the EU’s new €150bn Security Action for Europe (Safe) project to boost military spending across the continent, as part of a “reset” of bilateral relations.
Seems reasonable in principle, since we don't contribute to the fund itself, don't you think ?
What's the percentage, though ?
If UK companies won contracts funded by Safe money, the UK government must pay a percentage into the fund to help balance out the economic benefit of the contracts, the diplomat added.
Sounds like the contribution will “balance” the value of the economic benefit of the contract. Which makes one wonder that the benefit of joining in the first place is.
France are playing hardball and "Time is tight because projects must be submitted by the end of November, with the European Commission, the EU’s executive, deciding which to approve."
It will be interesting to see what Starmer eventually signs up for.
Britain will have to pay the EU a percentage of the value of any weapons bought from UK companies via a Brussels-led defence fund, under plans being drawn up by the bloc to counter the growing threat from Russia. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer in May said the UK would join the EU’s new €150bn Security Action for Europe (Safe) project to boost military spending across the continent, as part of a “reset” of bilateral relations.
Seems reasonable in principle, since we don't contribute to the fund itself, don't you think ?
What's the percentage, though ?
If UK companies won contracts funded by Safe money, the UK government must pay a percentage into the fund to help balance out the economic benefit of the contracts, the diplomat added.
Sounds like the contribution will “balance” the value of the economic benefit of the contract. Which makes one wonder that the benefit of joining in the first place is.
The overengineering seems down to a whim of the project's first technical director, rather than government policy.
The latter came in with the absurd "hybrid bill" approach, which effectively gave everyone on the route the right to delay it unless they were paid off not to.
What's notable is that most of the spending escalation is down to the gold plating and payouts for the southern leg - which will get to be built. The northern bits are scrapped in consequence.
Britain will have to pay the EU a percentage of the value of any weapons bought from UK companies via a Brussels-led defence fund, under plans being drawn up by the bloc to counter the growing threat from Russia. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer in May said the UK would join the EU’s new €150bn Security Action for Europe (Safe) project to boost military spending across the continent, as part of a “reset” of bilateral relations.
The overengineering seems down to a whim of the project's first technical director, rather than government policy.
The latter came in with the absurd "hybrid bill" approach, which effectively gave everyone on the route the right to delay it unless they were paid off not to.
What's notable is that most of the spending escalation is down to the gold plating and payouts for the southern leg - which will get to be built. The northern bits are scrapped in consequence.
Ministers not up to the job were part of it: ..."I was told that [the bill] basically gave the planning approval," says Patrick McLoughlin, who was the Transport Secretary between 2012 and 2016. "Of course, it subsequently turns out that that was not the case."..
Of course it's fair to point out, as the article does, that our densely populated geography makes construction in the UK more costly, but it's also blatantly obvious that was greatly magnified by the mismanagement of design, planning and execution of the project, from the very beginnning.
Britain will have to pay the EU a percentage of the value of any weapons bought from UK companies via a Brussels-led defence fund, under plans being drawn up by the bloc to counter the growing threat from Russia. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer in May said the UK would join the EU’s new €150bn Security Action for Europe (Safe) project to boost military spending across the continent, as part of a “reset” of bilateral relations.
Britain will have to pay the EU a percentage of the value of any weapons bought from UK companies via a Brussels-led defence fund, under plans being drawn up by the bloc to counter the growing threat from Russia. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer in May said the UK would join the EU’s new €150bn Security Action for Europe (Safe) project to boost military spending across the continent, as part of a “reset” of bilateral relations.
Seems reasonable in principle, since we don't contribute to the fund itself, don't you think ?
What's the percentage, though ?
"in principle" = Starmer caves to the UK getting rooked by the EU.
This will turn into another great victory.
For Reform.
What are the numbers ?
He may surprise to the upside, but based on past performance, we will be paying in, UK companies won't be able to bid as Lord Hermer will declare it potentially could break international law, Channel Islands will be given to France, Gibraltar to the Spanish and all for the low low level price of £100bn.
Britain will have to pay the EU a percentage of the value of any weapons bought from UK companies via a Brussels-led defence fund, under plans being drawn up by the bloc to counter the growing threat from Russia. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer in May said the UK would join the EU’s new €150bn Security Action for Europe (Safe) project to boost military spending across the continent, as part of a “reset” of bilateral relations.
Seems reasonable in principle, since we don't contribute to the fund itself, don't you think ?
What's the percentage, though ?
"in principle" = Starmer caves to the UK getting rooked by the EU.
This will turn into another great victory.
For Reform.
What are the numbers ?
He may surprise to the upside, but based on past performance, we will be paying in, UK companies won't be able to bid as Lord Hermer will declare it potentially could break international law, Channel Islands will be given to France, Gibraltar to the Spanish and all for the low low level price of £100bn.
Britain will have to pay the EU a percentage of the value of any weapons bought from UK companies via a Brussels-led defence fund, under plans being drawn up by the bloc to counter the growing threat from Russia. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer in May said the UK would join the EU’s new €150bn Security Action for Europe (Safe) project to boost military spending across the continent, as part of a “reset” of bilateral relations.
Seems reasonable in principle, since we don't contribute to the fund itself, don't you think ?
What's the percentage, though ?
"in principle" = Starmer caves to the UK getting rooked by the EU.
This will turn into another great victory.
For Reform.
What are the numbers ?
He may surprise to the upside, but based on past performance, we will be paying in, UK companies won't be able to bid as Lord Hermer will declare it potentially could break international law, Channel Islands will be given to France, Gibraltar to the Spanish and all for the low low level price of £100bn.
You optimist you.
We keep the Falklands?
I mean its only a matter of time until he agrees to give them to Argentina, but keeping in the back pocket for the moment. As such a hardball negotiator remembers he got to keep something back.
Well over a thousand people took part in a meeting tonight, with contributions from @jeremycorbyn and @zarahsultana, plus NEC members from #Unite #UCU #NEU #Unison #PCS and other trade unions, about the need to build, with trade unions and trade unionists at its heart, a new anti-austerity and anti-war party.
Well over a thousand people took part in a meeting tonight, with contributions from @jeremycorbyn and @zarahsultana, plus NEC members from #Unite #UCU #NEU #Unison #PCS and other trade unions, about the need to build, with trade unions and trade unionists at its heart, a new anti-austerity and anti-war party.
Well over a thousand people took part in a meeting tonight, with contributions from @jeremycorbyn and @zarahsultana, plus NEC members from #Unite #UCU #NEU #Unison #PCS and other trade unions, about the need to build, with trade unions and trade unionists at its heart, a new anti-austerity and anti-war party.
Why do I feel that is going to be a lot more appealing than Starmer's New Austerity/Ploughshares for Swords Party?
Like Jezza first time around and Trump, the underlying situation hasn't change that they are pushing at an open door where the system isn't working very well for lots of people.
A lot of people for instance have done what they were told, go to uni, get a degree and now are left being underemployed in a job that just about pays the bill and not much more, with little prospect of much more than being able to move out of their rented accommodation to own their own place.
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
The fact is that William is happily channeling Enoch Powell and you are defending him.
Sorry but that's a weaselly statement in itself. I am sticking to what has actually been said, not who people are alledgedly 'channelling'.
So it's the question mark in "How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?" that makes it a question and gives you (and William) your pretend we're not racists get out clause...
Which tells the rest of us that you fully agree with the statement but love any get out clause you can find to avoid revealing your inner Enoch..
Is the percentage of social housing occupied by foreign-born people not a worthy topic of discussion?
More importantly, nobody born abroad should get social housing in zone 1 of London. It is utterly absurd that large Somalian families can waltz into £3m townhouses that native Brits can only dream of, in their wildest dreams
I was born abroad.
The gradual process of rad6cslisation on the right is beginning to interfere with PB's gentlemanly rules of conduct.
Hence the more rightwiing sides are gradually becoming even more extreme than our rightwingers here on PB.
I see that trying to stir up civil strife by incessantly predicting it has been joined by direct racism concealed within an unverifiable anecdote.
This place is becoming a cesspit for simple minded bigotry and extremism.
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
The fact is that William is happily channeling Enoch Powell and you are defending him.
Sorry but that's a weaselly statement in itself. I am sticking to what has actually been said, not who people are alledgedly 'channelling'.
So it's the question mark in "How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?" that makes it a question and gives you (and William) your pretend we're not racists get out clause...
Which tells the rest of us that you fully agree with the statement but love any get out clause you can find to avoid revealing your inner Enoch..
Is the percentage of social housing occupied by foreign-born people not a worthy topic of discussion?
More importantly, nobody born abroad should get social housing in zone 1 of London. It is utterly absurd that large Somalian families can waltz into £3m townhouses that native Brits can only dream of, in their wildest dreams
I was born abroad.
The gradual process of rad6cslisation on the right is beginning to interfere with PB's gentlemanly rules of conduct.
Hence the more rightwiing sides are gradually becoming even more extreme than our rightwingers here on PB.
I see that trying to stir up civil strife by incessantly predicting it has been joined by direct racism concealed within an unverifiable anecdote.
This place is becoming a cesspit for simple minded bigotry and extremism.
I pretty much ducked out of here last night when the debate on housing started.
To me there is one simple problem, and an issue Bart is rightly passionate about, we need more homes for people and quickly.
It is something Angela Rayner is failing at in her role at the moment.
Wonder if Sultana will go for Cov South at the next GE ? Whilst she might be able to hold it, central Birmingham or a central London seat will have more wards like St Michaels where a very left wing party will run up the score. She's from Birmingham so could go for somewhere there; or perhaps she might have a go at Holborn and St... Just a thought
Well over a thousand people took part in a meeting tonight, with contributions from @jeremycorbyn and @zarahsultana, plus NEC members from #Unite #UCU #NEU #Unison #PCS and other trade unions, about the need to build, with trade unions and trade unionists at its heart, a new anti-austerity and anti-war party.
I echo Taz in his comments about ducking out of the housing debate as the two comments by William were based on a lack of knowledge about the actual legislation.
Local Social Housing is allocated by local councils based on tests that are reviewed each year. The only national policy that might affect allocation is the Homeless Reduction Act 2017 (HRA 2017) which may mean that some get further up the scale.
HRA 2017 though correct did not take into account the effect on some families of losing their home every six months when their rental contracts came to an end. The forthcoming Renters Right Act will essentially give lifetime rental contracts to those is both social and privately rented accommodation. So less churn and less need for the HRA. (There is and will be complaints about that too from the usual quarters)
The monies paid to those in Social Housing are means tested so if the income rises, there will be less benefit paid. With less churn, the rents will stabilise. More housing may actually depress rents. (There is and will be complaints about that too from the usual quarters)
The last point is that people with property overseas have to declare it, though fraud happens. Anyone coming over here is subject to a Habitual Residence Test if they seek benefits and having property abroad might indicate they will fail the HRT. So there is an incentive to lie perhaps.
So legislation is forthcoming to sort out some of the issues in the housing market but what about fraud?
“The targeted case review (TCR) regime was first introduced in 2022, and has ramped up significantly since then. The initiative involves a wide-scale assessment of live Universal Credit claims with the aim of identifying those most likely to pose a risk of overpayment or other “incorrectness”.
After a major hiring drive, there are now 6,000 officials working on TCR – with the number of reviews undertaken increasing nearly fivefold in 2024/25 to a total of just under a million. A total of 20% of these reviews identified incorrectness."
Hopefully HMRC are targeting those fraudulently avoiding paying their taxes too.
The overengineering seems down to a whim of the project's first technical director, rather than government policy.
The latter came in with the absurd "hybrid bill" approach, which effectively gave everyone on the route the right to delay it unless they were paid off not to.
What's notable is that most of the spending escalation is down to the gold plating and payouts for the southern leg - which will get to be built. The northern bits are scrapped in consequence.
Ministers not up to the job were part of it: ..."I was told that [the bill] basically gave the planning approval," says Patrick McLoughlin, who was the Transport Secretary between 2012 and 2016. "Of course, it subsequently turns out that that was not the case."..
Of course it's fair to point out, as the article does, that our densely populated geography makes construction in the UK more costly, but it's also blatantly obvious that was greatly magnified by the mismanagement of design, planning and execution of the project, from the very beginnning.
And of course, the master of mismanagement, the imam of incompetence, the Duke of disaster, Chris Grayling was also involved... transport Secretary from 2016 -> 2019.
Wonder if Sultana will go for Cov South at the next GE ? Whilst she might be able to hold it, central Birmingham or a central London seat will have more wards like St Michaels where a very left wing party will run up the score. She's from Birmingham so could go for somewhere there; or perhaps she might have a go at Holborn and St... Just a thought
Birmingham Yardley or Birmingham Ladywood I’d expect.
Well over a thousand people took part in a meeting tonight, with contributions from @jeremycorbyn and @zarahsultana, plus NEC members from #Unite #UCU #NEU #Unison #PCS and other trade unions, about the need to build, with trade unions and trade unionists at its heart, a new anti-austerity and anti-war party.
Why do I feel that is going to be a lot more appealing than Starmer's New Austerity/Ploughshares for Swords Party?
Like Jezza first time around and Trump, the underlying situation hasn't change that they are pushing at an open door where the system isn't working very well for lots of people.
A lot of people for instance have done what they were told, go to uni, get a degree and now are left being underemployed in a job that just about pays the bill and not much more, with little prospect of much more than being able to move out of their rented accommodation to own their own place.
But wasn't it Labour that pushed hard the notion that the majority of the population should go to University?
Well over a thousand people took part in a meeting tonight, with contributions from @jeremycorbyn and @zarahsultana, plus NEC members from #Unite #UCU #NEU #Unison #PCS and other trade unions, about the need to build, with trade unions and trade unionists at its heart, a new anti-austerity and anti-war party.
Why do I feel that is going to be a lot more appealing than Starmer's New Austerity/Ploughshares for Swords Party?
Like Jezza first time around and Trump, the underlying situation hasn't change that they are pushing at an open door where the system isn't working very well for lots of people.
A lot of people for instance have done what they were told, go to uni, get a degree and now are left being underemployed in a job that just about pays the bill and not much more, with little prospect of much more than being able to move out of their rented accommodation to own their own place.
But wasn't it Labour that pushed hard the notion that the majority of the population should go to University?
Though, I am sure Jezza must have voted against it, as he votes against basically every Labour government motion.
Well over a thousand people took part in a meeting tonight, with contributions from @jeremycorbyn and @zarahsultana, plus NEC members from #Unite #UCU #NEU #Unison #PCS and other trade unions, about the need to build, with trade unions and trade unionists at its heart, a new anti-austerity and anti-war party.
Why do I feel that is going to be a lot more appealing than Starmer's New Austerity/Ploughshares for Swords Party?
Like Jezza first time around and Trump, the underlying situation hasn't change that they are pushing at an open door where the system isn't working very well for lots of people.
A lot of people for instance have done what they were told, go to uni, get a degree and now are left being underemployed in a job that just about pays the bill and not much more, with little prospect of much more than being able to move out of their rented accommodation to own their own place.
But wasn't it Labour that pushed hard the notion that the majority of the population should go to University?
It is normal for half to go on to tertiary education in other similar developed economies. I don't think Britons are intrinsically thicker than Americans, Australians, Koreans or Singaporeans.
There are issues around the quality of many courses, and the funding, but the raw numbers are about right.
Well over a thousand people took part in a meeting tonight, with contributions from @jeremycorbyn and @zarahsultana, plus NEC members from #Unite #UCU #NEU #Unison #PCS and other trade unions, about the need to build, with trade unions and trade unionists at its heart, a new anti-austerity and anti-war party.
Why do I feel that is going to be a lot more appealing than Starmer's New Austerity/Ploughshares for Swords Party?
Like Jezza first time around and Trump, the underlying situation hasn't change that they are pushing at an open door where the system isn't working very well for lots of people.
A lot of people for instance have done what they were told, go to uni, get a degree and now are left being underemployed in a job that just about pays the bill and not much more, with little prospect of much more than being able to move out of their rented accommodation to own their own place.
But wasn't it Labour that pushed hard the notion that the majority of the population should go to University?
It is normal for half to go on to tertiary education in other similar developed economies. I don't think Britons are intrinsically thicker than Americans, Australians, Koreans or Singaporeans.
There are issues around the quality of many courses, and the funding, but the raw numbers are about right.
The issue is also around the fixation on everybody must go full time 100s of miles from home e.g. in the US, you have community college. You do that around a job, you can do vocational studies and you can also do something more academic and if it goes well and you think its right for you, then move to a fully fledged college full time.
Well over a thousand people took part in a meeting tonight, with contributions from @jeremycorbyn and @zarahsultana, plus NEC members from #Unite #UCU #NEU #Unison #PCS and other trade unions, about the need to build, with trade unions and trade unionists at its heart, a new anti-austerity and anti-war party.
Why do I feel that is going to be a lot more appealing than Starmer's New Austerity/Ploughshares for Swords Party?
Like Jezza first time around and Trump, the underlying situation hasn't change that they are pushing at an open door where the system isn't working very well for lots of people.
A lot of people for instance have done what they were told, go to uni, get a degree and now are left being underemployed in a job that just about pays the bill and not much more, with little prospect of much more than being able to move out of their rented accommodation to own their own place.
But wasn't it Labour that pushed hard the notion that the majority of the population should go to University?
A salient lesson in not taking what any government says without investigating further.
They improved access to higher education but it was up to the individual (aka individual responsibility) to decide if it was in their best interests. Then fast forward to the Coalition and student fees increased substantially. What prospects do debt laden well educated people have now?
#10 Media grid isn't getting much better...today scrapping the post-ministerial jobswatchdog, scrapping the water watchdog and announcing an inquiry into an incident from 45 years ago...before Starmer crashes the car later in the day with his loads of social housing for all.
Which allows for Farage to rock up and go crime, tough on crime, tough on causes of crime.
.
At least nobody can accuse them of not having a plan.
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
The fact is that William is happily channeling Enoch Powell and you are defending him.
Sorry but that's a weaselly statement in itself. I am sticking to what has actually been said, not who people are alledgedly 'channelling'.
So it's the question mark in "How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?" that makes it a question and gives you (and William) your pretend we're not racists get out clause...
Which tells the rest of us that you fully agree with the statement but love any get out clause you can find to avoid revealing your inner Enoch..
Is the percentage of social housing occupied by foreign-born people not a worthy topic of discussion?
More importantly, nobody born abroad should get social housing in zone 1 of London. It is utterly absurd that large Somalian families can waltz into £3m townhouses that native Brits can only dream of, in their wildest dreams
I was born abroad.
The gradual process of rad6cslisation on the right is beginning to interfere with PB's gentlemanly rules of conduct.
Hence the more rightwiing sides are gradually becoming even more extreme than our rightwingers here on PB.
I see that trying to stir up civil strife by incessantly predicting it has been joined by direct racism concealed within an unverifiable anecdote.
This place is becoming a cesspit for simple minded bigotry and extremism.
It is depressing how Social Media has legitimised overt racism over recent years.
Well over a thousand people took part in a meeting tonight, with contributions from @jeremycorbyn and @zarahsultana, plus NEC members from #Unite #UCU #NEU #Unison #PCS and other trade unions, about the need to build, with trade unions and trade unionists at its heart, a new anti-austerity and anti-war party.
Why do I feel that is going to be a lot more appealing than Starmer's New Austerity/Ploughshares for Swords Party?
Like Jezza first time around and Trump, the underlying situation hasn't change that they are pushing at an open door where the system isn't working very well for lots of people.
A lot of people for instance have done what they were told, go to uni, get a degree and now are left being underemployed in a job that just about pays the bill and not much more, with little prospect of much more than being able to move out of their rented accommodation to own their own place.
But wasn't it Labour that pushed hard the notion that the majority of the population should go to University?
It is normal for half to go on to tertiary education in other similar developed economies. I don't think Britons are intrinsically thicker than Americans, Australians, Koreans or Singaporeans.
There are issues around the quality of many courses, and the funding, but the raw numbers are about right.
Wouldn't it be better to ask whether it is beneficial, rather than whether it's about the same as what other countries do?
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
The fact is that William is happily channeling Enoch Powell and you are defending him.
Sorry but that's a weaselly statement in itself. I am sticking to what has actually been said, not who people are alledgedly 'channelling'.
So it's the question mark in "How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?" that makes it a question and gives you (and William) your pretend we're not racists get out clause...
Which tells the rest of us that you fully agree with the statement but love any get out clause you can find to avoid revealing your inner Enoch..
Is the percentage of social housing occupied by foreign-born people not a worthy topic of discussion?
More importantly, nobody born abroad should get social housing in zone 1 of London. It is utterly absurd that large Somalian families can waltz into £3m townhouses that native Brits can only dream of, in their wildest dreams
I was born abroad.
The gradual process of rad6cslisation on the right is beginning to interfere with PB's gentlemanly rules of conduct.
Hence the more rightwiing sides are gradually becoming even more extreme than our rightwingers here on PB.
I see that trying to stir up civil strife by incessantly predicting it has been joined by direct racism concealed within an unverifiable anecdote.
This place is becoming a cesspit for simple minded bigotry and extremism.
It is depressing how Social Media has legitimised overt racism over recent years.
Twix is giving me lots of subtle and not-so-subtle anti-black racist stuff. There seems to be a distinct split between UK and US online racism: US's seems to be often about blacks and how poorly they behave; the UK's about Muslims. But the commonality seems to be an insinuation that not only are those groups dangerously different, but somehow 'below' us. Or even unhuman.
Well over a thousand people took part in a meeting tonight, with contributions from @jeremycorbyn and @zarahsultana, plus NEC members from #Unite #UCU #NEU #Unison #PCS and other trade unions, about the need to build, with trade unions and trade unionists at its heart, a new anti-austerity and anti-war party.
Why do I feel that is going to be a lot more appealing than Starmer's New Austerity/Ploughshares for Swords Party?
Like Jezza first time around and Trump, the underlying situation hasn't change that they are pushing at an open door where the system isn't working very well for lots of people.
A lot of people for instance have done what they were told, go to uni, get a degree and now are left being underemployed in a job that just about pays the bill and not much more, with little prospect of much more than being able to move out of their rented accommodation to own their own place.
But wasn't it Labour that pushed hard the notion that the majority of the population should go to University?
It is normal for half to go on to tertiary education in other similar developed economies. I don't think Britons are intrinsically thicker than Americans, Australians, Koreans or Singaporeans.
There are issues around the quality of many courses, and the funding, but the raw numbers are about right.
The issue is also around the fixation on everybody must go full time 100s of miles from home e.g. in the US, you have community college. You do that around a job, you can do vocational studies and you can also do something more academic and if it goes well and you think its right for you, then move to a fully fledged college full time.
That is one of many issues around higher education. It is similar in Many continental countries too.
An interesting (though American) reading list here on the troubles of modern Academia.
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
The fact is that William is happily channeling Enoch Powell and you are defending him.
Sorry but that's a weaselly statement in itself. I am sticking to what has actually been said, not who people are alledgedly 'channelling'.
So it's the question mark in "How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?" that makes it a comment you are willing to protect.
Which tells the rest of us that you fully agree with the statement but love any get out clause you can find to avoid revealing your inner Enoch..
I didn't care much either way about the original question - a fairly standard piece of William Glennery I thought.
I am interested in policy - and the only actual policy discussed that I am aware of is one of a financial incentive to return to the country of origin - which I am yet to read a convincing argument against, or even an opinion on, from Barty, BigG, Nigel, or yourself.
The strongest argument against it from my perspective, but one that some will doubtless dismiss as woke snowflakery, is that such a policy would stigmatise foreign born citizens, make them feel second class and unwanted, and encourage nationalist thugs to ram that feeling down their throats at every opportunity.
Would it not actually add luster to their chosen British status because they turned down pecuniary advantage in order to commit and put down roots?
That's what people who live in social housing are trying to do. Raise their family, work and then get on in life. Social housing in Zone 1 isn't free or even that cheap. I know a bit about the Peabody Key Workers Scheme. It's open to teachers, police, medical staff and the like. A two bedroom flat on it's Pimlico Estate is about £1500 a month. It's there because Peabody believe that even wealthy areas benefit from having people who provide essential services actually living there
Sure - I don't disagree. However, by definition, a scheme offering a financial incentive to return to the country of origin is going to appeal to people who have no particular afflitation to or affection for Britain. It's a judgement of Solomon policy on the surface of it.
UK borrowing rises more than expected, putting pressure on Rachel Reeves
Figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show public sector net borrowing rose to £20.7bn. This was £6.6bn higher than the same month a year earlier and the second-highest June borrowing figure since monthly records began in 1993. City economists had forecast borrowing to increase to £16.5bn.
Between July 2001 and December 2002, Mrs Blair bought clothes worth more than £75,000 – equivalent to £150,000 today – but paid just £31,000 for them, newly released papers from the National Archives suggest.
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
The fact is that William is happily channeling Enoch Powell and you are defending him.
Sorry but that's a weaselly statement in itself. I am sticking to what has actually been said, not who people are alledgedly 'channelling'.
So it's the question mark in "How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?" that makes it a question and gives you (and William) your pretend we're not racists get out clause...
Which tells the rest of us that you fully agree with the statement but love any get out clause you can find to avoid revealing your inner Enoch..
Is the percentage of social housing occupied by foreign-born people not a worthy topic of discussion?
More importantly, nobody born abroad should get social housing in zone 1 of London. It is utterly absurd that large Somalian families can waltz into £3m townhouses that native Brits can only dream of, in their wildest dreams
I was born abroad.
The gradual process of rad6cslisation on the right is beginning to interfere with PB's gentlemanly rules of conduct.
Hence the more rightwiing sides are gradually becoming even more extreme than our rightwingers here on PB.
I see that trying to stir up civil strife by incessantly predicting it has been joined by direct racism concealed within an unverifiable anecdote.
This place is becoming a cesspit for simple minded bigotry and extremism.
It is depressing how Social Media has legitimised overt racism over recent years.
Twix is giving me lots of subtle and not-so-subtle anti-black racist stuff. There seems to be a distinct split between UK and US online racism: US's seems to be often about blacks and how poorly they behave; the UK's about Muslims. But the commonality seems to be an insinuation that not only are those groups dangerously different, but somehow 'below' us. Or even unhuman.
Twitter largely gives me stuff I’m interested in. Darts, investing, soccer, pro wrestling, classic British TV and Steve Inman.
My feed on a Tuesday morning is always crammed with stuff from last nights Raw.
AstraZeneca's new US investment plans Here’s where AstraZeneca plans to spend its $50bn:
Expansion of its R&D facility in Gaithersburg, Maryland
State-of-the-art R&D centre in Kendall Square, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Next-generation manufacturing facilities for cell therapy in Rockville, Maryland and Tarzana, California
Continuous manufacturing expansion in Mount Vernon, Indiana
Specialty manufacturing expansion in Coppell, Texas
New sites to supply clinical trials
And the UK...oh we told them to go f##k themselves because they wanted extra £15m of government funding.
Yes, we did and in an industry we are good at and we want to grow and develop in the U.K.
Utterly short sighted.
I am pretty certain it was like a load of the initial decisions it was because it was a Tory government policy. Slowly a load of things that initially got binned have been brought back to life, but AZ haven't waited around for them to hopefully change their minds.
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
The fact is that William is happily channeling Enoch Powell and you are defending him.
Sorry but that's a weaselly statement in itself. I am sticking to what has actually been said, not who people are alledgedly 'channelling'.
So it's the question mark in "How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?" that makes it a comment you are willing to protect.
Which tells the rest of us that you fully agree with the statement but love any get out clause you can find to avoid revealing your inner Enoch..
I didn't care much either way about the original question - a fairly standard piece of William Glennery I thought.
I am interested in policy - and the only actual policy discussed that I am aware of is one of a financial incentive to return to the country of origin - which I am yet to read a convincing argument against, or even an opinion on, from Barty, BigG, Nigel, or yourself.
The strongest argument against it from my perspective, but one that some will doubtless dismiss as woke snowflakery, is that such a policy would stigmatise foreign born citizens, make them feel second class and unwanted, and encourage nationalist thugs to ram that feeling down their throats at every opportunity.
Would it not actually add lustre to their chosen British status because they turned down pecuniary advantage in order to commit and put down roots?
People already have to pay thousands of pounds to acquire UK citizenship, but that doesn't stop racists being racist at them.
are you that stupid, thousands are taxied in , put up in luxury hotels with pocket money and iphones before they get onto full benefits and free social housing and every other help going. Compare to some poor sod born here.
Comments
Anyway, the last friend of mine to gain UK citizenship is now a signed-up member of Restore Britain. Do you think that would demonstrate he's integrated to the satisfaction of the Reform UK supporters here?
And I would take this back a few generations, too. So if you’re - say - third generation British, and your family has unblemished legal history and military service, then yes YOU might get social housing in london zone 1
Note: I am not excluding any British citizen from all state assistance. No one should starve or go homeless. But yes, we should use preference and introduce incentives
Matt Goodwin
@GoodwinMJ
There is now also a protest in Norfolk, coming after Dover and Epping. I hope the UK state and the Labour government begin to realise what they have created here —a tinderbox.
Fast forward to 48 mins and watch a very witty evisceration of 'YooKay News" This particular clip about Albert the Great has been watched by 9 million.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uacW_ZV9hsY
Which allows for Farage to rock up and go crime, tough on crime, tough on causes of crime.
As an example, you can only get contributory ESA (for illness/disability therefore not working) if you have paid sufficient (and rather complex) NI rules.
I have no idea what the rules are for social housing but there's no reason based on our current system for there not to be rules that rule out actual citizens
lived in Camden for 5 out of the last 7 years
a need to move, for example because of ill health, overcrowding, experiencing harassment or have more bedrooms than you need
no more than £32,000 in household savings or financial assets
no more than 10 weeks rent arrears
But the full details are at https://www.camden.gov.uk/documents/20142/1730554/Housing+allocation+scheme+2018.pdf/69d244d4-198f-b3f6-c138-33dd8c829ee9?t=1538055585470
If your wife has no former country that she could now legitimately seek citizenship of, then for yet another reason, William's suggested policy has nothing to do with your family.
Yes, there are plenty of blended households, and there are plenty of non-blended ones who still hold citizenship of their country of origin and a strong sense of cultural allegiance to it. So I ask again, what is wrong with offering those people a financial incentive to return to that country if the overall fiscal effect is positive?
Native Brits have to do this thing called “commuting” if they work in central london. They don’t expect big council-owned super-cheap townhouses in Lambeth
Taking my wife as an example again, she migrated here at 18 and has worked consistently (and paid tax and NI consistently) since then.
So she'll have done so consistently more than many if not most British-born people.
Why do some of us pay to use the underground but others don’t have to? A complete lack of enforcement by @TfL. And the station staff says he doesn’t record it because the system on his iPad doesn’t work properly. Khan’s London is going to the dogs…
https://x.com/SimonDanczuk/status/1947199045241389181
Hence the more rightwiing sides are gradually becoming even more extreme than our rightwingers here on PB.
Now ask it, who’s the money behind the money? Months after the ‘transfer’, @ObserverUK still hadn’t disclosed its full list of investors despite its promise to do so. Nor will it disclose whether or not it has taken Saudi money.
https://x.com/carolecadwalla/status/1947298056711360869
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g8jvwz4m1o
Transport for London (TfL) prosecuted 3,691 people on the Tube in 2024-25, and also issued 13,118 penalty fare notices (PFNs) and 850 written warnings.
But I would reserve ultra-desirable zone 1 housing for 2nd or 3rd generation Brits with NO criminal history, a long record of taxpaying (at least in the family) and more points for military service
What is wrong with providing incentives for good and patriotic behaviour? It’s ridic we don’t do this
If by contrast you’re a large Somalian family who arrived in the last 5 years, with some criminal history, then we will also do our best to help you, but no you’re not gonna get a big house in Westminster
"That Simon Danczuk's a gent, he always paid his tube fare when he was trying to get off with my 17 year old daughter"
Editor's note on the removal of the SAF cartoon from our 20 July edition: We are genuinely sorry for causing offence, and we are taking the cartoon down.
https://x.com/ObserverUK/status/1947271339942760593
This is mealy-mouthed and refuses to call it what it is: racism.
https://x.com/zarahsultana/status/1947283826658414908
If they hadn't drawn the character as brown, she would have accused them of whitewashing. It wasn't particular funny or clever, but I rarely seen one in the Guardian or Observer that is, the bloke they sacked for one too many antisemitic ones was offensive basically every cartoon to all and sundry.
The cartoon lives on
As opposed to non-racist low tax economics of the right, which is not what he is engaging in.
The LibDems got plenty of airtime too, they just blew it on their leader doing waterslides.
Now, they are the leading party in the polls, and have just convincingly won the last set of large scale elections at a canter. They have more relevance and right to be heard than the Tories right now, even if the Tories do have a legacy of a lot of seats in the commons.
Papers released by the National Archives show Lord Mandelson hoped Lord Birt, the former BBC director-general, would help him to secure another top job and “fulfil his promise”.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/07/22/peter-mandelson-bbc-boss-tony-blair-beg-for-new-job/
https://www.ft.com/content/198271dd-9a89-4279-a28f-6e0cdfeb0912
What's the percentage, though ?
Sounds like the contribution will “balance” the value of the economic benefit of the contract. Which makes one wonder that the benefit of joining in the first place is.
It will be interesting to see what Starmer eventually signs up for.
What are the actual numbers ?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2l8kq52y8o
The overengineering seems down to a whim of the project's first technical director, rather than government policy.
The latter came in with the absurd "hybrid bill" approach, which effectively gave everyone on the route the right to delay it unless they were paid off not to.
What's notable is that most of the spending escalation is down to the gold plating and payouts for the southern leg - which will get to be built.
The northern bits are scrapped in consequence.
This will turn into another great victory.
For Reform.
..."I was told that [the bill] basically gave the planning approval," says Patrick McLoughlin, who was the Transport Secretary between 2012 and 2016.
"Of course, it subsequently turns out that that was not the case."..
Of course it's fair to point out, as the article does, that our densely populated geography makes construction in the UK more costly, but it's also blatantly obvious that was greatly magnified by the mismanagement of design, planning and execution of the project, from the very beginnning.
We keep the Falklands?
https://x.com/davenellist/status/1947388354619969839
A lot of people for instance have done what they were told, go to uni, get a degree and now are left being underemployed in a job that just about pays the bill and not much more, with little prospect of much more than being able to move out of their rented accommodation to own their own place.
Kier Starmer on Trump, AI & Farming
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xR4TWcQ5kbg
This place is becoming a cesspit for simple minded bigotry and extremism.
To me there is one simple problem, and an issue Bart is rightly passionate about, we need more homes for people and quickly.
It is something Angela Rayner is failing at in her role at the moment.
Local Social Housing is allocated by local councils based on tests that are reviewed each year. The only national policy that might affect allocation is the Homeless Reduction Act 2017 (HRA 2017) which may mean that some get further up the scale.
HRA 2017 though correct did not take into account the effect on some families of losing their home every six months when their rental contracts came to an end. The forthcoming Renters Right Act will essentially give lifetime rental contracts to those is both social and privately rented accommodation. So less churn and less need for the HRA. (There is and will be complaints about that too from the usual quarters)
The monies paid to those in Social Housing are means tested so if the income rises, there will be less benefit paid. With less churn, the rents will stabilise. More housing may actually depress rents. (There is and will be complaints about that too from the usual quarters)
The last point is that people with property overseas have to declare it, though fraud happens. Anyone coming over here is subject to a Habitual Residence Test if they seek benefits and having property abroad might indicate they will fail the HRT. So there is an incentive to lie perhaps.
So legislation is forthcoming to sort out some of the issues in the housing market but what about fraud?
“The targeted case review (TCR) regime was first introduced in 2022, and has ramped up significantly since then. The initiative involves a wide-scale assessment of live Universal Credit claims with the aim of identifying those most likely to pose a risk of overpayment or other “incorrectness”.
After a major hiring drive, there are now 6,000 officials working on TCR – with the number of reviews undertaken increasing nearly fivefold in 2024/25 to a total of just under a million. A total of 20% of these reviews identified incorrectness."
Hopefully HMRC are targeting those fraudulently avoiding paying their taxes too.
There are issues around the quality of many courses, and the funding, but the raw numbers are about right.
They improved access to higher education but it was up to the individual (aka individual responsibility) to decide if it was in their best interests. Then fast forward to the Coalition and student fees increased substantially. What prospects do debt laden well educated people have now?
At least nobody can accuse them of not having a plan.
An interesting (though American) reading list here on the troubles of modern Academia.
https://www.theatlantic.com/books/archive/2025/07/modern-american-university-books-what-to-read/683599/?gift=Q2xxhS27Csx4yHsp7QhJgUzxL3yjy_Wa_Z8ptVHsL90&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share
UK borrowing rises more than expected, putting pressure on Rachel Reeves
Figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show public sector net borrowing rose to £20.7bn. This was £6.6bn higher than the same month a year earlier and the second-highest June borrowing figure since monthly records began in 1993. City economists had forecast borrowing to increase to £16.5bn.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/jul/22/uk-borrowing-rachel-reeves-budget-tax-rises
Who is calling the IMF to tell them to ready the bail out?
EXCL: Kemi Badenoch is reshuffling her shadow cabinet today.
And she has persuaded James Cleverly, defeated leadership candidate and former Foreign and Home Secretary, to make a frontbench comeback
https://bsky.app/profile/hzeffman.bsky.social/post/3lujt6t6cl22h
If the Mayoral elections are going back to SV, Cleverly's chances for London 2028 go from slim to none.
Here’s where AstraZeneca plans to spend its $50bn:
Expansion of its R&D facility in Gaithersburg, Maryland
State-of-the-art R&D centre in Kendall Square, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Next-generation manufacturing facilities for cell therapy in Rockville, Maryland and Tarzana, California
Continuous manufacturing expansion in Mount Vernon, Indiana
Specialty manufacturing expansion in Coppell, Texas
New sites to supply clinical trials
And the UK...oh we told them to go f##k themselves because they wanted extra £15m of government funding.
Between July 2001 and December 2002, Mrs Blair bought clothes worth more than £75,000 – equivalent to £150,000 today – but paid just £31,000 for them, newly released papers from the National Archives suggest.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0ep09el7jwo
My feed on a Tuesday morning is always crammed with stuff from last nights Raw.
Last night it was mainly darts.
But that’s what I engage with.
Utterly short sighted.