To be fair to the AI - we've had electrical engineering students on their final year placements being sent back after making worse jobs of wiring a plug than that.
VAT on schools: 1) It will cost the state more money than it raises 2) Most people don't care because they see this as fair 3) Schools are using VAT to cover all number of things
I can understand the frustration of parents affected - it is unfair. Then again there are so many things which are egregiously unfair and this isn't anywhere near the top of the unfairness chart. Carers losing their entire allowance for going £1 over the earnings cap? More unfair. And there's stacks of examples of things done by merciless ministers to make the lives of the poor and sick practically unliveable which are more unfair.
This explains point 2 above.
Process State meets populist policy.
Sure! But for many of the people in point 2, they here the people complaining and consider that they largely are the people who support all of the egregious merciless stuff which hurts people at an existential level.
Sam Freedman (yes I know) was good on that in his piece on the anti-VAT campaign;
The TLDR is that campaigns against government policy work best when you have a back channel negotiation to come up with a mutually-acceptable deal. The Independent Schools Council went straight for berating the policy in the press, and only that, which was never going to work.
Yes, VAT on school fees is another version of "Do it to Julia"; accept that there needs to be pain to balance the books, but that pain should be experienced by other people. A lot of the anger was because people used to getting their way didn't.
(And whilst there will be some blowback from this policy, it will need a massive exodus to be a net negative for the government. There is no sign of that right now. In large part because British private schools are mostly fishing in the global elite market, which isn't very price-sensitive. Hard on those who have gone from just about affording school fees to not affording them, but they're a minority of a minority.)
Is that true? Would like to see some figures to back that up. My gut is that it’s true for the Public Schools and the London private schools but the vast majority of private schools aren’t them, they are private schools in towns and cities with good local reputations attracting the children of local professionals or they are the only alternative to failing state schools in an area where people decide to make a financial sacrifice to pay for their childrens’ education.
These are the schools that will suffer - the public schools with international or national reputation and big endowments alongside the London private day schools with a big global wealthy community to fill places who would never dream of sending their children off to board will largely be fine.
Excluding international schools, about 5% of private school pupils are non-British with parents living abroad. The largest group are from China (both mainland and Hong Kong).
Another 5% are non-British but with parents who live in Britain.
My old school's proudest boast was that it had students from 70 different countries. It really is a terrible reflection on us all that we have allowed that slimy toad Farage to corrupt us into seeing foreigners as people to be feared
We travelled home from York yesterday and an Indian family were in the seats in front
They consisted of a father and mother, three children aged 8, 4 and a babe in arms, and his 2 sisters
As we approached Colwyn Bay he came next to us to take photos of the lovely coast and I spoke to him and he said he was a taxi driver in Manchester and hadn't been to Llandudno. He was using the train as his taxi was limited to 5
I said he should really enjoy our home town and pointed out lots of things he could do with his family
They were impeccably dressed and polite and each tooks turns to look after the baby
The vast majority welcome everyone to our Country, but it is also something the left seem to overlook that like our wonderful Indian family the vast majority contribute enormousy, but it is not helping to suggest that anyone who objects to the boats, asylum hotels, and some crimes comitted by those arriving to our shores are rascists
The only way to assauge Farage is to stop the boats, control immigation and deal firmly with those committing crimes
Since Starmer took office, total immigration is down a lot, deportations are up, and deportations of foreign criminals are up. However, boat numbers are up.
I would suggest that the problem is at least as much those on the radical right who object to all immigrants (or all Muslims, etc.). There are several regulars here who voice such views.
The country is bust, it needs proper control of immigration and anyone who does come needs to look after themselves till they have paid a minimum of 5 or 10 years taxes etc. Should be no free housing or benefits for anyone who arrives or wants to arrive regardless of method.
What about the likes of Sandpit or my son who want to bring long-standing wives here, and who are prepared (not sure whether Sandpit is) catch up NIC?
No issue if they are not getting benefits etc and spouse who is taxpayer is supporting them. As it is now , people are let in , then have no means to support and start bringing in droves of family. Perception also is that asylum seekers ( illegal immigrants ) are also getting first calss service whilst local people get chhased , cannot get doctors , houses , etc. Whole benefits scheme is needing serious overhaul, people should not be able to make a career of being unemployed. everything is far to lax and most seems to just be online nowadays.
It's not just perception Malc, it's actually happening. These 4* asylum hotels have doctors, nurses and dentists on site, they get free gym memberships, they can refuse to leave the hotel and beat the government in court.
Asylum seekers and illegals need to be moved into camps with very high fences, basic conditions in tents. It sounds harsh but our generosity has run out, the nation is going bankrupt and we're spending billions on welfare for non-citizens while millions of citizens live in poverty or are unable to get access to basic healthcare. It's fundamentally and morally wrong that we're looking after strangers rather than our own families.
I still don’t understand why hotels were chosen in preference to military bases, where everything could be self-contained.
Which military bases? There aren't any that are empty yet are ready to house and feed thousands of people.
Fuck knows where Kemi is planning to put her Koncentration Kamps.
The MOD housing at St Athan was sold at auction about a dozen years ago. Some of the more council housy properties were sold for beans. A monthly bill for a room in a Holiday Inn Express would have doubtless bought a 3 bed terrace.
VAT on schools: 1) It will cost the state more money than it raises 2) Most people don't care because they see this as fair 3) Schools are using VAT to cover all number of things
I can understand the frustration of parents affected - it is unfair. Then again there are so many things which are egregiously unfair and this isn't anywhere near the top of the unfairness chart. Carers losing their entire allowance for going £1 over the earnings cap? More unfair. And there's stacks of examples of things done by merciless ministers to make the lives of the poor and sick practically unliveable which are more unfair.
This explains point 2 above.
Process State meets populist policy.
Sure! But for many of the people in point 2, they here the people complaining and consider that they largely are the people who support all of the egregious merciless stuff which hurts people at an existential level.
Sam Freedman (yes I know) was good on that in his piece on the anti-VAT campaign;
The TLDR is that campaigns against government policy work best when you have a back channel negotiation to come up with a mutually-acceptable deal. The Independent Schools Council went straight for berating the policy in the press, and only that, which was never going to work.
Yes, VAT on school fees is another version of "Do it to Julia"; accept that there needs to be pain to balance the books, but that pain should be experienced by other people. A lot of the anger was because people used to getting their way didn't.
(And whilst there will be some blowback from this policy, it will need a massive exodus to be a net negative for the government. There is no sign of that right now. In large part because British private schools are mostly fishing in the global elite market, which isn't very price-sensitive. Hard on those who have gone from just about affording school fees to not affording them, but they're a minority of a minority.)
Is that true? Would like to see some figures to back that up. My gut is that it’s true for the Public Schools and the London private schools but the vast majority of private schools aren’t them, they are private schools in towns and cities with good local reputations attracting the children of local professionals or they are the only alternative to failing state schools in an area where people decide to make a financial sacrifice to pay for their childrens’ education.
These are the schools that will suffer - the public schools with international or national reputation and big endowments alongside the London private day schools with a big global wealthy community to fill places who would never dream of sending their children off to board will largely be fine.
Excluding international schools, about 5% of private school pupils are non-British with parents living abroad. The largest group are from China (both mainland and Hong Kong).
Another 5% are non-British but with parents who live in Britain.
My old school's proudest boast was that it had students from 70 different countries. It really is a terrible reflection on us all that we have allowed that slimy toad Farage to corrupt us into seeing foreigners as people to be feared
We travelled home from York yesterday and an Indian family were in the seats in front
They consisted of a father and mother, three children aged 8, 4 and a babe in arms, and his 2 sisters
As we approached Colwyn Bay he came next to us to take photos of the lovely coast and I spoke to him and he said he was a taxi driver in Manchester and hadn't been to Llandudno. He was using the train as his taxi was limited to 5
I said he should really enjoy our home town and pointed out lots of things he could do with his family
They were impeccably dressed and polite and each tooks turns to look after the baby
The vast majority welcome everyone to our Country, but it is also something the left seem to overlook that like our wonderful Indian family the vast majority contribute enormousy, but it is not helping to suggest that anyone who objects to the boats, asylum hotels, and some crimes comitted by those arriving to our shores are rascists
The only way to assauge Farage is to stop the boats, control immigation and deal firmly with those committing crimes
Since Starmer took office, total immigration is down a lot, deportations are up, and deportations of foreign criminals are up. However, boat numbers are up.
I would suggest that the problem is at least as much those on the radical right who object to all immigrants (or all Muslims, etc.). There are several regulars here who voice such views.
The country is bust, it needs proper control of immigration and anyone who does come needs to look after themselves till they have paid a minimum of 5 or 10 years taxes etc. Should be no free housing or benefits for anyone who arrives or wants to arrive regardless of method.
What about the likes of Sandpit or my son who want to bring long-standing wives here, and who are prepared (not sure whether Sandpit is) catch up NIC?
No issue if they are not getting benefits etc and spouse who is taxpayer is supporting them. As it is now , people are let in , then have no means to support and start bringing in droves of family. Perception also is that asylum seekers ( illegal immigrants ) are also getting first calss service whilst local people get chhased , cannot get doctors , houses , etc. Whole benefits scheme is needing serious overhaul, people should not be able to make a career of being unemployed. everything is far to lax and most seems to just be online nowadays.
Asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants. They have reported themselves to immigration authorities and claimed asylum, a legal process.
Asylum seekers don't get a first class service. They are treated very poorly. The perception is otherwise because the populist right lie.
Surely some asylum seekers are illegal immigrants, they are falsely claiming to be at risk of persecution. OK sometimes it might be a 50:50 decision but I remember when we used to get Albanians pretending to be Kosovars and I am sure similar still happens. Any Levantine Arabic speaker can probably pretend to come from Syria for example
Today's pic. Boat people by nationality for those wanting to send them back. Not so easy to do in the short term.
The other point is that peak boats is in summer when the papers don't have anything to write about so it sorts of lends itself to the clickbaiters.
The final point is that there have been about 10 changes to the immigration rules since 1983 when 'anchor babies*' like Kemi were British because they were born on British soil. We've been tightening up on immigration for a while.
* The term is meant to be ironic rather than pejorative.
Give them the option of going back to their home country or Rwanda. Hold them in a detention camp for two weeks to give them time to choose, if they don't then forcibly remove them to Rwanda. Legislate and write in a bunch of stuff like "parliament is sovereign and elected by the people and this legislation overrides the HRA and ECHR" and dare the courts to strike it down. It may be a blunt instrument but sometimes low cunning is what's needed to beat the sophistry of the leftist human rights industry.
VAT on schools: 1) It will cost the state more money than it raises 2) Most people don't care because they see this as fair 3) Schools are using VAT to cover all number of things
I can understand the frustration of parents affected - it is unfair. Then again there are so many things which are egregiously unfair and this isn't anywhere near the top of the unfairness chart. Carers losing their entire allowance for going £1 over the earnings cap? More unfair. And there's stacks of examples of things done by merciless ministers to make the lives of the poor and sick practically unliveable which are more unfair.
This explains point 2 above.
Process State meets populist policy.
Sure! But for many of the people in point 2, they here the people complaining and consider that they largely are the people who support all of the egregious merciless stuff which hurts people at an existential level.
Sam Freedman (yes I know) was good on that in his piece on the anti-VAT campaign;
The TLDR is that campaigns against government policy work best when you have a back channel negotiation to come up with a mutually-acceptable deal. The Independent Schools Council went straight for berating the policy in the press, and only that, which was never going to work.
Yes, VAT on school fees is another version of "Do it to Julia"; accept that there needs to be pain to balance the books, but that pain should be experienced by other people. A lot of the anger was because people used to getting their way didn't.
(And whilst there will be some blowback from this policy, it will need a massive exodus to be a net negative for the government. There is no sign of that right now. In large part because British private schools are mostly fishing in the global elite market, which isn't very price-sensitive. Hard on those who have gone from just about affording school fees to not affording them, but they're a minority of a minority.)
Is that true? Would like to see some figures to back that up. My gut is that it’s true for the Public Schools and the London private schools but the vast majority of private schools aren’t them, they are private schools in towns and cities with good local reputations attracting the children of local professionals or they are the only alternative to failing state schools in an area where people decide to make a financial sacrifice to pay for their childrens’ education.
These are the schools that will suffer - the public schools with international or national reputation and big endowments alongside the London private day schools with a big global wealthy community to fill places who would never dream of sending their children off to board will largely be fine.
Excluding international schools, about 5% of private school pupils are non-British with parents living abroad. The largest group are from China (both mainland and Hong Kong).
Another 5% are non-British but with parents who live in Britain.
My old school's proudest boast was that it had students from 70 different countries. It really is a terrible reflection on us all that we have allowed that slimy toad Farage to corrupt us into seeing foreigners as people to be feared
We travelled home from York yesterday and an Indian family were in the seats in front
They consisted of a father and mother, three children aged 8, 4 and a babe in arms, and his 2 sisters
As we approached Colwyn Bay he came next to us to take photos of the lovely coast and I spoke to him and he said he was a taxi driver in Manchester and hadn't been to Llandudno. He was using the train as his taxi was limited to 5
I said he should really enjoy our home town and pointed out lots of things he could do with his family
They were impeccably dressed and polite and each tooks turns to look after the baby
The vast majority welcome everyone to our Country, but it is also something the left seem to overlook that like our wonderful Indian family the vast majority contribute enormousy, but it is not helping to suggest that anyone who objects to the boats, asylum hotels, and some crimes comitted by those arriving to our shores are rascists
The only way to assauge Farage is to stop the boats, control immigation and deal firmly with those committing crimes
Since Starmer took office, total immigration is down a lot, deportations are up, and deportations of foreign criminals are up. However, boat numbers are up.
I would suggest that the problem is at least as much those on the radical right who object to all immigrants (or all Muslims, etc.). There are several regulars here who voice such views.
The country is bust, it needs proper control of immigration and anyone who does come needs to look after themselves till they have paid a minimum of 5 or 10 years taxes etc. Should be no free housing or benefits for anyone who arrives or wants to arrive regardless of method.
What about the likes of Sandpit or my son who want to bring long-standing wives here, and who are prepared (not sure whether Sandpit is) catch up NIC?
No issue if they are not getting benefits etc and spouse who is taxpayer is supporting them. As it is now , people are let in , then have no means to support and start bringing in droves of family. Perception also is that asylum seekers ( illegal immigrants ) are also getting first calss service whilst local people get chhased , cannot get doctors , houses , etc. Whole benefits scheme is needing serious overhaul, people should not be able to make a career of being unemployed. everything is far to lax and most seems to just be online nowadays.
It's not just perception Malc, it's actually happening. These 4* asylum hotels have doctors, nurses and dentists on site, they get free gym memberships, they can refuse to leave the hotel and beat the government in court.
Asylum seekers and illegals need to be moved into camps with very high fences, basic conditions in tents. It sounds harsh but our generosity has run out, the nation is going bankrupt and we're spending billions on welfare for non-citizens while millions of citizens live in poverty or are unable to get access to basic healthcare. It's fundamentally and morally wrong that we're looking after strangers rather than our own families.
As we saw from the discussion here last night there are many people happy to be generous with others money to make themselves feel good.
There are also many people happy to lie through their teeth and repeat nonsense like referring to asylum accommodation as "4*".
Lol, you keep explaining to the public that "it's not actually 4* hotels because they closed the swimming pool and sauna" and see how far you get. I hope Labour put it on the side of a bus and add 5% to Reform overnight.
The NU10k inability to see the ABSOLUTE MASSIVE PR PROBLEM created by using hotels as temporary accommodation is utterly baffling to me.
The NU10k is a scare story to tell kiddies and doesn't exist.
The Government are very clearly aware that there is an "ABSOLUTE MASSIVE PR PROBLEM created by using hotels as temporary accommodation" and are doing their best to reduce numbers in hotels to 0. The number has roughly halved since Labour came to power.
However, these people exist and can't just be magically disappeared. Alternatives bring other problems (costs, local objections). So the process of reducing numbers takes time.
The only thing utterly baffling is your belief that the Government is not aware that there is a problem.
VAT on schools: 1) It will cost the state more money than it raises 2) Most people don't care because they see this as fair 3) Schools are using VAT to cover all number of things
I can understand the frustration of parents affected - it is unfair. Then again there are so many things which are egregiously unfair and this isn't anywhere near the top of the unfairness chart. Carers losing their entire allowance for going £1 over the earnings cap? More unfair. And there's stacks of examples of things done by merciless ministers to make the lives of the poor and sick practically unliveable which are more unfair.
This explains point 2 above.
Process State meets populist policy.
Sure! But for many of the people in point 2, they here the people complaining and consider that they largely are the people who support all of the egregious merciless stuff which hurts people at an existential level.
Sam Freedman (yes I know) was good on that in his piece on the anti-VAT campaign;
The TLDR is that campaigns against government policy work best when you have a back channel negotiation to come up with a mutually-acceptable deal. The Independent Schools Council went straight for berating the policy in the press, and only that, which was never going to work.
Yes, VAT on school fees is another version of "Do it to Julia"; accept that there needs to be pain to balance the books, but that pain should be experienced by other people. A lot of the anger was because people used to getting their way didn't.
(And whilst there will be some blowback from this policy, it will need a massive exodus to be a net negative for the government. There is no sign of that right now. In large part because British private schools are mostly fishing in the global elite market, which isn't very price-sensitive. Hard on those who have gone from just about affording school fees to not affording them, but they're a minority of a minority.)
Is that true? Would like to see some figures to back that up. My gut is that it’s true for the Public Schools and the London private schools but the vast majority of private schools aren’t them, they are private schools in towns and cities with good local reputations attracting the children of local professionals or they are the only alternative to failing state schools in an area where people decide to make a financial sacrifice to pay for their childrens’ education.
These are the schools that will suffer - the public schools with international or national reputation and big endowments alongside the London private day schools with a big global wealthy community to fill places who would never dream of sending their children off to board will largely be fine.
Excluding international schools, about 5% of private school pupils are non-British with parents living abroad. The largest group are from China (both mainland and Hong Kong).
Another 5% are non-British but with parents who live in Britain.
My old school's proudest boast was that it had students from 70 different countries. It really is a terrible reflection on us all that we have allowed that slimy toad Farage to corrupt us into seeing foreigners as people to be feared
We travelled home from York yesterday and an Indian family were in the seats in front
They consisted of a father and mother, three children aged 8, 4 and a babe in arms, and his 2 sisters
As we approached Colwyn Bay he came next to us to take photos of the lovely coast and I spoke to him and he said he was a taxi driver in Manchester and hadn't been to Llandudno. He was using the train as his taxi was limited to 5
I said he should really enjoy our home town and pointed out lots of things he could do with his family
They were impeccably dressed and polite and each tooks turns to look after the baby
The vast majority welcome everyone to our Country, but it is also something the left seem to overlook that like our wonderful Indian family the vast majority contribute enormousy, but it is not helping to suggest that anyone who objects to the boats, asylum hotels, and some crimes comitted by those arriving to our shores are rascists
The only way to assauge Farage is to stop the boats, control immigation and deal firmly with those committing crimes
Since Starmer took office, total immigration is down a lot, deportations are up, and deportations of foreign criminals are up. However, boat numbers are up.
I would suggest that the problem is at least as much those on the radical right who object to all immigrants (or all Muslims, etc.). There are several regulars here who voice such views.
The country is bust, it needs proper control of immigration and anyone who does come needs to look after themselves till they have paid a minimum of 5 or 10 years taxes etc. Should be no free housing or benefits for anyone who arrives or wants to arrive regardless of method.
What about the likes of Sandpit or my son who want to bring long-standing wives here, and who are prepared (not sure whether Sandpit is) catch up NIC?
No issue if they are not getting benefits etc and spouse who is taxpayer is supporting them. As it is now , people are let in , then have no means to support and start bringing in droves of family. Perception also is that asylum seekers ( illegal immigrants ) are also getting first calss service whilst local people get chhased , cannot get doctors , houses , etc. Whole benefits scheme is needing serious overhaul, people should not be able to make a career of being unemployed. everything is far to lax and most seems to just be online nowadays.
It's not just perception Malc, it's actually happening. These 4* asylum hotels have doctors, nurses and dentists on site, they get free gym memberships, they can refuse to leave the hotel and beat the government in court.
Asylum seekers and illegals need to be moved into camps with very high fences, basic conditions in tents. It sounds harsh but our generosity has run out, the nation is going bankrupt and we're spending billions on welfare for non-citizens while millions of citizens live in poverty or are unable to get access to basic healthcare. It's fundamentally and morally wrong that we're looking after strangers rather than our own families.
As we saw from the discussion here last night there are many people happy to be generous with others money to make themselves feel good.
There are also many people happy to lie through their teeth and repeat nonsense like referring to asylum accommodation as "4*".
Lol, you keep explaining to the public that "it's not actually 4* hotels because they closed the swimming pool and sauna" and see how far you get. I hope Labour put it on the side of a bus and add 5% to Reform overnight.
Firstly the hotel must have a clearly designated reception area. Additionally it must have a minimum of five bedrooms available for rent. Furthermore, all of theses rooms must come with en suite bathrooms. As from the moment of registration the guest must have 24 hour access to the hotel without the need of a key. And the owner or staff is at minimum available via call for residents throughout day / night. The restaurant must be open a minimum of 6 days a week, serving bar snacks, breakfast or more. Hotels which do not offer dinner must be located in the vicinity of restaurants which do.
Furthermore, the hotel should have a liquor license and an area where beverages can be served. Room service must be available with a minimum of hot and cold drinks and light snacks (e.g. sandwiches) during daytime and evening. The hotel has the option to provide on request only, without having to promote its menu. Phone service available in-room as well as WiFi in all public areas. All areas of operation should meet the Three Star level of quality for cleanliness, maintenance and hospitality, and for the quality of physical facilities and delivery of services.
They ain't getting room service, so, no, not even 3*.
Please, put it on the side of a bus. I really hope someone in the Labour party is as obstinately idiotic as you and tries to make this argument the next time they are challenged about putting illegal immigrants in 4* hotels. Nige must be praying for such a response.
VAT on schools: 1) It will cost the state more money than it raises 2) Most people don't care because they see this as fair 3) Schools are using VAT to cover all number of things
I can understand the frustration of parents affected - it is unfair. Then again there are so many things which are egregiously unfair and this isn't anywhere near the top of the unfairness chart. Carers losing their entire allowance for going £1 over the earnings cap? More unfair. And there's stacks of examples of things done by merciless ministers to make the lives of the poor and sick practically unliveable which are more unfair.
This explains point 2 above.
Process State meets populist policy.
Sure! But for many of the people in point 2, they here the people complaining and consider that they largely are the people who support all of the egregious merciless stuff which hurts people at an existential level.
Sam Freedman (yes I know) was good on that in his piece on the anti-VAT campaign;
The TLDR is that campaigns against government policy work best when you have a back channel negotiation to come up with a mutually-acceptable deal. The Independent Schools Council went straight for berating the policy in the press, and only that, which was never going to work.
Yes, VAT on school fees is another version of "Do it to Julia"; accept that there needs to be pain to balance the books, but that pain should be experienced by other people. A lot of the anger was because people used to getting their way didn't.
(And whilst there will be some blowback from this policy, it will need a massive exodus to be a net negative for the government. There is no sign of that right now. In large part because British private schools are mostly fishing in the global elite market, which isn't very price-sensitive. Hard on those who have gone from just about affording school fees to not affording them, but they're a minority of a minority.)
Is that true? Would like to see some figures to back that up. My gut is that it’s true for the Public Schools and the London private schools but the vast majority of private schools aren’t them, they are private schools in towns and cities with good local reputations attracting the children of local professionals or they are the only alternative to failing state schools in an area where people decide to make a financial sacrifice to pay for their childrens’ education.
These are the schools that will suffer - the public schools with international or national reputation and big endowments alongside the London private day schools with a big global wealthy community to fill places who would never dream of sending their children off to board will largely be fine.
Excluding international schools, about 5% of private school pupils are non-British with parents living abroad. The largest group are from China (both mainland and Hong Kong).
Another 5% are non-British but with parents who live in Britain.
My old school's proudest boast was that it had students from 70 different countries. It really is a terrible reflection on us all that we have allowed that slimy toad Farage to corrupt us into seeing foreigners as people to be feared
We travelled home from York yesterday and an Indian family were in the seats in front
They consisted of a father and mother, three children aged 8, 4 and a babe in arms, and his 2 sisters
As we approached Colwyn Bay he came next to us to take photos of the lovely coast and I spoke to him and he said he was a taxi driver in Manchester and hadn't been to Llandudno. He was using the train as his taxi was limited to 5
I said he should really enjoy our home town and pointed out lots of things he could do with his family
They were impeccably dressed and polite and each tooks turns to look after the baby
The vast majority welcome everyone to our Country, but it is also something the left seem to overlook that like our wonderful Indian family the vast majority contribute enormousy, but it is not helping to suggest that anyone who objects to the boats, asylum hotels, and some crimes comitted by those arriving to our shores are rascists
The only way to assauge Farage is to stop the boats, control immigation and deal firmly with those committing crimes
Well put the blame where it belongs. Brexit! Try a trip to a nice little French town between Beaulieu and Nice. They have the Brit Bar Riviera King The Aussie Bar Tosca Italian restaurant The Rumanian builders Pembroke Films The Arthouse Gallery Pisani Estate agents...... run by every nationality you can think of running every kind of small business you can imagine making the place vibrant all the year round. While the Cote d'azur is getting rich beyond avarice the UK is burning hotels and stigmatising rubber boats. It's beyond depressing
My son and his family campervan broke down by Paris
They were told the main dealer has 8 mechanics but only 1 is working this week
The main dealer said they had not got the parts and but for his breakdown cover they would have been in a terrible predicament
Also why across Europe are countries looking at Rwanda schemes to address their problems and even changes to the ECHR
VAT on schools: 1) It will cost the state more money than it raises 2) Most people don't care because they see this as fair 3) Schools are using VAT to cover all number of things
I can understand the frustration of parents affected - it is unfair. Then again there are so many things which are egregiously unfair and this isn't anywhere near the top of the unfairness chart. Carers losing their entire allowance for going £1 over the earnings cap? More unfair. And there's stacks of examples of things done by merciless ministers to make the lives of the poor and sick practically unliveable which are more unfair.
This explains point 2 above.
Process State meets populist policy.
Sure! But for many of the people in point 2, they here the people complaining and consider that they largely are the people who support all of the egregious merciless stuff which hurts people at an existential level.
Sam Freedman (yes I know) was good on that in his piece on the anti-VAT campaign;
The TLDR is that campaigns against government policy work best when you have a back channel negotiation to come up with a mutually-acceptable deal. The Independent Schools Council went straight for berating the policy in the press, and only that, which was never going to work.
Yes, VAT on school fees is another version of "Do it to Julia"; accept that there needs to be pain to balance the books, but that pain should be experienced by other people. A lot of the anger was because people used to getting their way didn't.
(And whilst there will be some blowback from this policy, it will need a massive exodus to be a net negative for the government. There is no sign of that right now. In large part because British private schools are mostly fishing in the global elite market, which isn't very price-sensitive. Hard on those who have gone from just about affording school fees to not affording them, but they're a minority of a minority.)
Is that true? Would like to see some figures to back that up. My gut is that it’s true for the Public Schools and the London private schools but the vast majority of private schools aren’t them, they are private schools in towns and cities with good local reputations attracting the children of local professionals or they are the only alternative to failing state schools in an area where people decide to make a financial sacrifice to pay for their childrens’ education.
These are the schools that will suffer - the public schools with international or national reputation and big endowments alongside the London private day schools with a big global wealthy community to fill places who would never dream of sending their children off to board will largely be fine.
Excluding international schools, about 5% of private school pupils are non-British with parents living abroad. The largest group are from China (both mainland and Hong Kong).
Another 5% are non-British but with parents who live in Britain.
My old school's proudest boast was that it had students from 70 different countries. It really is a terrible reflection on us all that we have allowed that slimy toad Farage to corrupt us into seeing foreigners as people to be feared
We travelled home from York yesterday and an Indian family were in the seats in front
They consisted of a father and mother, three children aged 8, 4 and a babe in arms, and his 2 sisters
As we approached Colwyn Bay he came next to us to take photos of the lovely coast and I spoke to him and he said he was a taxi driver in Manchester and hadn't been to Llandudno. He was using the train as his taxi was limited to 5
I said he should really enjoy our home town and pointed out lots of things he could do with his family
They were impeccably dressed and polite and each tooks turns to look after the baby
The vast majority welcome everyone to our Country, but it is also something the left seem to overlook that like our wonderful Indian family the vast majority contribute enormousy, but it is not helping to suggest that anyone who objects to the boats, asylum hotels, and some crimes comitted by those arriving to our shores are rascists
The only way to assauge Farage is to stop the boats, control immigation and deal firmly with those committing crimes
Since Starmer took office, total immigration is down a lot, deportations are up, and deportations of foreign criminals are up. However, boat numbers are up.
I would suggest that the problem is at least as much those on the radical right who object to all immigrants (or all Muslims, etc.). There are several regulars here who voice such views.
The country is bust, it needs proper control of immigration and anyone who does come needs to look after themselves till they have paid a minimum of 5 or 10 years taxes etc. Should be no free housing or benefits for anyone who arrives or wants to arrive regardless of method.
What about the likes of Sandpit or my son who want to bring long-standing wives here, and who are prepared (not sure whether Sandpit is) catch up NIC?
No issue if they are not getting benefits etc and spouse who is taxpayer is supporting them. As it is now , people are let in , then have no means to support and start bringing in droves of family. Perception also is that asylum seekers ( illegal immigrants ) are also getting first calss service whilst local people get chhased , cannot get doctors , houses , etc. Whole benefits scheme is needing serious overhaul, people should not be able to make a career of being unemployed. everything is far to lax and most seems to just be online nowadays.
It's not just perception Malc, it's actually happening. These 4* asylum hotels have doctors, nurses and dentists on site, they get free gym memberships, they can refuse to leave the hotel and beat the government in court.
Asylum seekers and illegals need to be moved into camps with very high fences, basic conditions in tents. It sounds harsh but our generosity has run out, the nation is going bankrupt and we're spending billions on welfare for non-citizens while millions of citizens live in poverty or are unable to get access to basic healthcare. It's fundamentally and morally wrong that we're looking after strangers rather than our own families.
As we saw from the discussion here last night there are many people happy to be generous with others money to make themselves feel good.
There are also many people happy to lie through their teeth and repeat nonsense like referring to asylum accommodation as "4*".
Lol, you keep explaining to the public that "it's not actually 4* hotels because they closed the swimming pool and sauna" and see how far you get. I hope Labour put it on the side of a bus and add 5% to Reform overnight.
Firstly the hotel must have a clearly designated reception area. Additionally it must have a minimum of five bedrooms available for rent. Furthermore, all of theses rooms must come with en suite bathrooms. As from the moment of registration the guest must have 24 hour access to the hotel without the need of a key. And the owner or staff is at minimum available via call for residents throughout day / night. The restaurant must be open a minimum of 6 days a week, serving bar snacks, breakfast or more. Hotels which do not offer dinner must be located in the vicinity of restaurants which do.
Furthermore, the hotel should have a liquor license and an area where beverages can be served. Room service must be available with a minimum of hot and cold drinks and light snacks (e.g. sandwiches) during daytime and evening. The hotel has the option to provide on request only, without having to promote its menu. Phone service available in-room as well as WiFi in all public areas. All areas of operation should meet the Three Star level of quality for cleanliness, maintenance and hospitality, and for the quality of physical facilities and delivery of services.
They ain't getting room service, so, no, not even 3*.
Please, put it on the side of a bus. I really hope someone in the Labour party is as obstinately idiotic as you and tries to make this argument the next time they are challenged about putting illegal immigrants in 4* hotels. Nige must be praying for such a response.
It is a bit long winded, mind. Perhaps something like 'AKTUALLY THEY'RE NOT EVEN 3 STAR HOTELS, so stop yer whining, voters'
VAT on schools: 1) It will cost the state more money than it raises 2) Most people don't care because they see this as fair 3) Schools are using VAT to cover all number of things
I can understand the frustration of parents affected - it is unfair. Then again there are so many things which are egregiously unfair and this isn't anywhere near the top of the unfairness chart. Carers losing their entire allowance for going £1 over the earnings cap? More unfair. And there's stacks of examples of things done by merciless ministers to make the lives of the poor and sick practically unliveable which are more unfair.
This explains point 2 above.
Process State meets populist policy.
Sure! But for many of the people in point 2, they here the people complaining and consider that they largely are the people who support all of the egregious merciless stuff which hurts people at an existential level.
Sam Freedman (yes I know) was good on that in his piece on the anti-VAT campaign;
The TLDR is that campaigns against government policy work best when you have a back channel negotiation to come up with a mutually-acceptable deal. The Independent Schools Council went straight for berating the policy in the press, and only that, which was never going to work.
Yes, VAT on school fees is another version of "Do it to Julia"; accept that there needs to be pain to balance the books, but that pain should be experienced by other people. A lot of the anger was because people used to getting their way didn't.
(And whilst there will be some blowback from this policy, it will need a massive exodus to be a net negative for the government. There is no sign of that right now. In large part because British private schools are mostly fishing in the global elite market, which isn't very price-sensitive. Hard on those who have gone from just about affording school fees to not affording them, but they're a minority of a minority.)
Is that true? Would like to see some figures to back that up. My gut is that it’s true for the Public Schools and the London private schools but the vast majority of private schools aren’t them, they are private schools in towns and cities with good local reputations attracting the children of local professionals or they are the only alternative to failing state schools in an area where people decide to make a financial sacrifice to pay for their childrens’ education.
These are the schools that will suffer - the public schools with international or national reputation and big endowments alongside the London private day schools with a big global wealthy community to fill places who would never dream of sending their children off to board will largely be fine.
Excluding international schools, about 5% of private school pupils are non-British with parents living abroad. The largest group are from China (both mainland and Hong Kong).
Another 5% are non-British but with parents who live in Britain.
My old school's proudest boast was that it had students from 70 different countries. It really is a terrible reflection on us all that we have allowed that slimy toad Farage to corrupt us into seeing foreigners as people to be feared
We travelled home from York yesterday and an Indian family were in the seats in front
They consisted of a father and mother, three children aged 8, 4 and a babe in arms, and his 2 sisters
As we approached Colwyn Bay he came next to us to take photos of the lovely coast and I spoke to him and he said he was a taxi driver in Manchester and hadn't been to Llandudno. He was using the train as his taxi was limited to 5
I said he should really enjoy our home town and pointed out lots of things he could do with his family
They were impeccably dressed and polite and each tooks turns to look after the baby
The vast majority welcome everyone to our Country, but it is also something the left seem to overlook that like our wonderful Indian family the vast majority contribute enormousy, but it is not helping to suggest that anyone who objects to the boats, asylum hotels, and some crimes comitted by those arriving to our shores are rascists
The only way to assauge Farage is to stop the boats, control immigation and deal firmly with those committing crimes
Since Starmer took office, total immigration is down a lot, deportations are up, and deportations of foreign criminals are up. However, boat numbers are up.
I would suggest that the problem is at least as much those on the radical right who object to all immigrants (or all Muslims, etc.). There are several regulars here who voice such views.
The country is bust, it needs proper control of immigration and anyone who does come needs to look after themselves till they have paid a minimum of 5 or 10 years taxes etc. Should be no free housing or benefits for anyone who arrives or wants to arrive regardless of method.
What about the likes of Sandpit or my son who want to bring long-standing wives here, and who are prepared (not sure whether Sandpit is) catch up NIC?
No issue if they are not getting benefits etc and spouse who is taxpayer is supporting them. As it is now , people are let in , then have no means to support and start bringing in droves of family. Perception also is that asylum seekers ( illegal immigrants ) are also getting first calss service whilst local people get chhased , cannot get doctors , houses , etc. Whole benefits scheme is needing serious overhaul, people should not be able to make a career of being unemployed. everything is far to lax and most seems to just be online nowadays.
It's not just perception Malc, it's actually happening. These 4* asylum hotels have doctors, nurses and dentists on site, they get free gym memberships, they can refuse to leave the hotel and beat the government in court.
Asylum seekers and illegals need to be moved into camps with very high fences, basic conditions in tents. It sounds harsh but our generosity has run out, the nation is going bankrupt and we're spending billions on welfare for non-citizens while millions of citizens live in poverty or are unable to get access to basic healthcare. It's fundamentally and morally wrong that we're looking after strangers rather than our own families.
As we saw from the discussion here last night there are many people happy to be generous with others money to make themselves feel good.
There are also many people happy to lie through their teeth and repeat nonsense like referring to asylum accommodation as "4*".
Lol, you keep explaining to the public that "it's not actually 4* hotels because they closed the swimming pool and sauna" and see how far you get. I hope Labour put it on the side of a bus and add 5% to Reform overnight.
The NU10k inability to see the ABSOLUTE MASSIVE PR PROBLEM created by using hotels as temporary accommodation is utterly baffling to me.
The NU10k is a scare story to tell kiddies and doesn't exist.
The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.
VAT on schools: 1) It will cost the state more money than it raises 2) Most people don't care because they see this as fair 3) Schools are using VAT to cover all number of things
I can understand the frustration of parents affected - it is unfair. Then again there are so many things which are egregiously unfair and this isn't anywhere near the top of the unfairness chart. Carers losing their entire allowance for going £1 over the earnings cap? More unfair. And there's stacks of examples of things done by merciless ministers to make the lives of the poor and sick practically unliveable which are more unfair.
This explains point 2 above.
Process State meets populist policy.
Sure! But for many of the people in point 2, they here the people complaining and consider that they largely are the people who support all of the egregious merciless stuff which hurts people at an existential level.
Sam Freedman (yes I know) was good on that in his piece on the anti-VAT campaign;
The TLDR is that campaigns against government policy work best when you have a back channel negotiation to come up with a mutually-acceptable deal. The Independent Schools Council went straight for berating the policy in the press, and only that, which was never going to work.
Yes, VAT on school fees is another version of "Do it to Julia"; accept that there needs to be pain to balance the books, but that pain should be experienced by other people. A lot of the anger was because people used to getting their way didn't.
(And whilst there will be some blowback from this policy, it will need a massive exodus to be a net negative for the government. There is no sign of that right now. In large part because British private schools are mostly fishing in the global elite market, which isn't very price-sensitive. Hard on those who have gone from just about affording school fees to not affording them, but they're a minority of a minority.)
Is that true? Would like to see some figures to back that up. My gut is that it’s true for the Public Schools and the London private schools but the vast majority of private schools aren’t them, they are private schools in towns and cities with good local reputations attracting the children of local professionals or they are the only alternative to failing state schools in an area where people decide to make a financial sacrifice to pay for their childrens’ education.
These are the schools that will suffer - the public schools with international or national reputation and big endowments alongside the London private day schools with a big global wealthy community to fill places who would never dream of sending their children off to board will largely be fine.
Excluding international schools, about 5% of private school pupils are non-British with parents living abroad. The largest group are from China (both mainland and Hong Kong).
Another 5% are non-British but with parents who live in Britain.
My old school's proudest boast was that it had students from 70 different countries. It really is a terrible reflection on us all that we have allowed that slimy toad Farage to corrupt us into seeing foreigners as people to be feared
We travelled home from York yesterday and an Indian family were in the seats in front
They consisted of a father and mother, three children aged 8, 4 and a babe in arms, and his 2 sisters
As we approached Colwyn Bay he came next to us to take photos of the lovely coast and I spoke to him and he said he was a taxi driver in Manchester and hadn't been to Llandudno. He was using the train as his taxi was limited to 5
I said he should really enjoy our home town and pointed out lots of things he could do with his family
They were impeccably dressed and polite and each tooks turns to look after the baby
The vast majority welcome everyone to our Country, but it is also something the left seem to overlook that like our wonderful Indian family the vast majority contribute enormousy, but it is not helping to suggest that anyone who objects to the boats, asylum hotels, and some crimes comitted by those arriving to our shores are rascists
The only way to assauge Farage is to stop the boats, control immigation and deal firmly with those committing crimes
Since Starmer took office, total immigration is down a lot, deportations are up, and deportations of foreign criminals are up. However, boat numbers are up.
I would suggest that the problem is at least as much those on the radical right who object to all immigrants (or all Muslims, etc.). There are several regulars here who voice such views.
The country is bust, it needs proper control of immigration and anyone who does come needs to look after themselves till they have paid a minimum of 5 or 10 years taxes etc. Should be no free housing or benefits for anyone who arrives or wants to arrive regardless of method.
What about the likes of Sandpit or my son who want to bring long-standing wives here, and who are prepared (not sure whether Sandpit is) catch up NIC?
No issue if they are not getting benefits etc and spouse who is taxpayer is supporting them. As it is now , people are let in , then have no means to support and start bringing in droves of family. Perception also is that asylum seekers ( illegal immigrants ) are also getting first calss service whilst local people get chhased , cannot get doctors , houses , etc. Whole benefits scheme is needing serious overhaul, people should not be able to make a career of being unemployed. everything is far to lax and most seems to just be online nowadays.
It's not just perception Malc, it's actually happening. These 4* asylum hotels have doctors, nurses and dentists on site, they get free gym memberships, they can refuse to leave the hotel and beat the government in court.
Asylum seekers and illegals need to be moved into camps with very high fences, basic conditions in tents. It sounds harsh but our generosity has run out, the nation is going bankrupt and we're spending billions on welfare for non-citizens while millions of citizens live in poverty or are unable to get access to basic healthcare. It's fundamentally and morally wrong that we're looking after strangers rather than our own families.
As we saw from the discussion here last night there are many people happy to be generous with others money to make themselves feel good.
There are also many people happy to lie through their teeth and repeat nonsense like referring to asylum accommodation as "4*".
Lol, you keep explaining to the public that "it's not actually 4* hotels because they closed the swimming pool and sauna" and see how far you get. I hope Labour put it on the side of a bus and add 5% to Reform overnight.
Firstly the hotel must have a clearly designated reception area. Additionally it must have a minimum of five bedrooms available for rent. Furthermore, all of theses rooms must come with en suite bathrooms. As from the moment of registration the guest must have 24 hour access to the hotel without the need of a key. And the owner or staff is at minimum available via call for residents throughout day / night. The restaurant must be open a minimum of 6 days a week, serving bar snacks, breakfast or more. Hotels which do not offer dinner must be located in the vicinity of restaurants which do.
Furthermore, the hotel should have a liquor license and an area where beverages can be served. Room service must be available with a minimum of hot and cold drinks and light snacks (e.g. sandwiches) during daytime and evening. The hotel has the option to provide on request only, without having to promote its menu. Phone service available in-room as well as WiFi in all public areas. All areas of operation should meet the Three Star level of quality for cleanliness, maintenance and hospitality, and for the quality of physical facilities and delivery of services.
They ain't getting room service, so, no, not even 3*.
Well, most people never use room service, not if they're paying for it themselves.
If the hotel was formerly 4* but downgraded due to the lack of sauna, gym etc, it will still be furnished to 4* standard
Today is (arguably) the 88th anniversary of the first major battle of WWII. Anything up to a million troops engaged.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Shanghai ...the first of the twenty-two major engagements fought between the National Revolutionary Army (NRA) of the Republic of China (ROC) and the Imperial Japanese Army (IJA) of the Empire of Japan at the beginning of the Second Sino-Japanese War. The Japanese eventually prevailed after over three months of extensive fighting on land, in the air and at sea. Both sides accused each other of using chemical weapons during the battle, with Japanese forces confirmed to have illegally deployed poison gas at least thirteen times. Historian Peter Harmsen stated that the battle "presaged urban combat as it was to be waged not just during the Second World War, but throughout the remainder of the twentieth century" and that it "signalled the totality of modern urban warfare". It was the single largest urban battle prior to the Battle of Stalingrad, which occurred almost 5 years later..
Does The Telegraph bother fact-checking what they write?
Actually this is a classic new landscape of the media. This story was actually posted online a month ago by a local outlet,
Ragged said, “You couldn’t make this up, I have just had the police in the shop only to be informed that the signs on my cabinets could be seen as provocative and offensive and they advised me to re word them”
And "reword the sign" got morphed to take the sign down and not just the Telegraph, every media outlet covered it. I bet what happened was various journalists are just ctrl-F for shoplifting stories.
I always bring up the FT story on the government will spend £10bn on equipment during COVID. Where somebody at the FT did a ctrl-F on all government tender documents and added up the numbers. Within a couple of days that was a "fact". When in fact, these documents were saying things we need this bits of kit over the next 5-10 years ...especially in the light of COVID blah blah blah.... and so putting out to tender this bit of kit i.e. it was just waffle people put in as an added justification for something they were already going to put out to tender.
VAT on schools: 1) It will cost the state more money than it raises 2) Most people don't care because they see this as fair 3) Schools are using VAT to cover all number of things
I can understand the frustration of parents affected - it is unfair. Then again there are so many things which are egregiously unfair and this isn't anywhere near the top of the unfairness chart. Carers losing their entire allowance for going £1 over the earnings cap? More unfair. And there's stacks of examples of things done by merciless ministers to make the lives of the poor and sick practically unliveable which are more unfair.
This explains point 2 above.
Process State meets populist policy.
Sure! But for many of the people in point 2, they here the people complaining and consider that they largely are the people who support all of the egregious merciless stuff which hurts people at an existential level.
Sam Freedman (yes I know) was good on that in his piece on the anti-VAT campaign;
The TLDR is that campaigns against government policy work best when you have a back channel negotiation to come up with a mutually-acceptable deal. The Independent Schools Council went straight for berating the policy in the press, and only that, which was never going to work.
Yes, VAT on school fees is another version of "Do it to Julia"; accept that there needs to be pain to balance the books, but that pain should be experienced by other people. A lot of the anger was because people used to getting their way didn't.
(And whilst there will be some blowback from this policy, it will need a massive exodus to be a net negative for the government. There is no sign of that right now. In large part because British private schools are mostly fishing in the global elite market, which isn't very price-sensitive. Hard on those who have gone from just about affording school fees to not affording them, but they're a minority of a minority.)
Is that true? Would like to see some figures to back that up. My gut is that it’s true for the Public Schools and the London private schools but the vast majority of private schools aren’t them, they are private schools in towns and cities with good local reputations attracting the children of local professionals or they are the only alternative to failing state schools in an area where people decide to make a financial sacrifice to pay for their childrens’ education.
These are the schools that will suffer - the public schools with international or national reputation and big endowments alongside the London private day schools with a big global wealthy community to fill places who would never dream of sending their children off to board will largely be fine.
Excluding international schools, about 5% of private school pupils are non-British with parents living abroad. The largest group are from China (both mainland and Hong Kong).
Another 5% are non-British but with parents who live in Britain.
My old school's proudest boast was that it had students from 70 different countries. It really is a terrible reflection on us all that we have allowed that slimy toad Farage to corrupt us into seeing foreigners as people to be feared
We travelled home from York yesterday and an Indian family were in the seats in front
They consisted of a father and mother, three children aged 8, 4 and a babe in arms, and his 2 sisters
As we approached Colwyn Bay he came next to us to take photos of the lovely coast and I spoke to him and he said he was a taxi driver in Manchester and hadn't been to Llandudno. He was using the train as his taxi was limited to 5
I said he should really enjoy our home town and pointed out lots of things he could do with his family
They were impeccably dressed and polite and each tooks turns to look after the baby
The vast majority welcome everyone to our Country, but it is also something the left seem to overlook that like our wonderful Indian family the vast majority contribute enormousy, but it is not helping to suggest that anyone who objects to the boats, asylum hotels, and some crimes comitted by those arriving to our shores are rascists
The only way to assauge Farage is to stop the boats, control immigation and deal firmly with those committing crimes
Since Starmer took office, total immigration is down a lot, deportations are up, and deportations of foreign criminals are up. However, boat numbers are up.
I would suggest that the problem is at least as much those on the radical right who object to all immigrants (or all Muslims, etc.). There are several regulars here who voice such views.
The country is bust, it needs proper control of immigration and anyone who does come needs to look after themselves till they have paid a minimum of 5 or 10 years taxes etc. Should be no free housing or benefits for anyone who arrives or wants to arrive regardless of method.
What about the likes of Sandpit or my son who want to bring long-standing wives here, and who are prepared (not sure whether Sandpit is) catch up NIC?
No issue if they are not getting benefits etc and spouse who is taxpayer is supporting them. As it is now , people are let in , then have no means to support and start bringing in droves of family. Perception also is that asylum seekers ( illegal immigrants ) are also getting first calss service whilst local people get chhased , cannot get doctors , houses , etc. Whole benefits scheme is needing serious overhaul, people should not be able to make a career of being unemployed. everything is far to lax and most seems to just be online nowadays.
It's not just perception Malc, it's actually happening. These 4* asylum hotels have doctors, nurses and dentists on site, they get free gym memberships, they can refuse to leave the hotel and beat the government in court.
Asylum seekers and illegals need to be moved into camps with very high fences, basic conditions in tents. It sounds harsh but our generosity has run out, the nation is going bankrupt and we're spending billions on welfare for non-citizens while millions of citizens live in poverty or are unable to get access to basic healthcare. It's fundamentally and morally wrong that we're looking after strangers rather than our own families.
As we saw from the discussion here last night there are many people happy to be generous with others money to make themselves feel good.
There are also many people happy to lie through their teeth and repeat nonsense like referring to asylum accommodation as "4*".
Lol, you keep explaining to the public that "it's not actually 4* hotels because they closed the swimming pool and sauna" and see how far you get. I hope Labour put it on the side of a bus and add 5% to Reform overnight.
Firstly the hotel must have a clearly designated reception area. Additionally it must have a minimum of five bedrooms available for rent. Furthermore, all of theses rooms must come with en suite bathrooms. As from the moment of registration the guest must have 24 hour access to the hotel without the need of a key. And the owner or staff is at minimum available via call for residents throughout day / night. The restaurant must be open a minimum of 6 days a week, serving bar snacks, breakfast or more. Hotels which do not offer dinner must be located in the vicinity of restaurants which do.
Furthermore, the hotel should have a liquor license and an area where beverages can be served. Room service must be available with a minimum of hot and cold drinks and light snacks (e.g. sandwiches) during daytime and evening. The hotel has the option to provide on request only, without having to promote its menu. Phone service available in-room as well as WiFi in all public areas. All areas of operation should meet the Three Star level of quality for cleanliness, maintenance and hospitality, and for the quality of physical facilities and delivery of services.
They ain't getting room service, so, no, not even 3*.
Well, most people never use room service, not if they're paying for it themselves.
If the hotel was formerly 4* but downgraded due to the lack of sauna, gym etc, it will still be furnished to 4* standard
These former 4* hotels have generally been refurbished to fit more people in. They haven't simply carried over the old furnishings.
Yes, poor numbers for Labour but I think we know if any other party were in Government at this time their numbers would be as bad if not worse.
It's often said some elections are "bad ones to win" - 1992 being a good example - but 2024 would be right up there it seems. I'll be honest (and this seems a peculiarly London-centric view) - I don't think Starmer is doing too badly. At worst he's Continuity Sunak but big shifts in governance aren't easy - as has been said, there were probably only three really radical Governments in the 20th century - Asquith, Attlee and Thatcher.
In a globally interconnected world, doing something radical isn't easy and even within Britain one decision impacts on others. Cuts in public spending on the scale some here would seem to want don't end at the balance sheet - they would impact real people in their daily lives, perhaps not the individuals and their families urging the deep cuts but nonetheless.
Government is difficult especially at a time of weak economic growth - however you try to slice the cake someone complains about their share or lack of it. I do agree some of the initial ideas of the new Government were implemented in a hamfisted way - removing Winter Fuel Allowance from higher rate taxpayers while retaining it for those on basic rate would probably have been sellable. The "boats" defy all attempts at a solution for now though I suspect autumn and winter will slow things down a bit.
Cutting Peter's benefits to ensure Paul pays less tax isn't the answer and nor is raising Paul's taxes so Peter can keep all his benefits so it becomes dancing on a pinhead in terms of what you can and can't do.
It also becomes easier to look for scapegoats - blame the migrants, blame the scroungers, blame those with mental and physical challenges, blame those with long Covid, blame the last Government, blame this Government etc.
You can see the attraction of masterly inactivity and the destiny of the poor can as it gets propelled once more down the road. You can also see why those peddling "easy answers" get traction.
The problem I see it is that Starmer is built for a sort of managerial role when the country doesn’t need it. He might have been a decently average (or even average to good) PM conceivably, in 2015, or in the 1960s, or in the John Major role. He just isn’t the “cometh the hour” person.
The Atlees, Thatchers, Asquiths of this world are rare but they’re precisely what we need right now - a purpose, a radical sense of mission, and a party firmly behind them. Farage play-acts as one of those people, but isnt the real deal.
Ah, yes, the "strong" leader. The "radical" leader. It's seductive I know to think all our problems could be dealt with by such an individual - we could vote them in and then they would lead us from the valley of the shadow to the sunlit uplands...
Blah, blah, blah - that's how authoritarianism starts. I'd rather our imperfect, bumbling democracy than a "strong" leader. The truth probably is we could solve a lot of our problems ourselves with some changes in our personal behaviour and within our communities - that would be really radical.
The problem with top-down solutions is they create bottom-up problems. Somebody suggested yesterday it was all the fault of "fatties" as he called them and said everyone who was overweight should be given free Mounjaro. Well, setting aside the economics, the practicalities and the legalities (but they aren't that individual's strong suit), Mounjaro isn't side effect free as I know from a friend who has used it.
The other consequence is if you have a significant portion (sorry) of the population on appetite suppressing drugs, what happens to the catering and hospitality industries? Do the non-"fatties" have to become "fatties" in order to keep every cafe and restaurant from my cafe in the Barking Road to the top three Michelin star eaterie going? Will we see Gordon Ramsey begging on the streets as his restaurant empire collapses from lack of demand?
The claim that radical change in a democracy is dictatorship or something is an old, old cry.
The problem is that, in many areas, the government is not doing much, if anything.
On health in the community - why not some trials? Pick an area. Vitality style rewards for health indicators. You wouldn’t need legislation for that.
£100 off income tax (or added to your UC or State Pension) if you have a healthy BMI or can run 5K in less than 30 minutes.
First, we know BMI isn't the be all and end all as a measure of health. Second, physical exercise tests - seriously? Third, £100 - a lot of people will see it as not worth the effort (make it £10,000 a year and you;d get more takers).
Tough. The NHS is going to collapse under the weight of the population and we already have the classic insurance issues of moral hazard and adverse selection.
Health inequality is enormous. We have a group of well paid, healthy and active people paying a huge amount of tax for a service they rarely use because it's been overwhelmed by the old and inactive.
That's completely unsustainable, a breach of the social contract. And this is coming from someone who is instinctively generous with government support for those who need it.
Most of the redistribution done by the NHS is over time. If you're healthy and active, you are paying for your future care more than you are paying for inactive others'. Even if you eat well and do lots of physical activity, you're going to die at some point and most of the average person's health costs are at the end of life.
Now, that doesn't argue against the importance of health promotion. Health promotion is very cost effective. We should be doing more to encourage physical activity and healthy diets. What's the best way of doing that? Giving people £100 for being fit, or spending £4 billion on council gyms and good quality health promotion apps?
If we were paying for our future care that would be fine. But we aren't, are we?
We aren't even paying for current care requirements.
The whole Ponzi scheme is collapsing and nobody wants to admit it.
We pay for current old people's care, and when we're old, a younger generation will pay for our care. This is not a Ponzi scheme. (Calling it a Ponzi scheme is one of the laziest lines in politics.) The country is currently running a deficit, but talk of "collapsing" is hyperbole.
In the 47 years that I paid NI I never once objected to paying it. My parents and grandparents would have benefited from my contributions. Now my children and grandchildren are paying and I am benefiting. There are some utterly selfish and small minded scrooges on PB.
The problem is that the system of “current tax payers pay for the retired” only produces generous results with few retired and lots of taxpayers.
Does The Telegraph bother fact-checking what they write?
Actually this is a classic new landscape of the media. This story was actually posted online a month ago by a local outlet,
Ragged said, “You couldn’t make this up, I have just had the police in the shop only to be informed that the signs on my cabinets could be seen as provocative and offensive and they advised me to re word them”
And "reword the sign" got morphed to take the sign down and not just the Telegraph, every media outlet covered it. I bet what happened was various journalists are just ctrl-F for shoplifting stories.
I always bring up the FT story on the government will spend £10bn on equipment during COVID. Where somebody at the FT did a ctrl-F on all government tender documents and added up the numbers. Within a couple of days that was a "fact". When in fact, these documents were saying things we need this bits of kit over the next 5-10 years ...especially in the light of COVID blah blah blah.... and so putting out to tender this bit of kit i.e. it was just waffle people put in as an added justification for something they were already going to put out to tender.
To be fair - telling someone to reword the sign is saying that the sign, as is, should be removed.
VAT on schools: 1) It will cost the state more money than it raises 2) Most people don't care because they see this as fair 3) Schools are using VAT to cover all number of things
I can understand the frustration of parents affected - it is unfair. Then again there are so many things which are egregiously unfair and this isn't anywhere near the top of the unfairness chart. Carers losing their entire allowance for going £1 over the earnings cap? More unfair. And there's stacks of examples of things done by merciless ministers to make the lives of the poor and sick practically unliveable which are more unfair.
This explains point 2 above.
Process State meets populist policy.
Sure! But for many of the people in point 2, they here the people complaining and consider that they largely are the people who support all of the egregious merciless stuff which hurts people at an existential level.
Sam Freedman (yes I know) was good on that in his piece on the anti-VAT campaign;
The TLDR is that campaigns against government policy work best when you have a back channel negotiation to come up with a mutually-acceptable deal. The Independent Schools Council went straight for berating the policy in the press, and only that, which was never going to work.
Yes, VAT on school fees is another version of "Do it to Julia"; accept that there needs to be pain to balance the books, but that pain should be experienced by other people. A lot of the anger was because people used to getting their way didn't.
(And whilst there will be some blowback from this policy, it will need a massive exodus to be a net negative for the government. There is no sign of that right now. In large part because British private schools are mostly fishing in the global elite market, which isn't very price-sensitive. Hard on those who have gone from just about affording school fees to not affording them, but they're a minority of a minority.)
Is that true? Would like to see some figures to back that up. My gut is that it’s true for the Public Schools and the London private schools but the vast majority of private schools aren’t them, they are private schools in towns and cities with good local reputations attracting the children of local professionals or they are the only alternative to failing state schools in an area where people decide to make a financial sacrifice to pay for their childrens’ education.
These are the schools that will suffer - the public schools with international or national reputation and big endowments alongside the London private day schools with a big global wealthy community to fill places who would never dream of sending their children off to board will largely be fine.
Excluding international schools, about 5% of private school pupils are non-British with parents living abroad. The largest group are from China (both mainland and Hong Kong).
Another 5% are non-British but with parents who live in Britain.
My old school's proudest boast was that it had students from 70 different countries. It really is a terrible reflection on us all that we have allowed that slimy toad Farage to corrupt us into seeing foreigners as people to be feared
We travelled home from York yesterday and an Indian family were in the seats in front
They consisted of a father and mother, three children aged 8, 4 and a babe in arms, and his 2 sisters
As we approached Colwyn Bay he came next to us to take photos of the lovely coast and I spoke to him and he said he was a taxi driver in Manchester and hadn't been to Llandudno. He was using the train as his taxi was limited to 5
I said he should really enjoy our home town and pointed out lots of things he could do with his family
They were impeccably dressed and polite and each tooks turns to look after the baby
The vast majority welcome everyone to our Country, but it is also something the left seem to overlook that like our wonderful Indian family the vast majority contribute enormousy, but it is not helping to suggest that anyone who objects to the boats, asylum hotels, and some crimes comitted by those arriving to our shores are rascists
The only way to assauge Farage is to stop the boats, control immigation and deal firmly with those committing crimes
Since Starmer took office, total immigration is down a lot, deportations are up, and deportations of foreign criminals are up. However, boat numbers are up.
I would suggest that the problem is at least as much those on the radical right who object to all immigrants (or all Muslims, etc.). There are several regulars here who voice such views.
The country is bust, it needs proper control of immigration and anyone who does come needs to look after themselves till they have paid a minimum of 5 or 10 years taxes etc. Should be no free housing or benefits for anyone who arrives or wants to arrive regardless of method.
What about the likes of Sandpit or my son who want to bring long-standing wives here, and who are prepared (not sure whether Sandpit is) catch up NIC?
No issue if they are not getting benefits etc and spouse who is taxpayer is supporting them. As it is now , people are let in , then have no means to support and start bringing in droves of family. Perception also is that asylum seekers ( illegal immigrants ) are also getting first calss service whilst local people get chhased , cannot get doctors , houses , etc. Whole benefits scheme is needing serious overhaul, people should not be able to make a career of being unemployed. everything is far to lax and most seems to just be online nowadays.
It's not just perception Malc, it's actually happening. These 4* asylum hotels have doctors, nurses and dentists on site, they get free gym memberships, they can refuse to leave the hotel and beat the government in court.
Asylum seekers and illegals need to be moved into camps with very high fences, basic conditions in tents. It sounds harsh but our generosity has run out, the nation is going bankrupt and we're spending billions on welfare for non-citizens while millions of citizens live in poverty or are unable to get access to basic healthcare. It's fundamentally and morally wrong that we're looking after strangers rather than our own families.
As we saw from the discussion here last night there are many people happy to be generous with others money to make themselves feel good.
There are also many people happy to lie through their teeth and repeat nonsense like referring to asylum accommodation as "4*".
Lol, you keep explaining to the public that "it's not actually 4* hotels because they closed the swimming pool and sauna" and see how far you get. I hope Labour put it on the side of a bus and add 5% to Reform overnight.
The NU10k inability to see the ABSOLUTE MASSIVE PR PROBLEM created by using hotels as temporary accommodation is utterly baffling to me.
The NU10k is a scare story to tell kiddies and doesn't exist.
The Government are very clearly aware that there is an "ABSOLUTE MASSIVE PR PROBLEM created by using hotels as temporary accommodation" and are doing their best to reduce numbers in hotels to 0. The number has roughly halved since Labour came to power.
However, these people exist and can't just be magically disappeared. Alternatives bring other problems (costs, local objections). So the process of reducing numbers takes time.
The only thing utterly baffling is your belief that the Government is not aware that there is a problem.
Are we 100% about that, yes the government say so. But what is a "hotel". I smell some serious spinnage.
e.g. the infamous Bell Hotel in Epping has not been open to the public for a while. Do we still class that as a hotel? If the government agrees a long term lease for the use of the hotel, ceases the ability for the it to take public bookings for say the next 2 years, is that now no longer a hotel? I bet under the government definition it is no longer a hotel, despite all the public pointing at the building and saying look they are staying at the Bell Hotel.
And this is literally what the government said they were going to do as part of their plan to "end hotel usage".
You could say that is good the government are getting the cost down. But people concerned about "migrant hotels" nothing has actually changed in their local environment.
A journalist with some brains would be firing off FOI asking for numbers of "former" hotels that government still rents.
VAT on schools: 1) It will cost the state more money than it raises 2) Most people don't care because they see this as fair 3) Schools are using VAT to cover all number of things
I can understand the frustration of parents affected - it is unfair. Then again there are so many things which are egregiously unfair and this isn't anywhere near the top of the unfairness chart. Carers losing their entire allowance for going £1 over the earnings cap? More unfair. And there's stacks of examples of things done by merciless ministers to make the lives of the poor and sick practically unliveable which are more unfair.
This explains point 2 above.
Process State meets populist policy.
Sure! But for many of the people in point 2, they here the people complaining and consider that they largely are the people who support all of the egregious merciless stuff which hurts people at an existential level.
Sam Freedman (yes I know) was good on that in his piece on the anti-VAT campaign;
The TLDR is that campaigns against government policy work best when you have a back channel negotiation to come up with a mutually-acceptable deal. The Independent Schools Council went straight for berating the policy in the press, and only that, which was never going to work.
Yes, VAT on school fees is another version of "Do it to Julia"; accept that there needs to be pain to balance the books, but that pain should be experienced by other people. A lot of the anger was because people used to getting their way didn't.
(And whilst there will be some blowback from this policy, it will need a massive exodus to be a net negative for the government. There is no sign of that right now. In large part because British private schools are mostly fishing in the global elite market, which isn't very price-sensitive. Hard on those who have gone from just about affording school fees to not affording them, but they're a minority of a minority.)
Is that true? Would like to see some figures to back that up. My gut is that it’s true for the Public Schools and the London private schools but the vast majority of private schools aren’t them, they are private schools in towns and cities with good local reputations attracting the children of local professionals or they are the only alternative to failing state schools in an area where people decide to make a financial sacrifice to pay for their childrens’ education.
These are the schools that will suffer - the public schools with international or national reputation and big endowments alongside the London private day schools with a big global wealthy community to fill places who would never dream of sending their children off to board will largely be fine.
Excluding international schools, about 5% of private school pupils are non-British with parents living abroad. The largest group are from China (both mainland and Hong Kong).
Another 5% are non-British but with parents who live in Britain.
My old school's proudest boast was that it had students from 70 different countries. It really is a terrible reflection on us all that we have allowed that slimy toad Farage to corrupt us into seeing foreigners as people to be feared
We travelled home from York yesterday and an Indian family were in the seats in front
They consisted of a father and mother, three children aged 8, 4 and a babe in arms, and his 2 sisters
As we approached Colwyn Bay he came next to us to take photos of the lovely coast and I spoke to him and he said he was a taxi driver in Manchester and hadn't been to Llandudno. He was using the train as his taxi was limited to 5
I said he should really enjoy our home town and pointed out lots of things he could do with his family
They were impeccably dressed and polite and each tooks turns to look after the baby
The vast majority welcome everyone to our Country, but it is also something the left seem to overlook that like our wonderful Indian family the vast majority contribute enormousy, but it is not helping to suggest that anyone who objects to the boats, asylum hotels, and some crimes comitted by those arriving to our shores are rascists
The only way to assauge Farage is to stop the boats, control immigation and deal firmly with those committing crimes
Since Starmer took office, total immigration is down a lot, deportations are up, and deportations of foreign criminals are up. However, boat numbers are up.
I would suggest that the problem is at least as much those on the radical right who object to all immigrants (or all Muslims, etc.). There are several regulars here who voice such views.
The country is bust, it needs proper control of immigration and anyone who does come needs to look after themselves till they have paid a minimum of 5 or 10 years taxes etc. Should be no free housing or benefits for anyone who arrives or wants to arrive regardless of method.
What about the likes of Sandpit or my son who want to bring long-standing wives here, and who are prepared (not sure whether Sandpit is) catch up NIC?
No issue if they are not getting benefits etc and spouse who is taxpayer is supporting them. As it is now , people are let in , then have no means to support and start bringing in droves of family. Perception also is that asylum seekers ( illegal immigrants ) are also getting first calss service whilst local people get chhased , cannot get doctors , houses , etc. Whole benefits scheme is needing serious overhaul, people should not be able to make a career of being unemployed. everything is far to lax and most seems to just be online nowadays.
It's not just perception Malc, it's actually happening. These 4* asylum hotels have doctors, nurses and dentists on site, they get free gym memberships, they can refuse to leave the hotel and beat the government in court.
Asylum seekers and illegals need to be moved into camps with very high fences, basic conditions in tents. It sounds harsh but our generosity has run out, the nation is going bankrupt and we're spending billions on welfare for non-citizens while millions of citizens live in poverty or are unable to get access to basic healthcare. It's fundamentally and morally wrong that we're looking after strangers rather than our own families.
As we saw from the discussion here last night there are many people happy to be generous with others money to make themselves feel good.
There are also many people happy to lie through their teeth and repeat nonsense like referring to asylum accommodation as "4*".
Lol, you keep explaining to the public that "it's not actually 4* hotels because they closed the swimming pool and sauna" and see how far you get. I hope Labour put it on the side of a bus and add 5% to Reform overnight.
Firstly the hotel must have a clearly designated reception area. Additionally it must have a minimum of five bedrooms available for rent. Furthermore, all of theses rooms must come with en suite bathrooms. As from the moment of registration the guest must have 24 hour access to the hotel without the need of a key. And the owner or staff is at minimum available via call for residents throughout day / night. The restaurant must be open a minimum of 6 days a week, serving bar snacks, breakfast or more. Hotels which do not offer dinner must be located in the vicinity of restaurants which do.
Furthermore, the hotel should have a liquor license and an area where beverages can be served. Room service must be available with a minimum of hot and cold drinks and light snacks (e.g. sandwiches) during daytime and evening. The hotel has the option to provide on request only, without having to promote its menu. Phone service available in-room as well as WiFi in all public areas. All areas of operation should meet the Three Star level of quality for cleanliness, maintenance and hospitality, and for the quality of physical facilities and delivery of services.
They ain't getting room service, so, no, not even 3*.
Well, most people never use room service, not if they're paying for it themselves.
If the hotel was formerly 4* but downgraded due to the lack of sauna, gym etc, it will still be furnished to 4* standard
These former 4* hotels have generally been refurbished to fit more people in. They haven't simply carried over the old furnishings.
Yes, poor numbers for Labour but I think we know if any other party were in Government at this time their numbers would be as bad if not worse.
It's often said some elections are "bad ones to win" - 1992 being a good example - but 2024 would be right up there it seems. I'll be honest (and this seems a peculiarly London-centric view) - I don't think Starmer is doing too badly. At worst he's Continuity Sunak but big shifts in governance aren't easy - as has been said, there were probably only three really radical Governments in the 20th century - Asquith, Attlee and Thatcher.
In a globally interconnected world, doing something radical isn't easy and even within Britain one decision impacts on others. Cuts in public spending on the scale some here would seem to want don't end at the balance sheet - they would impact real people in their daily lives, perhaps not the individuals and their families urging the deep cuts but nonetheless.
Government is difficult especially at a time of weak economic growth - however you try to slice the cake someone complains about their share or lack of it. I do agree some of the initial ideas of the new Government were implemented in a hamfisted way - removing Winter Fuel Allowance from higher rate taxpayers while retaining it for those on basic rate would probably have been sellable. The "boats" defy all attempts at a solution for now though I suspect autumn and winter will slow things down a bit.
Cutting Peter's benefits to ensure Paul pays less tax isn't the answer and nor is raising Paul's taxes so Peter can keep all his benefits so it becomes dancing on a pinhead in terms of what you can and can't do.
It also becomes easier to look for scapegoats - blame the migrants, blame the scroungers, blame those with mental and physical challenges, blame those with long Covid, blame the last Government, blame this Government etc.
You can see the attraction of masterly inactivity and the destiny of the poor can as it gets propelled once more down the road. You can also see why those peddling "easy answers" get traction.
The problem I see it is that Starmer is built for a sort of managerial role when the country doesn’t need it. He might have been a decently average (or even average to good) PM conceivably, in 2015, or in the 1960s, or in the John Major role. He just isn’t the “cometh the hour” person.
The Atlees, Thatchers, Asquiths of this world are rare but they’re precisely what we need right now - a purpose, a radical sense of mission, and a party firmly behind them. Farage play-acts as one of those people, but isnt the real deal.
Ah, yes, the "strong" leader. The "radical" leader. It's seductive I know to think all our problems could be dealt with by such an individual - we could vote them in and then they would lead us from the valley of the shadow to the sunlit uplands...
Blah, blah, blah - that's how authoritarianism starts. I'd rather our imperfect, bumbling democracy than a "strong" leader. The truth probably is we could solve a lot of our problems ourselves with some changes in our personal behaviour and within our communities - that would be really radical.
The problem with top-down solutions is they create bottom-up problems. Somebody suggested yesterday it was all the fault of "fatties" as he called them and said everyone who was overweight should be given free Mounjaro. Well, setting aside the economics, the practicalities and the legalities (but they aren't that individual's strong suit), Mounjaro isn't side effect free as I know from a friend who has used it.
The other consequence is if you have a significant portion (sorry) of the population on appetite suppressing drugs, what happens to the catering and hospitality industries? Do the non-"fatties" have to become "fatties" in order to keep every cafe and restaurant from my cafe in the Barking Road to the top three Michelin star eaterie going? Will we see Gordon Ramsey begging on the streets as his restaurant empire collapses from lack of demand?
The claim that radical change in a democracy is dictatorship or something is an old, old cry.
The problem is that, in many areas, the government is not doing much, if anything.
On health in the community - why not some trials? Pick an area. Vitality style rewards for health indicators. You wouldn’t need legislation for that.
£100 off income tax (or added to your UC or State Pension) if you have a healthy BMI or can run 5K in less than 30 minutes.
First, we know BMI isn't the be all and end all as a measure of health. Second, physical exercise tests - seriously? Third, £100 - a lot of people will see it as not worth the effort (make it £10,000 a year and you;d get more takers).
Tough. The NHS is going to collapse under the weight of the population and we already have the classic insurance issues of moral hazard and adverse selection.
Health inequality is enormous. We have a group of well paid, healthy and active people paying a huge amount of tax for a service they rarely use because it's been overwhelmed by the old and inactive.
That's completely unsustainable, a breach of the social contract. And this is coming from someone who is instinctively generous with government support for those who need it.
Most of the redistribution done by the NHS is over time. If you're healthy and active, you are paying for your future care more than you are paying for inactive others'. Even if you eat well and do lots of physical activity, you're going to die at some point and most of the average person's health costs are at the end of life.
Now, that doesn't argue against the importance of health promotion. Health promotion is very cost effective. We should be doing more to encourage physical activity and healthy diets. What's the best way of doing that? Giving people £100 for being fit, or spending £4 billion on council gyms and good quality health promotion apps?
If we were paying for our future care that would be fine. But we aren't, are we?
We aren't even paying for current care requirements.
The whole Ponzi scheme is collapsing and nobody wants to admit it.
We pay for current old people's care, and when we're old, a younger generation will pay for our care. This is not a Ponzi scheme. (Calling it a Ponzi scheme is one of the laziest lines in politics.) The country is currently running a deficit, but talk of "collapsing" is hyperbole.
In the 47 years that I paid NI I never once objected to paying it. My parents and grandparents would have benefited from my contributions. Now my children and grandchildren are paying and I am benefiting. There are some utterly selfish and small minded scrooges on PB.
The problem is that the system of “current tax payers pay for the retired” only produces generous results with few retired and lots of taxpayers.
VAT on schools: 1) It will cost the state more money than it raises 2) Most people don't care because they see this as fair 3) Schools are using VAT to cover all number of things
I can understand the frustration of parents affected - it is unfair. Then again there are so many things which are egregiously unfair and this isn't anywhere near the top of the unfairness chart. Carers losing their entire allowance for going £1 over the earnings cap? More unfair. And there's stacks of examples of things done by merciless ministers to make the lives of the poor and sick practically unliveable which are more unfair.
This explains point 2 above.
Process State meets populist policy.
Sure! But for many of the people in point 2, they here the people complaining and consider that they largely are the people who support all of the egregious merciless stuff which hurts people at an existential level.
Sam Freedman (yes I know) was good on that in his piece on the anti-VAT campaign;
The TLDR is that campaigns against government policy work best when you have a back channel negotiation to come up with a mutually-acceptable deal. The Independent Schools Council went straight for berating the policy in the press, and only that, which was never going to work.
Yes, VAT on school fees is another version of "Do it to Julia"; accept that there needs to be pain to balance the books, but that pain should be experienced by other people. A lot of the anger was because people used to getting their way didn't.
(And whilst there will be some blowback from this policy, it will need a massive exodus to be a net negative for the government. There is no sign of that right now. In large part because British private schools are mostly fishing in the global elite market, which isn't very price-sensitive. Hard on those who have gone from just about affording school fees to not affording them, but they're a minority of a minority.)
Is that true? Would like to see some figures to back that up. My gut is that it’s true for the Public Schools and the London private schools but the vast majority of private schools aren’t them, they are private schools in towns and cities with good local reputations attracting the children of local professionals or they are the only alternative to failing state schools in an area where people decide to make a financial sacrifice to pay for their childrens’ education.
These are the schools that will suffer - the public schools with international or national reputation and big endowments alongside the London private day schools with a big global wealthy community to fill places who would never dream of sending their children off to board will largely be fine.
Excluding international schools, about 5% of private school pupils are non-British with parents living abroad. The largest group are from China (both mainland and Hong Kong).
Another 5% are non-British but with parents who live in Britain.
My old school's proudest boast was that it had students from 70 different countries. It really is a terrible reflection on us all that we have allowed that slimy toad Farage to corrupt us into seeing foreigners as people to be feared
We travelled home from York yesterday and an Indian family were in the seats in front
They consisted of a father and mother, three children aged 8, 4 and a babe in arms, and his 2 sisters
As we approached Colwyn Bay he came next to us to take photos of the lovely coast and I spoke to him and he said he was a taxi driver in Manchester and hadn't been to Llandudno. He was using the train as his taxi was limited to 5
I said he should really enjoy our home town and pointed out lots of things he could do with his family
They were impeccably dressed and polite and each tooks turns to look after the baby
The vast majority welcome everyone to our Country, but it is also something the left seem to overlook that like our wonderful Indian family the vast majority contribute enormousy, but it is not helping to suggest that anyone who objects to the boats, asylum hotels, and some crimes comitted by those arriving to our shores are rascists
The only way to assauge Farage is to stop the boats, control immigation and deal firmly with those committing crimes
Since Starmer took office, total immigration is down a lot, deportations are up, and deportations of foreign criminals are up. However, boat numbers are up.
I would suggest that the problem is at least as much those on the radical right who object to all immigrants (or all Muslims, etc.). There are several regulars here who voice such views.
The country is bust, it needs proper control of immigration and anyone who does come needs to look after themselves till they have paid a minimum of 5 or 10 years taxes etc. Should be no free housing or benefits for anyone who arrives or wants to arrive regardless of method.
What about the likes of Sandpit or my son who want to bring long-standing wives here, and who are prepared (not sure whether Sandpit is) catch up NIC?
No issue if they are not getting benefits etc and spouse who is taxpayer is supporting them. As it is now , people are let in , then have no means to support and start bringing in droves of family. Perception also is that asylum seekers ( illegal immigrants ) are also getting first calss service whilst local people get chhased , cannot get doctors , houses , etc. Whole benefits scheme is needing serious overhaul, people should not be able to make a career of being unemployed. everything is far to lax and most seems to just be online nowadays.
It's not just perception Malc, it's actually happening. These 4* asylum hotels have doctors, nurses and dentists on site, they get free gym memberships, they can refuse to leave the hotel and beat the government in court.
Asylum seekers and illegals need to be moved into camps with very high fences, basic conditions in tents. It sounds harsh but our generosity has run out, the nation is going bankrupt and we're spending billions on welfare for non-citizens while millions of citizens live in poverty or are unable to get access to basic healthcare. It's fundamentally and morally wrong that we're looking after strangers rather than our own families.
As we saw from the discussion here last night there are many people happy to be generous with others money to make themselves feel good.
There are also many people happy to lie through their teeth and repeat nonsense like referring to asylum accommodation as "4*".
Lol, you keep explaining to the public that "it's not actually 4* hotels because they closed the swimming pool and sauna" and see how far you get. I hope Labour put it on the side of a bus and add 5% to Reform overnight.
Firstly the hotel must have a clearly designated reception area. Additionally it must have a minimum of five bedrooms available for rent. Furthermore, all of theses rooms must come with en suite bathrooms. As from the moment of registration the guest must have 24 hour access to the hotel without the need of a key. And the owner or staff is at minimum available via call for residents throughout day / night. The restaurant must be open a minimum of 6 days a week, serving bar snacks, breakfast or more. Hotels which do not offer dinner must be located in the vicinity of restaurants which do.
Furthermore, the hotel should have a liquor license and an area where beverages can be served. Room service must be available with a minimum of hot and cold drinks and light snacks (e.g. sandwiches) during daytime and evening. The hotel has the option to provide on request only, without having to promote its menu. Phone service available in-room as well as WiFi in all public areas. All areas of operation should meet the Three Star level of quality for cleanliness, maintenance and hospitality, and for the quality of physical facilities and delivery of services.
They ain't getting room service, so, no, not even 3*.
Well, most people never use room service, not if they're paying for it themselves.
If the hotel was formerly 4* but downgraded due to the lack of sauna, gym etc, it will still be furnished to 4* standard
The hotels being used are mostly run down dumps in third rate towns like Epping and Paisley. Hotels that were new in the 1960s and 70s with no major upgrades since. The ones that have lost their market to better offerings like Premier Inn. If the owners can get £150 per night for their rooms they will make more profit from keeping them as hotels. If they are struggling to fill their rooms for £80 per night and need to spend money upgrading them to current standards, they will be happy to take a guaranteed income from the Home Office. But, racists gotta lie. It’s what they do.
Does The Telegraph bother fact-checking what they write?
Actually this is a classic new landscape of the media. This story was actually posted online a month ago by a local outlet,
Ragged said, “You couldn’t make this up, I have just had the police in the shop only to be informed that the signs on my cabinets could be seen as provocative and offensive and they advised me to re word them”
And "reword the sign" got morphed to take the sign down and not just the Telegraph, every media outlet covered it. I bet what happened was various journalists are just ctrl-F for shoplifting stories.
I always bring up the FT story on the government will spend £10bn on equipment during COVID. Where somebody at the FT did a ctrl-F on all government tender documents and added up the numbers. Within a couple of days that was a "fact". When in fact, these documents were saying things we need this bits of kit over the next 5-10 years ...especially in the light of COVID blah blah blah.... and so putting out to tender this bit of kit i.e. it was just waffle people put in as an added justification for something they were already going to put out to tender.
To be fair - telling someone to reword the sign is saying that the sign, as is, should be removed.
It is, but the media should be precise about the story, its called journalism. But also, because it then allows the police to put out the statement they have, which is true but again carefully worded, and then it becomes Telegraph etc are lying.
Specially for TSE - world's most noticeable footwear.
I’ve made Die Work Wear’s enemies list.
I am guilty of the latter two including the triple felony) although I would say I am showing support for Ukraine.
Some of the crimes I've seen in Washington DC:
— Beige sweater with beige chinos — Jacket sleeve tag left on — Tan shoes with navy suits — Giant Windsor knots (triple felony with the metal sports watch paired with dark suit and French cuffs)
Yes, poor numbers for Labour but I think we know if any other party were in Government at this time their numbers would be as bad if not worse.
It's often said some elections are "bad ones to win" - 1992 being a good example - but 2024 would be right up there it seems. I'll be honest (and this seems a peculiarly London-centric view) - I don't think Starmer is doing too badly. At worst he's Continuity Sunak but big shifts in governance aren't easy - as has been said, there were probably only three really radical Governments in the 20th century - Asquith, Attlee and Thatcher.
In a globally interconnected world, doing something radical isn't easy and even within Britain one decision impacts on others. Cuts in public spending on the scale some here would seem to want don't end at the balance sheet - they would impact real people in their daily lives, perhaps not the individuals and their families urging the deep cuts but nonetheless.
Government is difficult especially at a time of weak economic growth - however you try to slice the cake someone complains about their share or lack of it. I do agree some of the initial ideas of the new Government were implemented in a hamfisted way - removing Winter Fuel Allowance from higher rate taxpayers while retaining it for those on basic rate would probably have been sellable. The "boats" defy all attempts at a solution for now though I suspect autumn and winter will slow things down a bit.
Cutting Peter's benefits to ensure Paul pays less tax isn't the answer and nor is raising Paul's taxes so Peter can keep all his benefits so it becomes dancing on a pinhead in terms of what you can and can't do.
It also becomes easier to look for scapegoats - blame the migrants, blame the scroungers, blame those with mental and physical challenges, blame those with long Covid, blame the last Government, blame this Government etc.
You can see the attraction of masterly inactivity and the destiny of the poor can as it gets propelled once more down the road. You can also see why those peddling "easy answers" get traction.
The problem I see it is that Starmer is built for a sort of managerial role when the country doesn’t need it. He might have been a decently average (or even average to good) PM conceivably, in 2015, or in the 1960s, or in the John Major role. He just isn’t the “cometh the hour” person.
The Atlees, Thatchers, Asquiths of this world are rare but they’re precisely what we need right now - a purpose, a radical sense of mission, and a party firmly behind them. Farage play-acts as one of those people, but isnt the real deal.
Ah, yes, the "strong" leader. The "radical" leader. It's seductive I know to think all our problems could be dealt with by such an individual - we could vote them in and then they would lead us from the valley of the shadow to the sunlit uplands...
Blah, blah, blah - that's how authoritarianism starts. I'd rather our imperfect, bumbling democracy than a "strong" leader. The truth probably is we could solve a lot of our problems ourselves with some changes in our personal behaviour and within our communities - that would be really radical.
The problem with top-down solutions is they create bottom-up problems. Somebody suggested yesterday it was all the fault of "fatties" as he called them and said everyone who was overweight should be given free Mounjaro. Well, setting aside the economics, the practicalities and the legalities (but they aren't that individual's strong suit), Mounjaro isn't side effect free as I know from a friend who has used it.
The other consequence is if you have a significant portion (sorry) of the population on appetite suppressing drugs, what happens to the catering and hospitality industries? Do the non-"fatties" have to become "fatties" in order to keep every cafe and restaurant from my cafe in the Barking Road to the top three Michelin star eaterie going? Will we see Gordon Ramsey begging on the streets as his restaurant empire collapses from lack of demand?
The claim that radical change in a democracy is dictatorship or something is an old, old cry.
The problem is that, in many areas, the government is not doing much, if anything.
On health in the community - why not some trials? Pick an area. Vitality style rewards for health indicators. You wouldn’t need legislation for that.
£100 off income tax (or added to your UC or State Pension) if you have a healthy BMI or can run 5K in less than 30 minutes.
First, we know BMI isn't the be all and end all as a measure of health. Second, physical exercise tests - seriously? Third, £100 - a lot of people will see it as not worth the effort (make it £10,000 a year and you;d get more takers).
Tough. The NHS is going to collapse under the weight of the population and we already have the classic insurance issues of moral hazard and adverse selection.
Health inequality is enormous. We have a group of well paid, healthy and active people paying a huge amount of tax for a service they rarely use because it's been overwhelmed by the old and inactive.
That's completely unsustainable, a breach of the social contract. And this is coming from someone who is instinctively generous with government support for those who need it.
Most of the redistribution done by the NHS is over time. If you're healthy and active, you are paying for your future care more than you are paying for inactive others'. Even if you eat well and do lots of physical activity, you're going to die at some point and most of the average person's health costs are at the end of life.
Now, that doesn't argue against the importance of health promotion. Health promotion is very cost effective. We should be doing more to encourage physical activity and healthy diets. What's the best way of doing that? Giving people £100 for being fit, or spending £4 billion on council gyms and good quality health promotion apps?
If we were paying for our future care that would be fine. But we aren't, are we?
We aren't even paying for current care requirements.
The whole Ponzi scheme is collapsing and nobody wants to admit it.
We pay for current old people's care, and when we're old, a younger generation will pay for our care. This is not a Ponzi scheme. (Calling it a Ponzi scheme is one of the laziest lines in politics.) The country is currently running a deficit, but talk of "collapsing" is hyperbole.
In the 47 years that I paid NI I never once objected to paying it. My parents and grandparents would have benefited from my contributions. Now my children and grandchildren are paying and I am benefiting. There are some utterly selfish and small minded scrooges on PB.
The problem is that the system of “current tax payers pay for the retired” only produces generous results with few retired and lots of taxpayers.
How to fix that?
Most retired people are also taxpayers. In effect, I am paying for my own pension.
Does The Telegraph bother fact-checking what they write?
Actually this is a classic new landscape of the media. This story was actually posted online a month ago by a local outlet,
Ragged said, “You couldn’t make this up, I have just had the police in the shop only to be informed that the signs on my cabinets could be seen as provocative and offensive and they advised me to re word them”
And "reword the sign" got morphed to take the sign down and not just the Telegraph, every media outlet covered it. I bet what happened was various journalists are just ctrl-F for shoplifting stories.
I always bring up the FT story on the government will spend £10bn on equipment during COVID. Where somebody at the FT did a ctrl-F on all government tender documents and added up the numbers. Within a couple of days that was a "fact". When in fact, these documents were saying things we need this bits of kit over the next 5-10 years ...especially in the light of COVID blah blah blah.... and so putting out to tender this bit of kit i.e. it was just waffle people put in as an added justification for something they were already going to put out to tender.
To be fair - telling someone to reword the sign is saying that the sign, as is, should be removed.
The police say "the officer asked him to consider changing the wording of the sign." They weren't enforcing that, an officer made a suggestion.
VAT on schools: 1) It will cost the state more money than it raises 2) Most people don't care because they see this as fair 3) Schools are using VAT to cover all number of things
I can understand the frustration of parents affected - it is unfair. Then again there are so many things which are egregiously unfair and this isn't anywhere near the top of the unfairness chart. Carers losing their entire allowance for going £1 over the earnings cap? More unfair. And there's stacks of examples of things done by merciless ministers to make the lives of the poor and sick practically unliveable which are more unfair.
This explains point 2 above.
Process State meets populist policy.
Sure! But for many of the people in point 2, they here the people complaining and consider that they largely are the people who support all of the egregious merciless stuff which hurts people at an existential level.
Sam Freedman (yes I know) was good on that in his piece on the anti-VAT campaign;
The TLDR is that campaigns against government policy work best when you have a back channel negotiation to come up with a mutually-acceptable deal. The Independent Schools Council went straight for berating the policy in the press, and only that, which was never going to work.
Yes, VAT on school fees is another version of "Do it to Julia"; accept that there needs to be pain to balance the books, but that pain should be experienced by other people. A lot of the anger was because people used to getting their way didn't.
(And whilst there will be some blowback from this policy, it will need a massive exodus to be a net negative for the government. There is no sign of that right now. In large part because British private schools are mostly fishing in the global elite market, which isn't very price-sensitive. Hard on those who have gone from just about affording school fees to not affording them, but they're a minority of a minority.)
Is that true? Would like to see some figures to back that up. My gut is that it’s true for the Public Schools and the London private schools but the vast majority of private schools aren’t them, they are private schools in towns and cities with good local reputations attracting the children of local professionals or they are the only alternative to failing state schools in an area where people decide to make a financial sacrifice to pay for their childrens’ education.
These are the schools that will suffer - the public schools with international or national reputation and big endowments alongside the London private day schools with a big global wealthy community to fill places who would never dream of sending their children off to board will largely be fine.
Excluding international schools, about 5% of private school pupils are non-British with parents living abroad. The largest group are from China (both mainland and Hong Kong).
Another 5% are non-British but with parents who live in Britain.
My old school's proudest boast was that it had students from 70 different countries. It really is a terrible reflection on us all that we have allowed that slimy toad Farage to corrupt us into seeing foreigners as people to be feared
We travelled home from York yesterday and an Indian family were in the seats in front
They consisted of a father and mother, three children aged 8, 4 and a babe in arms, and his 2 sisters
As we approached Colwyn Bay he came next to us to take photos of the lovely coast and I spoke to him and he said he was a taxi driver in Manchester and hadn't been to Llandudno. He was using the train as his taxi was limited to 5
I said he should really enjoy our home town and pointed out lots of things he could do with his family
They were impeccably dressed and polite and each tooks turns to look after the baby
The vast majority welcome everyone to our Country, but it is also something the left seem to overlook that like our wonderful Indian family the vast majority contribute enormousy, but it is not helping to suggest that anyone who objects to the boats, asylum hotels, and some crimes comitted by those arriving to our shores are rascists
The only way to assauge Farage is to stop the boats, control immigation and deal firmly with those committing crimes
Well put the blame where it belongs. Brexit! Try a trip to a nice little French town between Beaulieu and Nice. They have the Brit Bar Riviera King The Aussie Bar Tosca Italian restaurant The Rumanian builders Pembroke Films The Arthouse Gallery Pisani Estate agents...... run by every nationality you can think of running every kind of small business you can imagine making the place vibrant all the year round. While the Cote d'azur is getting rich beyond avarice the UK is burning hotels and stigmatising rubber boats. It's beyond depressing
My son and his family campervan broke down by Paris
They were told the main dealer has 8 mechanics but only 1 is working this week
The main dealer said they had not got the parts and but for his breakdown cover they would have been in a terrible predicament
Also why across Europe are countries looking at Rwanda schemes to address their problems and even changes to the ECHR
Also look at Ireland for its unrest
Using Brexit is lazy and irrelevant
Unfortnate, but is this not just "Paris in the Summertime"?
In August, Paris experiences a significant decrease in population as many residents take their annual vacation. It's estimated that Paris loses around 20% of its population during this month.
VAT on schools: 1) It will cost the state more money than it raises 2) Most people don't care because they see this as fair 3) Schools are using VAT to cover all number of things
I can understand the frustration of parents affected - it is unfair. Then again there are so many things which are egregiously unfair and this isn't anywhere near the top of the unfairness chart. Carers losing their entire allowance for going £1 over the earnings cap? More unfair. And there's stacks of examples of things done by merciless ministers to make the lives of the poor and sick practically unliveable which are more unfair.
This explains point 2 above.
Process State meets populist policy.
Sure! But for many of the people in point 2, they here the people complaining and consider that they largely are the people who support all of the egregious merciless stuff which hurts people at an existential level.
Sam Freedman (yes I know) was good on that in his piece on the anti-VAT campaign;
The TLDR is that campaigns against government policy work best when you have a back channel negotiation to come up with a mutually-acceptable deal. The Independent Schools Council went straight for berating the policy in the press, and only that, which was never going to work.
Yes, VAT on school fees is another version of "Do it to Julia"; accept that there needs to be pain to balance the books, but that pain should be experienced by other people. A lot of the anger was because people used to getting their way didn't.
(And whilst there will be some blowback from this policy, it will need a massive exodus to be a net negative for the government. There is no sign of that right now. In large part because British private schools are mostly fishing in the global elite market, which isn't very price-sensitive. Hard on those who have gone from just about affording school fees to not affording them, but they're a minority of a minority.)
Is that true? Would like to see some figures to back that up. My gut is that it’s true for the Public Schools and the London private schools but the vast majority of private schools aren’t them, they are private schools in towns and cities with good local reputations attracting the children of local professionals or they are the only alternative to failing state schools in an area where people decide to make a financial sacrifice to pay for their childrens’ education.
These are the schools that will suffer - the public schools with international or national reputation and big endowments alongside the London private day schools with a big global wealthy community to fill places who would never dream of sending their children off to board will largely be fine.
Excluding international schools, about 5% of private school pupils are non-British with parents living abroad. The largest group are from China (both mainland and Hong Kong).
Another 5% are non-British but with parents who live in Britain.
My old school's proudest boast was that it had students from 70 different countries. It really is a terrible reflection on us all that we have allowed that slimy toad Farage to corrupt us into seeing foreigners as people to be feared
We travelled home from York yesterday and an Indian family were in the seats in front
They consisted of a father and mother, three children aged 8, 4 and a babe in arms, and his 2 sisters
As we approached Colwyn Bay he came next to us to take photos of the lovely coast and I spoke to him and he said he was a taxi driver in Manchester and hadn't been to Llandudno. He was using the train as his taxi was limited to 5
I said he should really enjoy our home town and pointed out lots of things he could do with his family
They were impeccably dressed and polite and each tooks turns to look after the baby
The vast majority welcome everyone to our Country, but it is also something the left seem to overlook that like our wonderful Indian family the vast majority contribute enormousy, but it is not helping to suggest that anyone who objects to the boats, asylum hotels, and some crimes comitted by those arriving to our shores are rascists
The only way to assauge Farage is to stop the boats, control immigation and deal firmly with those committing crimes
Since Starmer took office, total immigration is down a lot, deportations are up, and deportations of foreign criminals are up. However, boat numbers are up.
I would suggest that the problem is at least as much those on the radical right who object to all immigrants (or all Muslims, etc.). There are several regulars here who voice such views.
The country is bust, it needs proper control of immigration and anyone who does come needs to look after themselves till they have paid a minimum of 5 or 10 years taxes etc. Should be no free housing or benefits for anyone who arrives or wants to arrive regardless of method.
What about the likes of Sandpit or my son who want to bring long-standing wives here, and who are prepared (not sure whether Sandpit is) catch up NIC?
No issue if they are not getting benefits etc and spouse who is taxpayer is supporting them. As it is now , people are let in , then have no means to support and start bringing in droves of family. Perception also is that asylum seekers ( illegal immigrants ) are also getting first calss service whilst local people get chhased , cannot get doctors , houses , etc. Whole benefits scheme is needing serious overhaul, people should not be able to make a career of being unemployed. everything is far to lax and most seems to just be online nowadays.
It's not just perception Malc, it's actually happening. These 4* asylum hotels have doctors, nurses and dentists on site, they get free gym memberships, they can refuse to leave the hotel and beat the government in court.
Asylum seekers and illegals need to be moved into camps with very high fences, basic conditions in tents. It sounds harsh but our generosity has run out, the nation is going bankrupt and we're spending billions on welfare for non-citizens while millions of citizens live in poverty or are unable to get access to basic healthcare. It's fundamentally and morally wrong that we're looking after strangers rather than our own families.
As we saw from the discussion here last night there are many people happy to be generous with others money to make themselves feel good.
There are also many people happy to lie through their teeth and repeat nonsense like referring to asylum accommodation as "4*".
Lol, you keep explaining to the public that "it's not actually 4* hotels because they closed the swimming pool and sauna" and see how far you get. I hope Labour put it on the side of a bus and add 5% to Reform overnight.
The NU10k inability to see the ABSOLUTE MASSIVE PR PROBLEM created by using hotels as temporary accommodation is utterly baffling to me.
The NU10k is a scare story to tell kiddies and doesn't exist.
The Government are very clearly aware that there is an "ABSOLUTE MASSIVE PR PROBLEM created by using hotels as temporary accommodation" and are doing their best to reduce numbers in hotels to 0. The number has roughly halved since Labour came to power.
However, these people exist and can't just be magically disappeared. Alternatives bring other problems (costs, local objections). So the process of reducing numbers takes time.
The only thing utterly baffling is your belief that the Government is not aware that there is a problem.
Are we 100% about that, yes the government say so. But what is a "hotel". I smell some serious spinnage.
e.g. the infamous Bell Hotel in Epping has not been open to the public for a while. Do we still class that as a hotel? If the government agrees a long term lease for the use of the hotel, ceases the ability for the it to take public bookings for say the next 2 years, is that now no longer a hotel? I bet under the government definition it is no longer a hotel, despite all the public pointing at the building and saying look they are staying at the Bell Hotel.
And this is literally what the government said they were going to do as part of their plan to "end hotel usage".
You could say that is good the government are getting the cost down. But people concerned about "migrant hotels" nothing has actually changed in their local environment.
A journalist with some brains would be firing off FOI asking for numbers of "former" hotels that government still rents.
Cynicism is often wise, but do you have anything to back any of this up?
Specially for TSE - world's most noticeable footwear.
I’ve made Die Work Wear’s enemies list.
I am guilty of the latter two including the triple felony) although I would say I am showing support for Ukraine.
Some of the crimes I've seen in Washington DC:
— Beige sweater with beige chinos — Jacket sleeve tag left on — Tan shoes with navy suits — Giant Windsor knots (triple felony with the metal sports watch paired with dark suit and French cuffs)
I like the sound of that. Let's have licences required to drive a dirt bike on your own land.
And licences before you are allowed to be called Rod.
Of course, the rod licence system was very much aimed at the working classes, i.e. to discourage them from fishing. Another way in which the UK was a bastion of freedom and equality under the law only if you could afford the licence, the lawyer, etc. etc.
One might also consider such things as going for a walk ikn the countryside. Massively criminalised by the landowners, only partly rectified today. (Scotland was different - landowners relied more on muscle and barriers than law, so the arguments and history are not the same.)
Yes, poor numbers for Labour but I think we know if any other party were in Government at this time their numbers would be as bad if not worse.
It's often said some elections are "bad ones to win" - 1992 being a good example - but 2024 would be right up there it seems. I'll be honest (and this seems a peculiarly London-centric view) - I don't think Starmer is doing too badly. At worst he's Continuity Sunak but big shifts in governance aren't easy - as has been said, there were probably only three really radical Governments in the 20th century - Asquith, Attlee and Thatcher.
In a globally interconnected world, doing something radical isn't easy and even within Britain one decision impacts on others. Cuts in public spending on the scale some here would seem to want don't end at the balance sheet - they would impact real people in their daily lives, perhaps not the individuals and their families urging the deep cuts but nonetheless.
Government is difficult especially at a time of weak economic growth - however you try to slice the cake someone complains about their share or lack of it. I do agree some of the initial ideas of the new Government were implemented in a hamfisted way - removing Winter Fuel Allowance from higher rate taxpayers while retaining it for those on basic rate would probably have been sellable. The "boats" defy all attempts at a solution for now though I suspect autumn and winter will slow things down a bit.
Cutting Peter's benefits to ensure Paul pays less tax isn't the answer and nor is raising Paul's taxes so Peter can keep all his benefits so it becomes dancing on a pinhead in terms of what you can and can't do.
It also becomes easier to look for scapegoats - blame the migrants, blame the scroungers, blame those with mental and physical challenges, blame those with long Covid, blame the last Government, blame this Government etc.
You can see the attraction of masterly inactivity and the destiny of the poor can as it gets propelled once more down the road. You can also see why those peddling "easy answers" get traction.
The problem I see it is that Starmer is built for a sort of managerial role when the country doesn’t need it. He might have been a decently average (or even average to good) PM conceivably, in 2015, or in the 1960s, or in the John Major role. He just isn’t the “cometh the hour” person.
The Atlees, Thatchers, Asquiths of this world are rare but they’re precisely what we need right now - a purpose, a radical sense of mission, and a party firmly behind them. Farage play-acts as one of those people, but isnt the real deal.
Ah, yes, the "strong" leader. The "radical" leader. It's seductive I know to think all our problems could be dealt with by such an individual - we could vote them in and then they would lead us from the valley of the shadow to the sunlit uplands...
Blah, blah, blah - that's how authoritarianism starts. I'd rather our imperfect, bumbling democracy than a "strong" leader. The truth probably is we could solve a lot of our problems ourselves with some changes in our personal behaviour and within our communities - that would be really radical.
The problem with top-down solutions is they create bottom-up problems. Somebody suggested yesterday it was all the fault of "fatties" as he called them and said everyone who was overweight should be given free Mounjaro. Well, setting aside the economics, the practicalities and the legalities (but they aren't that individual's strong suit), Mounjaro isn't side effect free as I know from a friend who has used it.
The other consequence is if you have a significant portion (sorry) of the population on appetite suppressing drugs, what happens to the catering and hospitality industries? Do the non-"fatties" have to become "fatties" in order to keep every cafe and restaurant from my cafe in the Barking Road to the top three Michelin star eaterie going? Will we see Gordon Ramsey begging on the streets as his restaurant empire collapses from lack of demand?
The claim that radical change in a democracy is dictatorship or something is an old, old cry.
The problem is that, in many areas, the government is not doing much, if anything.
On health in the community - why not some trials? Pick an area. Vitality style rewards for health indicators. You wouldn’t need legislation for that.
£100 off income tax (or added to your UC or State Pension) if you have a healthy BMI or can run 5K in less than 30 minutes.
First, we know BMI isn't the be all and end all as a measure of health. Second, physical exercise tests - seriously? Third, £100 - a lot of people will see it as not worth the effort (make it £10,000 a year and you;d get more takers).
Tough. The NHS is going to collapse under the weight of the population and we already have the classic insurance issues of moral hazard and adverse selection.
Health inequality is enormous. We have a group of well paid, healthy and active people paying a huge amount of tax for a service they rarely use because it's been overwhelmed by the old and inactive.
That's completely unsustainable, a breach of the social contract. And this is coming from someone who is instinctively generous with government support for those who need it.
Most of the redistribution done by the NHS is over time. If you're healthy and active, you are paying for your future care more than you are paying for inactive others'. Even if you eat well and do lots of physical activity, you're going to die at some point and most of the average person's health costs are at the end of life.
Now, that doesn't argue against the importance of health promotion. Health promotion is very cost effective. We should be doing more to encourage physical activity and healthy diets. What's the best way of doing that? Giving people £100 for being fit, or spending £4 billion on council gyms and good quality health promotion apps?
If we were paying for our future care that would be fine. But we aren't, are we?
We aren't even paying for current care requirements.
The whole Ponzi scheme is collapsing and nobody wants to admit it.
We pay for current old people's care, and when we're old, a younger generation will pay for our care. This is not a Ponzi scheme. (Calling it a Ponzi scheme is one of the laziest lines in politics.) The country is currently running a deficit, but talk of "collapsing" is hyperbole.
In the 47 years that I paid NI I never once objected to paying it. My parents and grandparents would have benefited from my contributions. Now my children and grandchildren are paying and I am benefiting. There are some utterly selfish and small minded scrooges on PB.
The problem is that the system of “current tax payers pay for the retired” only produces generous results with few retired and lots of taxpayers.
How to fix that?
Most retired people are also taxpayers. In effect, I am paying for my own pension.
Almost everyone with an age in double digits is paying VAT, so nearly everyone is a taxpayer to some extent.
Today is (arguably) the 88th anniversary of the first major battle of WWII. Anything up to a million troops engaged.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Shanghai ...the first of the twenty-two major engagements fought between the National Revolutionary Army (NRA) of the Republic of China (ROC) and the Imperial Japanese Army (IJA) of the Empire of Japan at the beginning of the Second Sino-Japanese War. The Japanese eventually prevailed after over three months of extensive fighting on land, in the air and at sea. Both sides accused each other of using chemical weapons during the battle, with Japanese forces confirmed to have illegally deployed poison gas at least thirteen times. Historian Peter Harmsen stated that the battle "presaged urban combat as it was to be waged not just during the Second World War, but throughout the remainder of the twentieth century" and that it "signalled the totality of modern urban warfare". It was the single largest urban battle prior to the Battle of Stalingrad, which occurred almost 5 years later..
Nice to see a proper sense of historical perception.
VAT on schools: 1) It will cost the state more money than it raises 2) Most people don't care because they see this as fair 3) Schools are using VAT to cover all number of things
I can understand the frustration of parents affected - it is unfair. Then again there are so many things which are egregiously unfair and this isn't anywhere near the top of the unfairness chart. Carers losing their entire allowance for going £1 over the earnings cap? More unfair. And there's stacks of examples of things done by merciless ministers to make the lives of the poor and sick practically unliveable which are more unfair.
This explains point 2 above.
Process State meets populist policy.
Sure! But for many of the people in point 2, they here the people complaining and consider that they largely are the people who support all of the egregious merciless stuff which hurts people at an existential level.
Sam Freedman (yes I know) was good on that in his piece on the anti-VAT campaign;
The TLDR is that campaigns against government policy work best when you have a back channel negotiation to come up with a mutually-acceptable deal. The Independent Schools Council went straight for berating the policy in the press, and only that, which was never going to work.
Yes, VAT on school fees is another version of "Do it to Julia"; accept that there needs to be pain to balance the books, but that pain should be experienced by other people. A lot of the anger was because people used to getting their way didn't.
(And whilst there will be some blowback from this policy, it will need a massive exodus to be a net negative for the government. There is no sign of that right now. In large part because British private schools are mostly fishing in the global elite market, which isn't very price-sensitive. Hard on those who have gone from just about affording school fees to not affording them, but they're a minority of a minority.)
Is that true? Would like to see some figures to back that up. My gut is that it’s true for the Public Schools and the London private schools but the vast majority of private schools aren’t them, they are private schools in towns and cities with good local reputations attracting the children of local professionals or they are the only alternative to failing state schools in an area where people decide to make a financial sacrifice to pay for their childrens’ education.
These are the schools that will suffer - the public schools with international or national reputation and big endowments alongside the London private day schools with a big global wealthy community to fill places who would never dream of sending their children off to board will largely be fine.
Excluding international schools, about 5% of private school pupils are non-British with parents living abroad. The largest group are from China (both mainland and Hong Kong).
Another 5% are non-British but with parents who live in Britain.
My old school's proudest boast was that it had students from 70 different countries. It really is a terrible reflection on us all that we have allowed that slimy toad Farage to corrupt us into seeing foreigners as people to be feared
We travelled home from York yesterday and an Indian family were in the seats in front
They consisted of a father and mother, three children aged 8, 4 and a babe in arms, and his 2 sisters
As we approached Colwyn Bay he came next to us to take photos of the lovely coast and I spoke to him and he said he was a taxi driver in Manchester and hadn't been to Llandudno. He was using the train as his taxi was limited to 5
I said he should really enjoy our home town and pointed out lots of things he could do with his family
They were impeccably dressed and polite and each tooks turns to look after the baby
The vast majority welcome everyone to our Country, but it is also something the left seem to overlook that like our wonderful Indian family the vast majority contribute enormousy, but it is not helping to suggest that anyone who objects to the boats, asylum hotels, and some crimes comitted by those arriving to our shores are rascists
The only way to assauge Farage is to stop the boats, control immigation and deal firmly with those committing crimes
Since Starmer took office, total immigration is down a lot, deportations are up, and deportations of foreign criminals are up. However, boat numbers are up.
I would suggest that the problem is at least as much those on the radical right who object to all immigrants (or all Muslims, etc.). There are several regulars here who voice such views.
The country is bust, it needs proper control of immigration and anyone who does come needs to look after themselves till they have paid a minimum of 5 or 10 years taxes etc. Should be no free housing or benefits for anyone who arrives or wants to arrive regardless of method.
What about the likes of Sandpit or my son who want to bring long-standing wives here, and who are prepared (not sure whether Sandpit is) catch up NIC?
No issue if they are not getting benefits etc and spouse who is taxpayer is supporting them. As it is now , people are let in , then have no means to support and start bringing in droves of family. Perception also is that asylum seekers ( illegal immigrants ) are also getting first calss service whilst local people get chhased , cannot get doctors , houses , etc. Whole benefits scheme is needing serious overhaul, people should not be able to make a career of being unemployed. everything is far to lax and most seems to just be online nowadays.
It's not just perception Malc, it's actually happening. These 4* asylum hotels have doctors, nurses and dentists on site, they get free gym memberships, they can refuse to leave the hotel and beat the government in court.
Asylum seekers and illegals need to be moved into camps with very high fences, basic conditions in tents. It sounds harsh but our generosity has run out, the nation is going bankrupt and we're spending billions on welfare for non-citizens while millions of citizens live in poverty or are unable to get access to basic healthcare. It's fundamentally and morally wrong that we're looking after strangers rather than our own families.
As we saw from the discussion here last night there are many people happy to be generous with others money to make themselves feel good.
There are also many people happy to lie through their teeth and repeat nonsense like referring to asylum accommodation as "4*".
Lol, you keep explaining to the public that "it's not actually 4* hotels because they closed the swimming pool and sauna" and see how far you get. I hope Labour put it on the side of a bus and add 5% to Reform overnight.
The NU10k inability to see the ABSOLUTE MASSIVE PR PROBLEM created by using hotels as temporary accommodation is utterly baffling to me.
The NU10k is a scare story to tell kiddies and doesn't exist.
The Government are very clearly aware that there is an "ABSOLUTE MASSIVE PR PROBLEM created by using hotels as temporary accommodation" and are doing their best to reduce numbers in hotels to 0. The number has roughly halved since Labour came to power.
However, these people exist and can't just be magically disappeared. Alternatives bring other problems (costs, local objections). So the process of reducing numbers takes time.
The only thing utterly baffling is your belief that the Government is not aware that there is a problem.
Are we 100% about that, yes the government say so. But what is a "hotel". I smell some serious spinnage.
e.g. the infamous Bell Hotel in Epping has not been open to the public for a while. Do we still class that as a hotel? If the government agrees a long term lease for the use of the hotel, ceases the ability for the it to take public bookings for say the next 2 years, is that now no longer a hotel? I bet under the government definition it is no longer a hotel, despite all the public pointing at the building and saying look they are staying at the Bell Hotel.
And this is literally what the government said they were going to do as part of their plan to "end hotel usage".
You could say that is good the government are getting the cost down. But people concerned about "migrant hotels" nothing has actually changed in their local environment.
A journalist with some brains would be firing off FOI asking for numbers of "former" hotels that government still rents.
Cynicism is often wise, but do you have anything to back any of this up?
BTW hotel usage hasn't halved,
The Home Office accounts suggest 273 hotels were in use in March 2024 but that number has now fallen by 71.
"US warns censorship is ‘getting worse’ in Britain State department report reveals concerns over free speech and says UK’s ‘human rights situation worsened’ after Labour came to power"
Is there any point in posting these Telegraph pieces ? At least they're paywalled, so no innocent stranger is going to waste time on them.
Isn't it true? You can't say you support Palestine Action any more without risking prison.
And in the UK and the US white politicians and other white people can't even black up, or dress as Native Americans (or "Indianer" as you're still allowed to say here) in public without getting into trouble. Unlike in bastion of free speech Germany.
If you really want a laugh, Google CSU leader Markus Söder dressed (and blacked) up as Mahatma Gandhi. Farage wouldn't be allowed to do that!
Yes, poor numbers for Labour but I think we know if any other party were in Government at this time their numbers would be as bad if not worse.
It's often said some elections are "bad ones to win" - 1992 being a good example - but 2024 would be right up there it seems. I'll be honest (and this seems a peculiarly London-centric view) - I don't think Starmer is doing too badly. At worst he's Continuity Sunak but big shifts in governance aren't easy - as has been said, there were probably only three really radical Governments in the 20th century - Asquith, Attlee and Thatcher.
In a globally interconnected world, doing something radical isn't easy and even within Britain one decision impacts on others. Cuts in public spending on the scale some here would seem to want don't end at the balance sheet - they would impact real people in their daily lives, perhaps not the individuals and their families urging the deep cuts but nonetheless.
Government is difficult especially at a time of weak economic growth - however you try to slice the cake someone complains about their share or lack of it. I do agree some of the initial ideas of the new Government were implemented in a hamfisted way - removing Winter Fuel Allowance from higher rate taxpayers while retaining it for those on basic rate would probably have been sellable. The "boats" defy all attempts at a solution for now though I suspect autumn and winter will slow things down a bit.
Cutting Peter's benefits to ensure Paul pays less tax isn't the answer and nor is raising Paul's taxes so Peter can keep all his benefits so it becomes dancing on a pinhead in terms of what you can and can't do.
It also becomes easier to look for scapegoats - blame the migrants, blame the scroungers, blame those with mental and physical challenges, blame those with long Covid, blame the last Government, blame this Government etc.
You can see the attraction of masterly inactivity and the destiny of the poor can as it gets propelled once more down the road. You can also see why those peddling "easy answers" get traction.
The problem I see it is that Starmer is built for a sort of managerial role when the country doesn’t need it. He might have been a decently average (or even average to good) PM conceivably, in 2015, or in the 1960s, or in the John Major role. He just isn’t the “cometh the hour” person.
The Atlees, Thatchers, Asquiths of this world are rare but they’re precisely what we need right now - a purpose, a radical sense of mission, and a party firmly behind them. Farage play-acts as one of those people, but isnt the real deal.
Ah, yes, the "strong" leader. The "radical" leader. It's seductive I know to think all our problems could be dealt with by such an individual - we could vote them in and then they would lead us from the valley of the shadow to the sunlit uplands...
Blah, blah, blah - that's how authoritarianism starts. I'd rather our imperfect, bumbling democracy than a "strong" leader. The truth probably is we could solve a lot of our problems ourselves with some changes in our personal behaviour and within our communities - that would be really radical.
The problem with top-down solutions is they create bottom-up problems. Somebody suggested yesterday it was all the fault of "fatties" as he called them and said everyone who was overweight should be given free Mounjaro. Well, setting aside the economics, the practicalities and the legalities (but they aren't that individual's strong suit), Mounjaro isn't side effect free as I know from a friend who has used it.
The other consequence is if you have a significant portion (sorry) of the population on appetite suppressing drugs, what happens to the catering and hospitality industries? Do the non-"fatties" have to become "fatties" in order to keep every cafe and restaurant from my cafe in the Barking Road to the top three Michelin star eaterie going? Will we see Gordon Ramsey begging on the streets as his restaurant empire collapses from lack of demand?
The claim that radical change in a democracy is dictatorship or something is an old, old cry.
The problem is that, in many areas, the government is not doing much, if anything.
On health in the community - why not some trials? Pick an area. Vitality style rewards for health indicators. You wouldn’t need legislation for that.
£100 off income tax (or added to your UC or State Pension) if you have a healthy BMI or can run 5K in less than 30 minutes.
First, we know BMI isn't the be all and end all as a measure of health. Second, physical exercise tests - seriously? Third, £100 - a lot of people will see it as not worth the effort (make it £10,000 a year and you;d get more takers).
Tough. The NHS is going to collapse under the weight of the population and we already have the classic insurance issues of moral hazard and adverse selection.
Health inequality is enormous. We have a group of well paid, healthy and active people paying a huge amount of tax for a service they rarely use because it's been overwhelmed by the old and inactive.
That's completely unsustainable, a breach of the social contract. And this is coming from someone who is instinctively generous with government support for those who need it.
Most of the redistribution done by the NHS is over time. If you're healthy and active, you are paying for your future care more than you are paying for inactive others'. Even if you eat well and do lots of physical activity, you're going to die at some point and most of the average person's health costs are at the end of life.
Now, that doesn't argue against the importance of health promotion. Health promotion is very cost effective. We should be doing more to encourage physical activity and healthy diets. What's the best way of doing that? Giving people £100 for being fit, or spending £4 billion on council gyms and good quality health promotion apps?
If we were paying for our future care that would be fine. But we aren't, are we?
We aren't even paying for current care requirements.
The whole Ponzi scheme is collapsing and nobody wants to admit it.
We pay for current old people's care, and when we're old, a younger generation will pay for our care. This is not a Ponzi scheme. (Calling it a Ponzi scheme is one of the laziest lines in politics.) The country is currently running a deficit, but talk of "collapsing" is hyperbole.
In the 47 years that I paid NI I never once objected to paying it. My parents and grandparents would have benefited from my contributions. Now my children and grandchildren are paying and I am benefiting. There are some utterly selfish and small minded scrooges on PB.
The problem is that the system of “current tax payers pay for the retired” only produces generous results with few retired and lots of taxpayers.
How to fix that?
To a certain extent, it can't be fixed. Something unpleasant has to happen to account for the change in demographics. Broadly speaking there are three options.
1. Increase the proportion of national income spent on the retired to the detriment of everyone and everything else. This is the main part of the status quo.
2. Reduce the number of retired - by increasing the retirement age. This is being done a bit, though only enough to reduce the rate of increase in the number of retired.
3. Reduce the amount spent on each retired person. The triple lock is the reverse of this.
The boring answer is that we should probably do a mixture of all three, but it's tempting to come up with a more radical answer, such as fixing the percentage of GDP spent, and allowing everyone to choose their own balance between how much money each month they receive for their pension vs how late they wait to receive it.
I like the sound of that. Let's have licences required to drive a dirt bike on your own land.
And licences before you are allowed to be called Rod.
And a license before you are allowed to get a license.
Given the problems which Mrs C had on getting a Government Gateway account and then a taxpayers' account before she could prove she existed and deal with the tax she had paid for decades, there's a bit more truth to the latter than one might think.
VAT on schools: 1) It will cost the state more money than it raises 2) Most people don't care because they see this as fair 3) Schools are using VAT to cover all number of things
I can understand the frustration of parents affected - it is unfair. Then again there are so many things which are egregiously unfair and this isn't anywhere near the top of the unfairness chart. Carers losing their entire allowance for going £1 over the earnings cap? More unfair. And there's stacks of examples of things done by merciless ministers to make the lives of the poor and sick practically unliveable which are more unfair.
This explains point 2 above.
Process State meets populist policy.
Sure! But for many of the people in point 2, they here the people complaining and consider that they largely are the people who support all of the egregious merciless stuff which hurts people at an existential level.
Sam Freedman (yes I know) was good on that in his piece on the anti-VAT campaign;
The TLDR is that campaigns against government policy work best when you have a back channel negotiation to come up with a mutually-acceptable deal. The Independent Schools Council went straight for berating the policy in the press, and only that, which was never going to work.
Yes, VAT on school fees is another version of "Do it to Julia"; accept that there needs to be pain to balance the books, but that pain should be experienced by other people. A lot of the anger was because people used to getting their way didn't.
(And whilst there will be some blowback from this policy, it will need a massive exodus to be a net negative for the government. There is no sign of that right now. In large part because British private schools are mostly fishing in the global elite market, which isn't very price-sensitive. Hard on those who have gone from just about affording school fees to not affording them, but they're a minority of a minority.)
Is that true? Would like to see some figures to back that up. My gut is that it’s true for the Public Schools and the London private schools but the vast majority of private schools aren’t them, they are private schools in towns and cities with good local reputations attracting the children of local professionals or they are the only alternative to failing state schools in an area where people decide to make a financial sacrifice to pay for their childrens’ education.
These are the schools that will suffer - the public schools with international or national reputation and big endowments alongside the London private day schools with a big global wealthy community to fill places who would never dream of sending their children off to board will largely be fine.
Excluding international schools, about 5% of private school pupils are non-British with parents living abroad. The largest group are from China (both mainland and Hong Kong).
Another 5% are non-British but with parents who live in Britain.
My old school's proudest boast was that it had students from 70 different countries. It really is a terrible reflection on us all that we have allowed that slimy toad Farage to corrupt us into seeing foreigners as people to be feared
We travelled home from York yesterday and an Indian family were in the seats in front
They consisted of a father and mother, three children aged 8, 4 and a babe in arms, and his 2 sisters
As we approached Colwyn Bay he came next to us to take photos of the lovely coast and I spoke to him and he said he was a taxi driver in Manchester and hadn't been to Llandudno. He was using the train as his taxi was limited to 5
I said he should really enjoy our home town and pointed out lots of things he could do with his family
They were impeccably dressed and polite and each tooks turns to look after the baby
The vast majority welcome everyone to our Country, but it is also something the left seem to overlook that like our wonderful Indian family the vast majority contribute enormousy, but it is not helping to suggest that anyone who objects to the boats, asylum hotels, and some crimes comitted by those arriving to our shores are rascists
The only way to assauge Farage is to stop the boats, control immigation and deal firmly with those committing crimes
Since Starmer took office, total immigration is down a lot, deportations are up, and deportations of foreign criminals are up. However, boat numbers are up.
I would suggest that the problem is at least as much those on the radical right who object to all immigrants (or all Muslims, etc.). There are several regulars here who voice such views.
The country is bust, it needs proper control of immigration and anyone who does come needs to look after themselves till they have paid a minimum of 5 or 10 years taxes etc. Should be no free housing or benefits for anyone who arrives or wants to arrive regardless of method.
What about the likes of Sandpit or my son who want to bring long-standing wives here, and who are prepared (not sure whether Sandpit is) catch up NIC?
No issue if they are not getting benefits etc and spouse who is taxpayer is supporting them. As it is now , people are let in , then have no means to support and start bringing in droves of family. Perception also is that asylum seekers ( illegal immigrants ) are also getting first calss service whilst local people get chhased , cannot get doctors , houses , etc. Whole benefits scheme is needing serious overhaul, people should not be able to make a career of being unemployed. everything is far to lax and most seems to just be online nowadays.
It's not just perception Malc, it's actually happening. These 4* asylum hotels have doctors, nurses and dentists on site, they get free gym memberships, they can refuse to leave the hotel and beat the government in court.
Asylum seekers and illegals need to be moved into camps with very high fences, basic conditions in tents. It sounds harsh but our generosity has run out, the nation is going bankrupt and we're spending billions on welfare for non-citizens while millions of citizens live in poverty or are unable to get access to basic healthcare. It's fundamentally and morally wrong that we're looking after strangers rather than our own families.
As we saw from the discussion here last night there are many people happy to be generous with others money to make themselves feel good.
There are also many people happy to lie through their teeth and repeat nonsense like referring to asylum accommodation as "4*".
Lol, you keep explaining to the public that "it's not actually 4* hotels because they closed the swimming pool and sauna" and see how far you get. I hope Labour put it on the side of a bus and add 5% to Reform overnight.
The NU10k inability to see the ABSOLUTE MASSIVE PR PROBLEM created by using hotels as temporary accommodation is utterly baffling to me.
The NU10k is a scare story to tell kiddies and doesn't exist.
The Government are very clearly aware that there is an "ABSOLUTE MASSIVE PR PROBLEM created by using hotels as temporary accommodation" and are doing their best to reduce numbers in hotels to 0. The number has roughly halved since Labour came to power.
However, these people exist and can't just be magically disappeared. Alternatives bring other problems (costs, local objections). So the process of reducing numbers takes time.
The only thing utterly baffling is your belief that the Government is not aware that there is a problem.
Are we 100% about that, yes the government say so. But what is a "hotel". I smell some serious spinnage.
e.g. the infamous Bell Hotel in Epping has not been open to the public for a while. Do we still class that as a hotel? If the government agrees a long term lease for the use of the hotel, ceases the ability for the it to take public bookings for say the next 2 years, is that now no longer a hotel? I bet under the government definition it is no longer a hotel, despite all the public pointing at the building and saying look they are staying at the Bell Hotel.
And this is literally what the government said they were going to do as part of their plan to "end hotel usage".
You could say that is good the government are getting the cost down. But people concerned about "migrant hotels" nothing has actually changed in their local environment.
A journalist with some brains would be firing off FOI asking for numbers of "former" hotels that government still rents.
Cynicism is often wise, but do you have anything to back any of this up?
I can't find a definition of what counts as a hotel.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgeqwv98d55o has some more data, showing the number in hotels is down and the government has also managed to reduce the average cost per person. This bit seems pertinent:
A senior Home Office source said one of the main factors behind the saving was moving some asylum seekers from hotels into other types of cheaper accommodation.
They said the department had prioritised moving families and children into regular housing so they were not living in hotels for long periods of time.
BBC News understands the majority of people moved out of hotels are now living in local housing, or houses in multiple occupation (HMOs), a type of rented accommodation where at least three individuals share the use of a bathroom and kitchen.
I like the sound of that. Let's have licences required to drive a dirt bike on your own land.
And licences before you are allowed to be called Rod.
Of course, the rod licence system was very much aimed at the working classes, i.e. to discourage them from fishing. Another way in which the UK was a bastion of freedom and equality under the law only if you could afford the licence, the lawyer, etc. etc.
One might also consider such things as going for a walk ikn the countryside. Massively criminalised by the landowners, only partly rectified today. (Scotland was different - landowners relied more on muscle and barriers than law, so the arguments and history are not the same.)
I think if they get fined that's a criminal record, as it done in a Magistrates Court. (Could be wrong.)
Does that mean we can keep JD Vance out, even though as an official crim he'll fit in better at Trump's White House?
VAT on schools: 1) It will cost the state more money than it raises 2) Most people don't care because they see this as fair 3) Schools are using VAT to cover all number of things
I can understand the frustration of parents affected - it is unfair. Then again there are so many things which are egregiously unfair and this isn't anywhere near the top of the unfairness chart. Carers losing their entire allowance for going £1 over the earnings cap? More unfair. And there's stacks of examples of things done by merciless ministers to make the lives of the poor and sick practically unliveable which are more unfair.
This explains point 2 above.
Process State meets populist policy.
Sure! But for many of the people in point 2, they here the people complaining and consider that they largely are the people who support all of the egregious merciless stuff which hurts people at an existential level.
Sam Freedman (yes I know) was good on that in his piece on the anti-VAT campaign;
The TLDR is that campaigns against government policy work best when you have a back channel negotiation to come up with a mutually-acceptable deal. The Independent Schools Council went straight for berating the policy in the press, and only that, which was never going to work.
Yes, VAT on school fees is another version of "Do it to Julia"; accept that there needs to be pain to balance the books, but that pain should be experienced by other people. A lot of the anger was because people used to getting their way didn't.
(And whilst there will be some blowback from this policy, it will need a massive exodus to be a net negative for the government. There is no sign of that right now. In large part because British private schools are mostly fishing in the global elite market, which isn't very price-sensitive. Hard on those who have gone from just about affording school fees to not affording them, but they're a minority of a minority.)
Is that true? Would like to see some figures to back that up. My gut is that it’s true for the Public Schools and the London private schools but the vast majority of private schools aren’t them, they are private schools in towns and cities with good local reputations attracting the children of local professionals or they are the only alternative to failing state schools in an area where people decide to make a financial sacrifice to pay for their childrens’ education.
These are the schools that will suffer - the public schools with international or national reputation and big endowments alongside the London private day schools with a big global wealthy community to fill places who would never dream of sending their children off to board will largely be fine.
Excluding international schools, about 5% of private school pupils are non-British with parents living abroad. The largest group are from China (both mainland and Hong Kong).
Another 5% are non-British but with parents who live in Britain.
My old school's proudest boast was that it had students from 70 different countries. It really is a terrible reflection on us all that we have allowed that slimy toad Farage to corrupt us into seeing foreigners as people to be feared
We travelled home from York yesterday and an Indian family were in the seats in front
They consisted of a father and mother, three children aged 8, 4 and a babe in arms, and his 2 sisters
As we approached Colwyn Bay he came next to us to take photos of the lovely coast and I spoke to him and he said he was a taxi driver in Manchester and hadn't been to Llandudno. He was using the train as his taxi was limited to 5
I said he should really enjoy our home town and pointed out lots of things he could do with his family
They were impeccably dressed and polite and each tooks turns to look after the baby
The vast majority welcome everyone to our Country, but it is also something the left seem to overlook that like our wonderful Indian family the vast majority contribute enormousy, but it is not helping to suggest that anyone who objects to the boats, asylum hotels, and some crimes comitted by those arriving to our shores are rascists
The only way to assauge Farage is to stop the boats, control immigation and deal firmly with those committing crimes
Since Starmer took office, total immigration is down a lot, deportations are up, and deportations of foreign criminals are up. However, boat numbers are up.
I would suggest that the problem is at least as much those on the radical right who object to all immigrants (or all Muslims, etc.). There are several regulars here who voice such views.
The country is bust, it needs proper control of immigration and anyone who does come needs to look after themselves till they have paid a minimum of 5 or 10 years taxes etc. Should be no free housing or benefits for anyone who arrives or wants to arrive regardless of method.
What about the likes of Sandpit or my son who want to bring long-standing wives here, and who are prepared (not sure whether Sandpit is) catch up NIC?
No issue if they are not getting benefits etc and spouse who is taxpayer is supporting them. As it is now , people are let in , then have no means to support and start bringing in droves of family. Perception also is that asylum seekers ( illegal immigrants ) are also getting first calss service whilst local people get chhased , cannot get doctors , houses , etc. Whole benefits scheme is needing serious overhaul, people should not be able to make a career of being unemployed. everything is far to lax and most seems to just be online nowadays.
It's not just perception Malc, it's actually happening. These 4* asylum hotels have doctors, nurses and dentists on site, they get free gym memberships, they can refuse to leave the hotel and beat the government in court.
Asylum seekers and illegals need to be moved into camps with very high fences, basic conditions in tents. It sounds harsh but our generosity has run out, the nation is going bankrupt and we're spending billions on welfare for non-citizens while millions of citizens live in poverty or are unable to get access to basic healthcare. It's fundamentally and morally wrong that we're looking after strangers rather than our own families.
As we saw from the discussion here last night there are many people happy to be generous with others money to make themselves feel good.
There are also many people happy to lie through their teeth and repeat nonsense like referring to asylum accommodation as "4*".
Lol, you keep explaining to the public that "it's not actually 4* hotels because they closed the swimming pool and sauna" and see how far you get. I hope Labour put it on the side of a bus and add 5% to Reform overnight.
The NU10k inability to see the ABSOLUTE MASSIVE PR PROBLEM created by using hotels as temporary accommodation is utterly baffling to me.
The NU10k is a scare story to tell kiddies and doesn't exist.
The Government are very clearly aware that there is an "ABSOLUTE MASSIVE PR PROBLEM created by using hotels as temporary accommodation" and are doing their best to reduce numbers in hotels to 0. The number has roughly halved since Labour came to power.
However, these people exist and can't just be magically disappeared. Alternatives bring other problems (costs, local objections). So the process of reducing numbers takes time.
The only thing utterly baffling is your belief that the Government is not aware that there is a problem.
Are we 100% about that, yes the government say so. But what is a "hotel". I smell some serious spinnage.
e.g. the infamous Bell Hotel in Epping has not been open to the public for a while. Do we still class that as a hotel? If the government agrees a long term lease for the use of the hotel, ceases the ability for the it to take public bookings for say the next 2 years, is that now no longer a hotel? I bet under the government definition it is no longer a hotel, despite all the public pointing at the building and saying look they are staying at the Bell Hotel.
And this is literally what the government said they were going to do as part of their plan to "end hotel usage".
You could say that is good the government are getting the cost down. But people concerned about "migrant hotels" nothing has actually changed in their local environment.
A journalist with some brains would be firing off FOI asking for numbers of "former" hotels that government still rents.
Cynicism is often wise, but do you have anything to back any of this up?
I can't find a definition of what counts as a hotel.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgeqwv98d55o has some more data, showing the number in hotels is down and the government has also managed to reduce the average cost per person. This bit seems pertinent:
A senior Home Office source said one of the main factors behind the saving was moving some asylum seekers from hotels into other types of cheaper accommodation.
They said the department had prioritised moving families and children into regular housing so they were not living in hotels for long periods of time.
BBC News understands the majority of people moved out of hotels are now living in local housing, or houses in multiple occupation (HMOs), a type of rented accommodation where at least three individuals share the use of a bathroom and kitchen.
A hotel that has been shuttered and long term leased and adapted to put 3 people in a room, that could easily be covered under HMO. I presume in fact it probably has to be in rules and regs purposes, otherwise anybody could rent to 100 people similar conditions and avoid local licensing rules. Also that is "BBC understands" i.e. the government told us.
I like the sound of that. Let's have licences required to drive a dirt bike on your own land.
And licences before you are allowed to be called Rod.
And a license before you are allowed to get a license.
Given the problems which Mrs C had on getting a Government Gateway account and then a taxpayers' account before she could prove she existed and deal with the tax she had paid for decades, there's a bit more truth to the latter than one might think.
I was only semi-joking. The Process State Processes.
VAT on schools: 1) It will cost the state more money than it raises 2) Most people don't care because they see this as fair 3) Schools are using VAT to cover all number of things
I can understand the frustration of parents affected - it is unfair. Then again there are so many things which are egregiously unfair and this isn't anywhere near the top of the unfairness chart. Carers losing their entire allowance for going £1 over the earnings cap? More unfair. And there's stacks of examples of things done by merciless ministers to make the lives of the poor and sick practically unliveable which are more unfair.
This explains point 2 above.
Process State meets populist policy.
Sure! But for many of the people in point 2, they here the people complaining and consider that they largely are the people who support all of the egregious merciless stuff which hurts people at an existential level.
Sam Freedman (yes I know) was good on that in his piece on the anti-VAT campaign;
The TLDR is that campaigns against government policy work best when you have a back channel negotiation to come up with a mutually-acceptable deal. The Independent Schools Council went straight for berating the policy in the press, and only that, which was never going to work.
Yes, VAT on school fees is another version of "Do it to Julia"; accept that there needs to be pain to balance the books, but that pain should be experienced by other people. A lot of the anger was because people used to getting their way didn't.
(And whilst there will be some blowback from this policy, it will need a massive exodus to be a net negative for the government. There is no sign of that right now. In large part because British private schools are mostly fishing in the global elite market, which isn't very price-sensitive. Hard on those who have gone from just about affording school fees to not affording them, but they're a minority of a minority.)
Is that true? Would like to see some figures to back that up. My gut is that it’s true for the Public Schools and the London private schools but the vast majority of private schools aren’t them, they are private schools in towns and cities with good local reputations attracting the children of local professionals or they are the only alternative to failing state schools in an area where people decide to make a financial sacrifice to pay for their childrens’ education.
These are the schools that will suffer - the public schools with international or national reputation and big endowments alongside the London private day schools with a big global wealthy community to fill places who would never dream of sending their children off to board will largely be fine.
Excluding international schools, about 5% of private school pupils are non-British with parents living abroad. The largest group are from China (both mainland and Hong Kong).
Another 5% are non-British but with parents who live in Britain.
My old school's proudest boast was that it had students from 70 different countries. It really is a terrible reflection on us all that we have allowed that slimy toad Farage to corrupt us into seeing foreigners as people to be feared
We travelled home from York yesterday and an Indian family were in the seats in front
They consisted of a father and mother, three children aged 8, 4 and a babe in arms, and his 2 sisters
As we approached Colwyn Bay he came next to us to take photos of the lovely coast and I spoke to him and he said he was a taxi driver in Manchester and hadn't been to Llandudno. He was using the train as his taxi was limited to 5
I said he should really enjoy our home town and pointed out lots of things he could do with his family
They were impeccably dressed and polite and each tooks turns to look after the baby
The vast majority welcome everyone to our Country, but it is also something the left seem to overlook that like our wonderful Indian family the vast majority contribute enormousy, but it is not helping to suggest that anyone who objects to the boats, asylum hotels, and some crimes comitted by those arriving to our shores are rascists
The only way to assauge Farage is to stop the boats, control immigation and deal firmly with those committing crimes
Since Starmer took office, total immigration is down a lot, deportations are up, and deportations of foreign criminals are up. However, boat numbers are up.
I would suggest that the problem is at least as much those on the radical right who object to all immigrants (or all Muslims, etc.). There are several regulars here who voice such views.
The country is bust, it needs proper control of immigration and anyone who does come needs to look after themselves till they have paid a minimum of 5 or 10 years taxes etc. Should be no free housing or benefits for anyone who arrives or wants to arrive regardless of method.
What about the likes of Sandpit or my son who want to bring long-standing wives here, and who are prepared (not sure whether Sandpit is) catch up NIC?
No issue if they are not getting benefits etc and spouse who is taxpayer is supporting them. As it is now , people are let in , then have no means to support and start bringing in droves of family. Perception also is that asylum seekers ( illegal immigrants ) are also getting first calss service whilst local people get chhased , cannot get doctors , houses , etc. Whole benefits scheme is needing serious overhaul, people should not be able to make a career of being unemployed. everything is far to lax and most seems to just be online nowadays.
It's not just perception Malc, it's actually happening. These 4* asylum hotels have doctors, nurses and dentists on site, they get free gym memberships, they can refuse to leave the hotel and beat the government in court.
Asylum seekers and illegals need to be moved into camps with very high fences, basic conditions in tents. It sounds harsh but our generosity has run out, the nation is going bankrupt and we're spending billions on welfare for non-citizens while millions of citizens live in poverty or are unable to get access to basic healthcare. It's fundamentally and morally wrong that we're looking after strangers rather than our own families.
As we saw from the discussion here last night there are many people happy to be generous with others money to make themselves feel good.
There are also many people happy to lie through their teeth and repeat nonsense like referring to asylum accommodation as "4*".
Lol, you keep explaining to the public that "it's not actually 4* hotels because they closed the swimming pool and sauna" and see how far you get. I hope Labour put it on the side of a bus and add 5% to Reform overnight.
The NU10k inability to see the ABSOLUTE MASSIVE PR PROBLEM created by using hotels as temporary accommodation is utterly baffling to me.
The NU10k is a scare story to tell kiddies and doesn't exist.
The Government are very clearly aware that there is an "ABSOLUTE MASSIVE PR PROBLEM created by using hotels as temporary accommodation" and are doing their best to reduce numbers in hotels to 0. The number has roughly halved since Labour came to power.
However, these people exist and can't just be magically disappeared. Alternatives bring other problems (costs, local objections). So the process of reducing numbers takes time.
The only thing utterly baffling is your belief that the Government is not aware that there is a problem.
Are we 100% about that, yes the government say so. But what is a "hotel". I smell some serious spinnage.
e.g. the infamous Bell Hotel in Epping has not been open to the public for a while. Do we still class that as a hotel? If the government agrees a long term lease for the use of the hotel, ceases the ability for the it to take public bookings for say the next 2 years, is that now no longer a hotel? I bet under the government definition it is no longer a hotel, despite all the public pointing at the building and saying look they are staying at the Bell Hotel.
And this is literally what the government said they were going to do as part of their plan to "end hotel usage".
You could say that is good the government are getting the cost down. But people concerned about "migrant hotels" nothing has actually changed in their local environment.
A journalist with some brains would be firing off FOI asking for numbers of "former" hotels that government still rents.
Cynicism is often wise, but do you have anything to back any of this up?
BTW hotel usage hasn't halved,
The Home Office accounts suggest 273 hotels were in use in March 2024 but that number has now fallen by 71.
I like the sound of that. Let's have licences required to drive a dirt bike on your own land.
And licences before you are allowed to be called Rod.
And a license before you are allowed to get a license.
I had one of those with respect to electrical high voltage wires (meaning 10kV or similar) crossing my grandparents' small holding.
There was a term in the 1958 wayleave agreement where we had to give them 6 months' notice of our intention to give them 12 months notice to remove their equipment.
VAT on schools: 1) It will cost the state more money than it raises 2) Most people don't care because they see this as fair 3) Schools are using VAT to cover all number of things
I can understand the frustration of parents affected - it is unfair. Then again there are so many things which are egregiously unfair and this isn't anywhere near the top of the unfairness chart. Carers losing their entire allowance for going £1 over the earnings cap? More unfair. And there's stacks of examples of things done by merciless ministers to make the lives of the poor and sick practically unliveable which are more unfair.
This explains point 2 above.
Process State meets populist policy.
Sure! But for many of the people in point 2, they here the people complaining and consider that they largely are the people who support all of the egregious merciless stuff which hurts people at an existential level.
Sam Freedman (yes I know) was good on that in his piece on the anti-VAT campaign;
The TLDR is that campaigns against government policy work best when you have a back channel negotiation to come up with a mutually-acceptable deal. The Independent Schools Council went straight for berating the policy in the press, and only that, which was never going to work.
Yes, VAT on school fees is another version of "Do it to Julia"; accept that there needs to be pain to balance the books, but that pain should be experienced by other people. A lot of the anger was because people used to getting their way didn't.
(And whilst there will be some blowback from this policy, it will need a massive exodus to be a net negative for the government. There is no sign of that right now. In large part because British private schools are mostly fishing in the global elite market, which isn't very price-sensitive. Hard on those who have gone from just about affording school fees to not affording them, but they're a minority of a minority.)
Is that true? Would like to see some figures to back that up. My gut is that it’s true for the Public Schools and the London private schools but the vast majority of private schools aren’t them, they are private schools in towns and cities with good local reputations attracting the children of local professionals or they are the only alternative to failing state schools in an area where people decide to make a financial sacrifice to pay for their childrens’ education.
These are the schools that will suffer - the public schools with international or national reputation and big endowments alongside the London private day schools with a big global wealthy community to fill places who would never dream of sending their children off to board will largely be fine.
Excluding international schools, about 5% of private school pupils are non-British with parents living abroad. The largest group are from China (both mainland and Hong Kong).
Another 5% are non-British but with parents who live in Britain.
My old school's proudest boast was that it had students from 70 different countries. It really is a terrible reflection on us all that we have allowed that slimy toad Farage to corrupt us into seeing foreigners as people to be feared
We travelled home from York yesterday and an Indian family were in the seats in front
They consisted of a father and mother, three children aged 8, 4 and a babe in arms, and his 2 sisters
As we approached Colwyn Bay he came next to us to take photos of the lovely coast and I spoke to him and he said he was a taxi driver in Manchester and hadn't been to Llandudno. He was using the train as his taxi was limited to 5
I said he should really enjoy our home town and pointed out lots of things he could do with his family
They were impeccably dressed and polite and each tooks turns to look after the baby
The vast majority welcome everyone to our Country, but it is also something the left seem to overlook that like our wonderful Indian family the vast majority contribute enormousy, but it is not helping to suggest that anyone who objects to the boats, asylum hotels, and some crimes comitted by those arriving to our shores are rascists
The only way to assauge Farage is to stop the boats, control immigation and deal firmly with those committing crimes
Since Starmer took office, total immigration is down a lot, deportations are up, and deportations of foreign criminals are up. However, boat numbers are up.
I would suggest that the problem is at least as much those on the radical right who object to all immigrants (or all Muslims, etc.). There are several regulars here who voice such views.
The country is bust, it needs proper control of immigration and anyone who does come needs to look after themselves till they have paid a minimum of 5 or 10 years taxes etc. Should be no free housing or benefits for anyone who arrives or wants to arrive regardless of method.
What about the likes of Sandpit or my son who want to bring long-standing wives here, and who are prepared (not sure whether Sandpit is) catch up NIC?
No issue if they are not getting benefits etc and spouse who is taxpayer is supporting them. As it is now , people are let in , then have no means to support and start bringing in droves of family. Perception also is that asylum seekers ( illegal immigrants ) are also getting first calss service whilst local people get chhased , cannot get doctors , houses , etc. Whole benefits scheme is needing serious overhaul, people should not be able to make a career of being unemployed. everything is far to lax and most seems to just be online nowadays.
It's not just perception Malc, it's actually happening. These 4* asylum hotels have doctors, nurses and dentists on site, they get free gym memberships, they can refuse to leave the hotel and beat the government in court.
Asylum seekers and illegals need to be moved into camps with very high fences, basic conditions in tents. It sounds harsh but our generosity has run out, the nation is going bankrupt and we're spending billions on welfare for non-citizens while millions of citizens live in poverty or are unable to get access to basic healthcare. It's fundamentally and morally wrong that we're looking after strangers rather than our own families.
As we saw from the discussion here last night there are many people happy to be generous with others money to make themselves feel good.
There are also many people happy to lie through their teeth and repeat nonsense like referring to asylum accommodation as "4*".
Lol, you keep explaining to the public that "it's not actually 4* hotels because they closed the swimming pool and sauna" and see how far you get. I hope Labour put it on the side of a bus and add 5% to Reform overnight.
The NU10k inability to see the ABSOLUTE MASSIVE PR PROBLEM created by using hotels as temporary accommodation is utterly baffling to me.
The NU10k is a scare story to tell kiddies and doesn't exist.
The Government are very clearly aware that there is an "ABSOLUTE MASSIVE PR PROBLEM created by using hotels as temporary accommodation" and are doing their best to reduce numbers in hotels to 0. The number has roughly halved since Labour came to power.
However, these people exist and can't just be magically disappeared. Alternatives bring other problems (costs, local objections). So the process of reducing numbers takes time.
The only thing utterly baffling is your belief that the Government is not aware that there is a problem.
Are we 100% about that, yes the government say so. But what is a "hotel". I smell some serious spinnage.
e.g. the infamous Bell Hotel in Epping has not been open to the public for a while. Do we still class that as a hotel? If the government agrees a long term lease for the use of the hotel, ceases the ability for the it to take public bookings for say the next 2 years, is that now no longer a hotel? I bet under the government definition it is no longer a hotel, despite all the public pointing at the building and saying look they are staying at the Bell Hotel.
And this is literally what the government said they were going to do as part of their plan to "end hotel usage".
You could say that is good the government are getting the cost down. But people concerned about "migrant hotels" nothing has actually changed in their local environment.
A journalist with some brains would be firing off FOI asking for numbers of "former" hotels that government still rents.
Cynicism is often wise, but do you have anything to back any of this up?
I can't find a definition of what counts as a hotel.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgeqwv98d55o has some more data, showing the number in hotels is down and the government has also managed to reduce the average cost per person. This bit seems pertinent:
A senior Home Office source said one of the main factors behind the saving was moving some asylum seekers from hotels into other types of cheaper accommodation.
They said the department had prioritised moving families and children into regular housing so they were not living in hotels for long periods of time.
BBC News understands the majority of people moved out of hotels are now living in local housing, or houses in multiple occupation (HMOs), a type of rented accommodation where at least three individuals share the use of a bathroom and kitchen.
A hotel that has been shuttered and long term leased and adapted to put 3-4 people in a room, that could easily be covered under HMO. I presume in fact it probably has to be in rules and regs purposes, otherwise anybody could rent to 100 people similar conditions and avoid local licensing rules. Also that is "BBC understands" i.e. the government told us.
“….. could rent to 100 people similar conditions and avoid local licensing rules”
Ha ha ha
You seem to believe more than about 0.1% of HMOs are registered.
VAT on schools: 1) It will cost the state more money than it raises 2) Most people don't care because they see this as fair 3) Schools are using VAT to cover all number of things
I can understand the frustration of parents affected - it is unfair. Then again there are so many things which are egregiously unfair and this isn't anywhere near the top of the unfairness chart. Carers losing their entire allowance for going £1 over the earnings cap? More unfair. And there's stacks of examples of things done by merciless ministers to make the lives of the poor and sick practically unliveable which are more unfair.
This explains point 2 above.
Process State meets populist policy.
Sure! But for many of the people in point 2, they here the people complaining and consider that they largely are the people who support all of the egregious merciless stuff which hurts people at an existential level.
Sam Freedman (yes I know) was good on that in his piece on the anti-VAT campaign;
The TLDR is that campaigns against government policy work best when you have a back channel negotiation to come up with a mutually-acceptable deal. The Independent Schools Council went straight for berating the policy in the press, and only that, which was never going to work.
Yes, VAT on school fees is another version of "Do it to Julia"; accept that there needs to be pain to balance the books, but that pain should be experienced by other people. A lot of the anger was because people used to getting their way didn't.
(And whilst there will be some blowback from this policy, it will need a massive exodus to be a net negative for the government. There is no sign of that right now. In large part because British private schools are mostly fishing in the global elite market, which isn't very price-sensitive. Hard on those who have gone from just about affording school fees to not affording them, but they're a minority of a minority.)
Is that true? Would like to see some figures to back that up. My gut is that it’s true for the Public Schools and the London private schools but the vast majority of private schools aren’t them, they are private schools in towns and cities with good local reputations attracting the children of local professionals or they are the only alternative to failing state schools in an area where people decide to make a financial sacrifice to pay for their childrens’ education.
These are the schools that will suffer - the public schools with international or national reputation and big endowments alongside the London private day schools with a big global wealthy community to fill places who would never dream of sending their children off to board will largely be fine.
Excluding international schools, about 5% of private school pupils are non-British with parents living abroad. The largest group are from China (both mainland and Hong Kong).
Another 5% are non-British but with parents who live in Britain.
My old school's proudest boast was that it had students from 70 different countries. It really is a terrible reflection on us all that we have allowed that slimy toad Farage to corrupt us into seeing foreigners as people to be feared
We travelled home from York yesterday and an Indian family were in the seats in front
They consisted of a father and mother, three children aged 8, 4 and a babe in arms, and his 2 sisters
As we approached Colwyn Bay he came next to us to take photos of the lovely coast and I spoke to him and he said he was a taxi driver in Manchester and hadn't been to Llandudno. He was using the train as his taxi was limited to 5
I said he should really enjoy our home town and pointed out lots of things he could do with his family
They were impeccably dressed and polite and each tooks turns to look after the baby
The vast majority welcome everyone to our Country, but it is also something the left seem to overlook that like our wonderful Indian family the vast majority contribute enormousy, but it is not helping to suggest that anyone who objects to the boats, asylum hotels, and some crimes comitted by those arriving to our shores are rascists
The only way to assauge Farage is to stop the boats, control immigation and deal firmly with those committing crimes
Since Starmer took office, total immigration is down a lot, deportations are up, and deportations of foreign criminals are up. However, boat numbers are up.
I would suggest that the problem is at least as much those on the radical right who object to all immigrants (or all Muslims, etc.). There are several regulars here who voice such views.
The country is bust, it needs proper control of immigration and anyone who does come needs to look after themselves till they have paid a minimum of 5 or 10 years taxes etc. Should be no free housing or benefits for anyone who arrives or wants to arrive regardless of method.
What about the likes of Sandpit or my son who want to bring long-standing wives here, and who are prepared (not sure whether Sandpit is) catch up NIC?
No issue if they are not getting benefits etc and spouse who is taxpayer is supporting them. As it is now , people are let in , then have no means to support and start bringing in droves of family. Perception also is that asylum seekers ( illegal immigrants ) are also getting first calss service whilst local people get chhased , cannot get doctors , houses , etc. Whole benefits scheme is needing serious overhaul, people should not be able to make a career of being unemployed. everything is far to lax and most seems to just be online nowadays.
It's not just perception Malc, it's actually happening. These 4* asylum hotels have doctors, nurses and dentists on site, they get free gym memberships, they can refuse to leave the hotel and beat the government in court.
Asylum seekers and illegals need to be moved into camps with very high fences, basic conditions in tents. It sounds harsh but our generosity has run out, the nation is going bankrupt and we're spending billions on welfare for non-citizens while millions of citizens live in poverty or are unable to get access to basic healthcare. It's fundamentally and morally wrong that we're looking after strangers rather than our own families.
As we saw from the discussion here last night there are many people happy to be generous with others money to make themselves feel good.
There are also many people happy to lie through their teeth and repeat nonsense like referring to asylum accommodation as "4*".
Lol, you keep explaining to the public that "it's not actually 4* hotels because they closed the swimming pool and sauna" and see how far you get. I hope Labour put it on the side of a bus and add 5% to Reform overnight.
The NU10k inability to see the ABSOLUTE MASSIVE PR PROBLEM created by using hotels as temporary accommodation is utterly baffling to me.
The NU10k is a scare story to tell kiddies and doesn't exist.
The Government are very clearly aware that there is an "ABSOLUTE MASSIVE PR PROBLEM created by using hotels as temporary accommodation" and are doing their best to reduce numbers in hotels to 0. The number has roughly halved since Labour came to power.
However, these people exist and can't just be magically disappeared. Alternatives bring other problems (costs, local objections). So the process of reducing numbers takes time.
The only thing utterly baffling is your belief that the Government is not aware that there is a problem.
Are we 100% about that, yes the government say so. But what is a "hotel". I smell some serious spinnage.
e.g. the infamous Bell Hotel in Epping has not been open to the public for a while. Do we still class that as a hotel? If the government agrees a long term lease for the use of the hotel, ceases the ability for the it to take public bookings for say the next 2 years, is that now no longer a hotel? I bet under the government definition it is no longer a hotel, despite all the public pointing at the building and saying look they are staying at the Bell Hotel.
And this is literally what the government said they were going to do as part of their plan to "end hotel usage".
You could say that is good the government are getting the cost down. But people concerned about "migrant hotels" nothing has actually changed in their local environment.
A journalist with some brains would be firing off FOI asking for numbers of "former" hotels that government still rents.
Cynicism is often wise, but do you have anything to back any of this up?
I can't find a definition of what counts as a hotel.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgeqwv98d55o has some more data, showing the number in hotels is down and the government has also managed to reduce the average cost per person. This bit seems pertinent:
A senior Home Office source said one of the main factors behind the saving was moving some asylum seekers from hotels into other types of cheaper accommodation.
They said the department had prioritised moving families and children into regular housing so they were not living in hotels for long periods of time.
BBC News understands the majority of people moved out of hotels are now living in local housing, or houses in multiple occupation (HMOs), a type of rented accommodation where at least three individuals share the use of a bathroom and kitchen.
A hotel that has been shuttered and long term leased and adapted to put 3-4 people in a room, that could easily be covered under HMO. I presume in fact it probably has to be in rules and regs purposes, otherwise anybody could rent to 100 people similar conditions and avoid local licensing rules. Also that is "BBC understands" i.e. the government told us.
“….. could rent to 100 people similar conditions and avoid local licensing rules”
Ha ha ha
You seem to believe more than about 0.1% of HMOs are registered.
VAT on schools: 1) It will cost the state more money than it raises 2) Most people don't care because they see this as fair 3) Schools are using VAT to cover all number of things
I can understand the frustration of parents affected - it is unfair. Then again there are so many things which are egregiously unfair and this isn't anywhere near the top of the unfairness chart. Carers losing their entire allowance for going £1 over the earnings cap? More unfair. And there's stacks of examples of things done by merciless ministers to make the lives of the poor and sick practically unliveable which are more unfair.
This explains point 2 above.
Process State meets populist policy.
Sure! But for many of the people in point 2, they here the people complaining and consider that they largely are the people who support all of the egregious merciless stuff which hurts people at an existential level.
Sam Freedman (yes I know) was good on that in his piece on the anti-VAT campaign;
The TLDR is that campaigns against government policy work best when you have a back channel negotiation to come up with a mutually-acceptable deal. The Independent Schools Council went straight for berating the policy in the press, and only that, which was never going to work.
Yes, VAT on school fees is another version of "Do it to Julia"; accept that there needs to be pain to balance the books, but that pain should be experienced by other people. A lot of the anger was because people used to getting their way didn't.
(And whilst there will be some blowback from this policy, it will need a massive exodus to be a net negative for the government. There is no sign of that right now. In large part because British private schools are mostly fishing in the global elite market, which isn't very price-sensitive. Hard on those who have gone from just about affording school fees to not affording them, but they're a minority of a minority.)
Is that true? Would like to see some figures to back that up. My gut is that it’s true for the Public Schools and the London private schools but the vast majority of private schools aren’t them, they are private schools in towns and cities with good local reputations attracting the children of local professionals or they are the only alternative to failing state schools in an area where people decide to make a financial sacrifice to pay for their childrens’ education.
These are the schools that will suffer - the public schools with international or national reputation and big endowments alongside the London private day schools with a big global wealthy community to fill places who would never dream of sending their children off to board will largely be fine.
Excluding international schools, about 5% of private school pupils are non-British with parents living abroad. The largest group are from China (both mainland and Hong Kong).
Another 5% are non-British but with parents who live in Britain.
My old school's proudest boast was that it had students from 70 different countries. It really is a terrible reflection on us all that we have allowed that slimy toad Farage to corrupt us into seeing foreigners as people to be feared
We travelled home from York yesterday and an Indian family were in the seats in front
They consisted of a father and mother, three children aged 8, 4 and a babe in arms, and his 2 sisters
As we approached Colwyn Bay he came next to us to take photos of the lovely coast and I spoke to him and he said he was a taxi driver in Manchester and hadn't been to Llandudno. He was using the train as his taxi was limited to 5
I said he should really enjoy our home town and pointed out lots of things he could do with his family
They were impeccably dressed and polite and each tooks turns to look after the baby
The vast majority welcome everyone to our Country, but it is also something the left seem to overlook that like our wonderful Indian family the vast majority contribute enormousy, but it is not helping to suggest that anyone who objects to the boats, asylum hotels, and some crimes comitted by those arriving to our shores are rascists
The only way to assauge Farage is to stop the boats, control immigation and deal firmly with those committing crimes
Since Starmer took office, total immigration is down a lot, deportations are up, and deportations of foreign criminals are up. However, boat numbers are up.
I would suggest that the problem is at least as much those on the radical right who object to all immigrants (or all Muslims, etc.). There are several regulars here who voice such views.
The country is bust, it needs proper control of immigration and anyone who does come needs to look after themselves till they have paid a minimum of 5 or 10 years taxes etc. Should be no free housing or benefits for anyone who arrives or wants to arrive regardless of method.
What about the likes of Sandpit or my son who want to bring long-standing wives here, and who are prepared (not sure whether Sandpit is) catch up NIC?
No issue if they are not getting benefits etc and spouse who is taxpayer is supporting them. As it is now , people are let in , then have no means to support and start bringing in droves of family. Perception also is that asylum seekers ( illegal immigrants ) are also getting first calss service whilst local people get chhased , cannot get doctors , houses , etc. Whole benefits scheme is needing serious overhaul, people should not be able to make a career of being unemployed. everything is far to lax and most seems to just be online nowadays.
It's not just perception Malc, it's actually happening. These 4* asylum hotels have doctors, nurses and dentists on site, they get free gym memberships, they can refuse to leave the hotel and beat the government in court.
Asylum seekers and illegals need to be moved into camps with very high fences, basic conditions in tents. It sounds harsh but our generosity has run out, the nation is going bankrupt and we're spending billions on welfare for non-citizens while millions of citizens live in poverty or are unable to get access to basic healthcare. It's fundamentally and morally wrong that we're looking after strangers rather than our own families.
As we saw from the discussion here last night there are many people happy to be generous with others money to make themselves feel good.
There are also many people happy to lie through their teeth and repeat nonsense like referring to asylum accommodation as "4*".
Lol, you keep explaining to the public that "it's not actually 4* hotels because they closed the swimming pool and sauna" and see how far you get. I hope Labour put it on the side of a bus and add 5% to Reform overnight.
The NU10k inability to see the ABSOLUTE MASSIVE PR PROBLEM created by using hotels as temporary accommodation is utterly baffling to me.
The NU10k is a scare story to tell kiddies and doesn't exist.
The Government are very clearly aware that there is an "ABSOLUTE MASSIVE PR PROBLEM created by using hotels as temporary accommodation" and are doing their best to reduce numbers in hotels to 0. The number has roughly halved since Labour came to power.
However, these people exist and can't just be magically disappeared. Alternatives bring other problems (costs, local objections). So the process of reducing numbers takes time.
The only thing utterly baffling is your belief that the Government is not aware that there is a problem.
Are we 100% about that, yes the government say so. But what is a "hotel". I smell some serious spinnage.
e.g. the infamous Bell Hotel in Epping has not been open to the public for a while. Do we still class that as a hotel? If the government agrees a long term lease for the use of the hotel, ceases the ability for the it to take public bookings for say the next 2 years, is that now no longer a hotel? I bet under the government definition it is no longer a hotel, despite all the public pointing at the building and saying look they are staying at the Bell Hotel.
And this is literally what the government said they were going to do as part of their plan to "end hotel usage".
You could say that is good the government are getting the cost down. But people concerned about "migrant hotels" nothing has actually changed in their local environment.
A journalist with some brains would be firing off FOI asking for numbers of "former" hotels that government still rents.
Cynicism is often wise, but do you have anything to back any of this up?
I can't find a definition of what counts as a hotel.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgeqwv98d55o has some more data, showing the number in hotels is down and the government has also managed to reduce the average cost per person. This bit seems pertinent:
A senior Home Office source said one of the main factors behind the saving was moving some asylum seekers from hotels into other types of cheaper accommodation.
They said the department had prioritised moving families and children into regular housing so they were not living in hotels for long periods of time.
BBC News understands the majority of people moved out of hotels are now living in local housing, or houses in multiple occupation (HMOs), a type of rented accommodation where at least three individuals share the use of a bathroom and kitchen.
A hotel that has been shuttered and long term leased and adapted to put 3 people in a room, that could easily be covered under HMO. I presume in fact it probably has to be in rules and regs purposes, otherwise anybody could rent to 100 people similar conditions and avoid local licensing rules. Also that is "BBC understands" i.e. the government told us.
Do you have any actual evidence that the numbers discussed are "spun" because hotels housing asylum seekers have been turned into HMOs housing asylum seekers in significant numbers?
VAT on schools: 1) It will cost the state more money than it raises 2) Most people don't care because they see this as fair 3) Schools are using VAT to cover all number of things
I can understand the frustration of parents affected - it is unfair. Then again there are so many things which are egregiously unfair and this isn't anywhere near the top of the unfairness chart. Carers losing their entire allowance for going £1 over the earnings cap? More unfair. And there's stacks of examples of things done by merciless ministers to make the lives of the poor and sick practically unliveable which are more unfair.
This explains point 2 above.
Process State meets populist policy.
Sure! But for many of the people in point 2, they here the people complaining and consider that they largely are the people who support all of the egregious merciless stuff which hurts people at an existential level.
Sam Freedman (yes I know) was good on that in his piece on the anti-VAT campaign;
The TLDR is that campaigns against government policy work best when you have a back channel negotiation to come up with a mutually-acceptable deal. The Independent Schools Council went straight for berating the policy in the press, and only that, which was never going to work.
Yes, VAT on school fees is another version of "Do it to Julia"; accept that there needs to be pain to balance the books, but that pain should be experienced by other people. A lot of the anger was because people used to getting their way didn't.
(And whilst there will be some blowback from this policy, it will need a massive exodus to be a net negative for the government. There is no sign of that right now. In large part because British private schools are mostly fishing in the global elite market, which isn't very price-sensitive. Hard on those who have gone from just about affording school fees to not affording them, but they're a minority of a minority.)
Is that true? Would like to see some figures to back that up. My gut is that it’s true for the Public Schools and the London private schools but the vast majority of private schools aren’t them, they are private schools in towns and cities with good local reputations attracting the children of local professionals or they are the only alternative to failing state schools in an area where people decide to make a financial sacrifice to pay for their childrens’ education.
These are the schools that will suffer - the public schools with international or national reputation and big endowments alongside the London private day schools with a big global wealthy community to fill places who would never dream of sending their children off to board will largely be fine.
Excluding international schools, about 5% of private school pupils are non-British with parents living abroad. The largest group are from China (both mainland and Hong Kong).
Another 5% are non-British but with parents who live in Britain.
My old school's proudest boast was that it had students from 70 different countries. It really is a terrible reflection on us all that we have allowed that slimy toad Farage to corrupt us into seeing foreigners as people to be feared
We travelled home from York yesterday and an Indian family were in the seats in front
They consisted of a father and mother, three children aged 8, 4 and a babe in arms, and his 2 sisters
As we approached Colwyn Bay he came next to us to take photos of the lovely coast and I spoke to him and he said he was a taxi driver in Manchester and hadn't been to Llandudno. He was using the train as his taxi was limited to 5
I said he should really enjoy our home town and pointed out lots of things he could do with his family
They were impeccably dressed and polite and each tooks turns to look after the baby
The vast majority welcome everyone to our Country, but it is also something the left seem to overlook that like our wonderful Indian family the vast majority contribute enormousy, but it is not helping to suggest that anyone who objects to the boats, asylum hotels, and some crimes comitted by those arriving to our shores are rascists
The only way to assauge Farage is to stop the boats, control immigation and deal firmly with those committing crimes
Since Starmer took office, total immigration is down a lot, deportations are up, and deportations of foreign criminals are up. However, boat numbers are up.
I would suggest that the problem is at least as much those on the radical right who object to all immigrants (or all Muslims, etc.). There are several regulars here who voice such views.
The country is bust, it needs proper control of immigration and anyone who does come needs to look after themselves till they have paid a minimum of 5 or 10 years taxes etc. Should be no free housing or benefits for anyone who arrives or wants to arrive regardless of method.
What about the likes of Sandpit or my son who want to bring long-standing wives here, and who are prepared (not sure whether Sandpit is) catch up NIC?
No issue if they are not getting benefits etc and spouse who is taxpayer is supporting them. As it is now , people are let in , then have no means to support and start bringing in droves of family. Perception also is that asylum seekers ( illegal immigrants ) are also getting first calss service whilst local people get chhased , cannot get doctors , houses , etc. Whole benefits scheme is needing serious overhaul, people should not be able to make a career of being unemployed. everything is far to lax and most seems to just be online nowadays.
It's not just perception Malc, it's actually happening. These 4* asylum hotels have doctors, nurses and dentists on site, they get free gym memberships, they can refuse to leave the hotel and beat the government in court.
Asylum seekers and illegals need to be moved into camps with very high fences, basic conditions in tents. It sounds harsh but our generosity has run out, the nation is going bankrupt and we're spending billions on welfare for non-citizens while millions of citizens live in poverty or are unable to get access to basic healthcare. It's fundamentally and morally wrong that we're looking after strangers rather than our own families.
As we saw from the discussion here last night there are many people happy to be generous with others money to make themselves feel good.
There are also many people happy to lie through their teeth and repeat nonsense like referring to asylum accommodation as "4*".
Lol, you keep explaining to the public that "it's not actually 4* hotels because they closed the swimming pool and sauna" and see how far you get. I hope Labour put it on the side of a bus and add 5% to Reform overnight.
The NU10k inability to see the ABSOLUTE MASSIVE PR PROBLEM created by using hotels as temporary accommodation is utterly baffling to me.
The NU10k is a scare story to tell kiddies and doesn't exist.
The Government are very clearly aware that there is an "ABSOLUTE MASSIVE PR PROBLEM created by using hotels as temporary accommodation" and are doing their best to reduce numbers in hotels to 0. The number has roughly halved since Labour came to power.
However, these people exist and can't just be magically disappeared. Alternatives bring other problems (costs, local objections). So the process of reducing numbers takes time.
The only thing utterly baffling is your belief that the Government is not aware that there is a problem.
Are we 100% about that, yes the government say so. But what is a "hotel". I smell some serious spinnage.
e.g. the infamous Bell Hotel in Epping has not been open to the public for a while. Do we still class that as a hotel? If the government agrees a long term lease for the use of the hotel, ceases the ability for the it to take public bookings for say the next 2 years, is that now no longer a hotel? I bet under the government definition it is no longer a hotel, despite all the public pointing at the building and saying look they are staying at the Bell Hotel.
And this is literally what the government said they were going to do as part of their plan to "end hotel usage".
You could say that is good the government are getting the cost down. But people concerned about "migrant hotels" nothing has actually changed in their local environment.
A journalist with some brains would be firing off FOI asking for numbers of "former" hotels that government still rents.
Cynicism is often wise, but do you have anything to back any of this up?
I can't find a definition of what counts as a hotel.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgeqwv98d55o has some more data, showing the number in hotels is down and the government has also managed to reduce the average cost per person. This bit seems pertinent:
A senior Home Office source said one of the main factors behind the saving was moving some asylum seekers from hotels into other types of cheaper accommodation.
They said the department had prioritised moving families and children into regular housing so they were not living in hotels for long periods of time.
BBC News understands the majority of people moved out of hotels are now living in local housing, or houses in multiple occupation (HMOs), a type of rented accommodation where at least three individuals share the use of a bathroom and kitchen.
A hotel that has been shuttered and long term leased and adapted to put 3 people in a room, that could easily be covered under HMO. I presume in fact it probably has to be in rules and regs purposes, otherwise anybody could rent to 100 people similar conditions and avoid local licensing rules. Also that is "BBC understands" i.e. the government told us.
That would be massively expensive. You could be looking at £1200 per room just for the HMO licence.
Enroll them all as students, and it is zero Council Tax, however.
US and Russia ‘plan West Bank-style occupation of Ukraine’
Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff is said to support proposal revealed before president meets Putin in Alaska on Friday
Russia and the United States have discussed Israel’s occupation of the West Bank as a model for ending the war in Ukraine, The Times has been told.
Under this scenario Russia would have military and economic control of occupied Ukraine under its own governing body, imitating Israel’s de facto rule of Palestinian territory seized from Jordan in 1967.
I like the sound of that. Let's have licences required to drive a dirt bike on your own land.
And licences before you are allowed to be called Rod.
And a license before you are allowed to get a license.
Given the problems which Mrs C had on getting a Government Gateway account and then a taxpayers' account before she could prove she existed and deal with the tax she had paid for decades, there's a bit more truth to the latter than one might think.
I was only semi-joking. The Process State Processes.
TBF the problem turned out to be a punctuation in the address combined with a muddle with another taxpayer, so it got sorted out in the end ...
VAT on schools: 1) It will cost the state more money than it raises 2) Most people don't care because they see this as fair 3) Schools are using VAT to cover all number of things
I can understand the frustration of parents affected - it is unfair. Then again there are so many things which are egregiously unfair and this isn't anywhere near the top of the unfairness chart. Carers losing their entire allowance for going £1 over the earnings cap? More unfair. And there's stacks of examples of things done by merciless ministers to make the lives of the poor and sick practically unliveable which are more unfair.
This explains point 2 above.
Process State meets populist policy.
Sure! But for many of the people in point 2, they here the people complaining and consider that they largely are the people who support all of the egregious merciless stuff which hurts people at an existential level.
Sam Freedman (yes I know) was good on that in his piece on the anti-VAT campaign;
The TLDR is that campaigns against government policy work best when you have a back channel negotiation to come up with a mutually-acceptable deal. The Independent Schools Council went straight for berating the policy in the press, and only that, which was never going to work.
Yes, VAT on school fees is another version of "Do it to Julia"; accept that there needs to be pain to balance the books, but that pain should be experienced by other people. A lot of the anger was because people used to getting their way didn't.
(And whilst there will be some blowback from this policy, it will need a massive exodus to be a net negative for the government. There is no sign of that right now. In large part because British private schools are mostly fishing in the global elite market, which isn't very price-sensitive. Hard on those who have gone from just about affording school fees to not affording them, but they're a minority of a minority.)
Is that true? Would like to see some figures to back that up. My gut is that it’s true for the Public Schools and the London private schools but the vast majority of private schools aren’t them, they are private schools in towns and cities with good local reputations attracting the children of local professionals or they are the only alternative to failing state schools in an area where people decide to make a financial sacrifice to pay for their childrens’ education.
These are the schools that will suffer - the public schools with international or national reputation and big endowments alongside the London private day schools with a big global wealthy community to fill places who would never dream of sending their children off to board will largely be fine.
Excluding international schools, about 5% of private school pupils are non-British with parents living abroad. The largest group are from China (both mainland and Hong Kong).
Another 5% are non-British but with parents who live in Britain.
My old school's proudest boast was that it had students from 70 different countries. It really is a terrible reflection on us all that we have allowed that slimy toad Farage to corrupt us into seeing foreigners as people to be feared
We travelled home from York yesterday and an Indian family were in the seats in front
They consisted of a father and mother, three children aged 8, 4 and a babe in arms, and his 2 sisters
As we approached Colwyn Bay he came next to us to take photos of the lovely coast and I spoke to him and he said he was a taxi driver in Manchester and hadn't been to Llandudno. He was using the train as his taxi was limited to 5
I said he should really enjoy our home town and pointed out lots of things he could do with his family
They were impeccably dressed and polite and each tooks turns to look after the baby
The vast majority welcome everyone to our Country, but it is also something the left seem to overlook that like our wonderful Indian family the vast majority contribute enormousy, but it is not helping to suggest that anyone who objects to the boats, asylum hotels, and some crimes comitted by those arriving to our shores are rascists
The only way to assauge Farage is to stop the boats, control immigation and deal firmly with those committing crimes
Since Starmer took office, total immigration is down a lot, deportations are up, and deportations of foreign criminals are up. However, boat numbers are up.
I would suggest that the problem is at least as much those on the radical right who object to all immigrants (or all Muslims, etc.). There are several regulars here who voice such views.
The country is bust, it needs proper control of immigration and anyone who does come needs to look after themselves till they have paid a minimum of 5 or 10 years taxes etc. Should be no free housing or benefits for anyone who arrives or wants to arrive regardless of method.
What about the likes of Sandpit or my son who want to bring long-standing wives here, and who are prepared (not sure whether Sandpit is) catch up NIC?
No issue if they are not getting benefits etc and spouse who is taxpayer is supporting them. As it is now , people are let in , then have no means to support and start bringing in droves of family. Perception also is that asylum seekers ( illegal immigrants ) are also getting first calss service whilst local people get chhased , cannot get doctors , houses , etc. Whole benefits scheme is needing serious overhaul, people should not be able to make a career of being unemployed. everything is far to lax and most seems to just be online nowadays.
The vast majority of immigrant visas to the UK already come with a "no recourse to public funds condition" which expires when permanent residence is granted, usually 5 years.
Russia and the United States have discussed Israel’s occupation of the West Bank as a model for ending the war in Ukraine, The Times has been told.
Under this scenario Russia would have military and economic control of occupied Ukraine under its own governing body, imitating Israel’s de facto rule of Palestinian territory seized from Jordan in 1967.
The idea was raised weeks ago in discussions between Steve Witkoff, President Trump’s peace envoy, and his Russian counterparts, according to a source close to the US national security council.
Witkoff, who is also tasked by Trump with bringing peace to the Middle East, is understood to support the idea, which the Americans believe circumvents barriers in the Ukrainian constitution to ceding territory without holding an “all-Ukraine” referendum.
VAT on schools: 1) It will cost the state more money than it raises 2) Most people don't care because they see this as fair 3) Schools are using VAT to cover all number of things
I can understand the frustration of parents affected - it is unfair. Then again there are so many things which are egregiously unfair and this isn't anywhere near the top of the unfairness chart. Carers losing their entire allowance for going £1 over the earnings cap? More unfair. And there's stacks of examples of things done by merciless ministers to make the lives of the poor and sick practically unliveable which are more unfair.
This explains point 2 above.
Process State meets populist policy.
Sure! But for many of the people in point 2, they here the people complaining and consider that they largely are the people who support all of the egregious merciless stuff which hurts people at an existential level.
Sam Freedman (yes I know) was good on that in his piece on the anti-VAT campaign;
The TLDR is that campaigns against government policy work best when you have a back channel negotiation to come up with a mutually-acceptable deal. The Independent Schools Council went straight for berating the policy in the press, and only that, which was never going to work.
Yes, VAT on school fees is another version of "Do it to Julia"; accept that there needs to be pain to balance the books, but that pain should be experienced by other people. A lot of the anger was because people used to getting their way didn't.
(And whilst there will be some blowback from this policy, it will need a massive exodus to be a net negative for the government. There is no sign of that right now. In large part because British private schools are mostly fishing in the global elite market, which isn't very price-sensitive. Hard on those who have gone from just about affording school fees to not affording them, but they're a minority of a minority.)
Is that true? Would like to see some figures to back that up. My gut is that it’s true for the Public Schools and the London private schools but the vast majority of private schools aren’t them, they are private schools in towns and cities with good local reputations attracting the children of local professionals or they are the only alternative to failing state schools in an area where people decide to make a financial sacrifice to pay for their childrens’ education.
These are the schools that will suffer - the public schools with international or national reputation and big endowments alongside the London private day schools with a big global wealthy community to fill places who would never dream of sending their children off to board will largely be fine.
Excluding international schools, about 5% of private school pupils are non-British with parents living abroad. The largest group are from China (both mainland and Hong Kong).
Another 5% are non-British but with parents who live in Britain.
My old school's proudest boast was that it had students from 70 different countries. It really is a terrible reflection on us all that we have allowed that slimy toad Farage to corrupt us into seeing foreigners as people to be feared
We travelled home from York yesterday and an Indian family were in the seats in front
They consisted of a father and mother, three children aged 8, 4 and a babe in arms, and his 2 sisters
As we approached Colwyn Bay he came next to us to take photos of the lovely coast and I spoke to him and he said he was a taxi driver in Manchester and hadn't been to Llandudno. He was using the train as his taxi was limited to 5
I said he should really enjoy our home town and pointed out lots of things he could do with his family
They were impeccably dressed and polite and each tooks turns to look after the baby
The vast majority welcome everyone to our Country, but it is also something the left seem to overlook that like our wonderful Indian family the vast majority contribute enormousy, but it is not helping to suggest that anyone who objects to the boats, asylum hotels, and some crimes comitted by those arriving to our shores are rascists
The only way to assauge Farage is to stop the boats, control immigation and deal firmly with those committing crimes
Since Starmer took office, total immigration is down a lot, deportations are up, and deportations of foreign criminals are up. However, boat numbers are up.
I would suggest that the problem is at least as much those on the radical right who object to all immigrants (or all Muslims, etc.). There are several regulars here who voice such views.
The country is bust, it needs proper control of immigration and anyone who does come needs to look after themselves till they have paid a minimum of 5 or 10 years taxes etc. Should be no free housing or benefits for anyone who arrives or wants to arrive regardless of method.
What about the likes of Sandpit or my son who want to bring long-standing wives here, and who are prepared (not sure whether Sandpit is) catch up NIC?
No issue if they are not getting benefits etc and spouse who is taxpayer is supporting them. As it is now , people are let in , then have no means to support and start bringing in droves of family. Perception also is that asylum seekers ( illegal immigrants ) are also getting first calss service whilst local people get chhased , cannot get doctors , houses , etc. Whole benefits scheme is needing serious overhaul, people should not be able to make a career of being unemployed. everything is far to lax and most seems to just be online nowadays.
It's not just perception Malc, it's actually happening. These 4* asylum hotels have doctors, nurses and dentists on site, they get free gym memberships, they can refuse to leave the hotel and beat the government in court.
Asylum seekers and illegals need to be moved into camps with very high fences, basic conditions in tents. It sounds harsh but our generosity has run out, the nation is going bankrupt and we're spending billions on welfare for non-citizens while millions of citizens live in poverty or are unable to get access to basic healthcare. It's fundamentally and morally wrong that we're looking after strangers rather than our own families.
As we saw from the discussion here last night there are many people happy to be generous with others money to make themselves feel good.
There are also many people happy to lie through their teeth and repeat nonsense like referring to asylum accommodation as "4*".
Lol, you keep explaining to the public that "it's not actually 4* hotels because they closed the swimming pool and sauna" and see how far you get. I hope Labour put it on the side of a bus and add 5% to Reform overnight.
The NU10k inability to see the ABSOLUTE MASSIVE PR PROBLEM created by using hotels as temporary accommodation is utterly baffling to me.
The NU10k is a scare story to tell kiddies and doesn't exist.
The Government are very clearly aware that there is an "ABSOLUTE MASSIVE PR PROBLEM created by using hotels as temporary accommodation" and are doing their best to reduce numbers in hotels to 0. The number has roughly halved since Labour came to power.
However, these people exist and can't just be magically disappeared. Alternatives bring other problems (costs, local objections). So the process of reducing numbers takes time.
The only thing utterly baffling is your belief that the Government is not aware that there is a problem.
Are we 100% about that, yes the government say so. But what is a "hotel". I smell some serious spinnage.
e.g. the infamous Bell Hotel in Epping has not been open to the public for a while. Do we still class that as a hotel? If the government agrees a long term lease for the use of the hotel, ceases the ability for the it to take public bookings for say the next 2 years, is that now no longer a hotel? I bet under the government definition it is no longer a hotel, despite all the public pointing at the building and saying look they are staying at the Bell Hotel.
And this is literally what the government said they were going to do as part of their plan to "end hotel usage".
You could say that is good the government are getting the cost down. But people concerned about "migrant hotels" nothing has actually changed in their local environment.
A journalist with some brains would be firing off FOI asking for numbers of "former" hotels that government still rents.
Cynicism is often wise, but do you have anything to back any of this up?
I can't find a definition of what counts as a hotel.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgeqwv98d55o has some more data, showing the number in hotels is down and the government has also managed to reduce the average cost per person. This bit seems pertinent:
A senior Home Office source said one of the main factors behind the saving was moving some asylum seekers from hotels into other types of cheaper accommodation.
They said the department had prioritised moving families and children into regular housing so they were not living in hotels for long periods of time.
BBC News understands the majority of people moved out of hotels are now living in local housing, or houses in multiple occupation (HMOs), a type of rented accommodation where at least three individuals share the use of a bathroom and kitchen.
A hotel that has been shuttered and long term leased and adapted to put 3 people in a room, that could easily be covered under HMO. I presume in fact it probably has to be in rules and regs purposes, otherwise anybody could rent to 100 people similar conditions and avoid local licensing rules. Also that is "BBC understands" i.e. the government told us.
That would be massively expensive. You could be looking at £1200 per room just for the HMO licence.
Enroll them all as students, and it is zero Council Tax, however.
Asylum seekers can apply to go to university, although they have to pay international fees (or get someone else to pay such).
(However, "Individuals who arrived in the UK through the Ukraine schemes (the Ukraine Family Scheme, the Homes for Ukraine Sponsorship Scheme or the Ukraine Extension Scheme) are normally eligible for student loans and home fee status.")
VAT on schools: 1) It will cost the state more money than it raises 2) Most people don't care because they see this as fair 3) Schools are using VAT to cover all number of things
I can understand the frustration of parents affected - it is unfair. Then again there are so many things which are egregiously unfair and this isn't anywhere near the top of the unfairness chart. Carers losing their entire allowance for going £1 over the earnings cap? More unfair. And there's stacks of examples of things done by merciless ministers to make the lives of the poor and sick practically unliveable which are more unfair.
This explains point 2 above.
Process State meets populist policy.
Sure! But for many of the people in point 2, they here the people complaining and consider that they largely are the people who support all of the egregious merciless stuff which hurts people at an existential level.
Sam Freedman (yes I know) was good on that in his piece on the anti-VAT campaign;
The TLDR is that campaigns against government policy work best when you have a back channel negotiation to come up with a mutually-acceptable deal. The Independent Schools Council went straight for berating the policy in the press, and only that, which was never going to work.
Yes, VAT on school fees is another version of "Do it to Julia"; accept that there needs to be pain to balance the books, but that pain should be experienced by other people. A lot of the anger was because people used to getting their way didn't.
(And whilst there will be some blowback from this policy, it will need a massive exodus to be a net negative for the government. There is no sign of that right now. In large part because British private schools are mostly fishing in the global elite market, which isn't very price-sensitive. Hard on those who have gone from just about affording school fees to not affording them, but they're a minority of a minority.)
Is that true? Would like to see some figures to back that up. My gut is that it’s true for the Public Schools and the London private schools but the vast majority of private schools aren’t them, they are private schools in towns and cities with good local reputations attracting the children of local professionals or they are the only alternative to failing state schools in an area where people decide to make a financial sacrifice to pay for their childrens’ education.
These are the schools that will suffer - the public schools with international or national reputation and big endowments alongside the London private day schools with a big global wealthy community to fill places who would never dream of sending their children off to board will largely be fine.
Excluding international schools, about 5% of private school pupils are non-British with parents living abroad. The largest group are from China (both mainland and Hong Kong).
Another 5% are non-British but with parents who live in Britain.
My old school's proudest boast was that it had students from 70 different countries. It really is a terrible reflection on us all that we have allowed that slimy toad Farage to corrupt us into seeing foreigners as people to be feared
We travelled home from York yesterday and an Indian family were in the seats in front
They consisted of a father and mother, three children aged 8, 4 and a babe in arms, and his 2 sisters
As we approached Colwyn Bay he came next to us to take photos of the lovely coast and I spoke to him and he said he was a taxi driver in Manchester and hadn't been to Llandudno. He was using the train as his taxi was limited to 5
I said he should really enjoy our home town and pointed out lots of things he could do with his family
They were impeccably dressed and polite and each tooks turns to look after the baby
The vast majority welcome everyone to our Country, but it is also something the left seem to overlook that like our wonderful Indian family the vast majority contribute enormousy, but it is not helping to suggest that anyone who objects to the boats, asylum hotels, and some crimes comitted by those arriving to our shores are rascists
The only way to assauge Farage is to stop the boats, control immigation and deal firmly with those committing crimes
Since Starmer took office, total immigration is down a lot, deportations are up, and deportations of foreign criminals are up. However, boat numbers are up.
I would suggest that the problem is at least as much those on the radical right who object to all immigrants (or all Muslims, etc.). There are several regulars here who voice such views.
The country is bust, it needs proper control of immigration and anyone who does come needs to look after themselves till they have paid a minimum of 5 or 10 years taxes etc. Should be no free housing or benefits for anyone who arrives or wants to arrive regardless of method.
What about the likes of Sandpit or my son who want to bring long-standing wives here, and who are prepared (not sure whether Sandpit is) catch up NIC?
No issue if they are not getting benefits etc and spouse who is taxpayer is supporting them. As it is now , people are let in , then have no means to support and start bringing in droves of family. Perception also is that asylum seekers ( illegal immigrants ) are also getting first calss service whilst local people get chhased , cannot get doctors , houses , etc. Whole benefits scheme is needing serious overhaul, people should not be able to make a career of being unemployed. everything is far to lax and most seems to just be online nowadays.
It's not just perception Malc, it's actually happening. These 4* asylum hotels have doctors, nurses and dentists on site, they get free gym memberships, they can refuse to leave the hotel and beat the government in court.
Asylum seekers and illegals need to be moved into camps with very high fences, basic conditions in tents. It sounds harsh but our generosity has run out, the nation is going bankrupt and we're spending billions on welfare for non-citizens while millions of citizens live in poverty or are unable to get access to basic healthcare. It's fundamentally and morally wrong that we're looking after strangers rather than our own families.
As we saw from the discussion here last night there are many people happy to be generous with others money to make themselves feel good.
There are also many people happy to lie through their teeth and repeat nonsense like referring to asylum accommodation as "4*".
Lol, you keep explaining to the public that "it's not actually 4* hotels because they closed the swimming pool and sauna" and see how far you get. I hope Labour put it on the side of a bus and add 5% to Reform overnight.
Firstly the hotel must have a clearly designated reception area. Additionally it must have a minimum of five bedrooms available for rent. Furthermore, all of theses rooms must come with en suite bathrooms. As from the moment of registration the guest must have 24 hour access to the hotel without the need of a key. And the owner or staff is at minimum available via call for residents throughout day / night. The restaurant must be open a minimum of 6 days a week, serving bar snacks, breakfast or more. Hotels which do not offer dinner must be located in the vicinity of restaurants which do.
Furthermore, the hotel should have a liquor license and an area where beverages can be served. Room service must be available with a minimum of hot and cold drinks and light snacks (e.g. sandwiches) during daytime and evening. The hotel has the option to provide on request only, without having to promote its menu. Phone service available in-room as well as WiFi in all public areas. All areas of operation should meet the Three Star level of quality for cleanliness, maintenance and hospitality, and for the quality of physical facilities and delivery of services.
They ain't getting room service, so, no, not even 3*.
Poor diddums do they have to actually go to the restaurant for their freebie meals, how harsh
VAT on schools: 1) It will cost the state more money than it raises 2) Most people don't care because they see this as fair 3) Schools are using VAT to cover all number of things
I can understand the frustration of parents affected - it is unfair. Then again there are so many things which are egregiously unfair and this isn't anywhere near the top of the unfairness chart. Carers losing their entire allowance for going £1 over the earnings cap? More unfair. And there's stacks of examples of things done by merciless ministers to make the lives of the poor and sick practically unliveable which are more unfair.
This explains point 2 above.
Process State meets populist policy.
Sure! But for many of the people in point 2, they here the people complaining and consider that they largely are the people who support all of the egregious merciless stuff which hurts people at an existential level.
Sam Freedman (yes I know) was good on that in his piece on the anti-VAT campaign;
The TLDR is that campaigns against government policy work best when you have a back channel negotiation to come up with a mutually-acceptable deal. The Independent Schools Council went straight for berating the policy in the press, and only that, which was never going to work.
Yes, VAT on school fees is another version of "Do it to Julia"; accept that there needs to be pain to balance the books, but that pain should be experienced by other people. A lot of the anger was because people used to getting their way didn't.
(And whilst there will be some blowback from this policy, it will need a massive exodus to be a net negative for the government. There is no sign of that right now. In large part because British private schools are mostly fishing in the global elite market, which isn't very price-sensitive. Hard on those who have gone from just about affording school fees to not affording them, but they're a minority of a minority.)
Is that true? Would like to see some figures to back that up. My gut is that it’s true for the Public Schools and the London private schools but the vast majority of private schools aren’t them, they are private schools in towns and cities with good local reputations attracting the children of local professionals or they are the only alternative to failing state schools in an area where people decide to make a financial sacrifice to pay for their childrens’ education.
These are the schools that will suffer - the public schools with international or national reputation and big endowments alongside the London private day schools with a big global wealthy community to fill places who would never dream of sending their children off to board will largely be fine.
Excluding international schools, about 5% of private school pupils are non-British with parents living abroad. The largest group are from China (both mainland and Hong Kong).
Another 5% are non-British but with parents who live in Britain.
My old school's proudest boast was that it had students from 70 different countries. It really is a terrible reflection on us all that we have allowed that slimy toad Farage to corrupt us into seeing foreigners as people to be feared
We travelled home from York yesterday and an Indian family were in the seats in front
They consisted of a father and mother, three children aged 8, 4 and a babe in arms, and his 2 sisters
As we approached Colwyn Bay he came next to us to take photos of the lovely coast and I spoke to him and he said he was a taxi driver in Manchester and hadn't been to Llandudno. He was using the train as his taxi was limited to 5
I said he should really enjoy our home town and pointed out lots of things he could do with his family
They were impeccably dressed and polite and each tooks turns to look after the baby
The vast majority welcome everyone to our Country, but it is also something the left seem to overlook that like our wonderful Indian family the vast majority contribute enormousy, but it is not helping to suggest that anyone who objects to the boats, asylum hotels, and some crimes comitted by those arriving to our shores are rascists
The only way to assauge Farage is to stop the boats, control immigation and deal firmly with those committing crimes
Since Starmer took office, total immigration is down a lot, deportations are up, and deportations of foreign criminals are up. However, boat numbers are up.
I would suggest that the problem is at least as much those on the radical right who object to all immigrants (or all Muslims, etc.). There are several regulars here who voice such views.
The country is bust, it needs proper control of immigration and anyone who does come needs to look after themselves till they have paid a minimum of 5 or 10 years taxes etc. Should be no free housing or benefits for anyone who arrives or wants to arrive regardless of method.
What about the likes of Sandpit or my son who want to bring long-standing wives here, and who are prepared (not sure whether Sandpit is) catch up NIC?
No issue if they are not getting benefits etc and spouse who is taxpayer is supporting them. As it is now , people are let in , then have no means to support and start bringing in droves of family. Perception also is that asylum seekers ( illegal immigrants ) are also getting first calss service whilst local people get chhased , cannot get doctors , houses , etc. Whole benefits scheme is needing serious overhaul, people should not be able to make a career of being unemployed. everything is far to lax and most seems to just be online nowadays.
The vast majority of immigrant visas to the UK already come with a "no recourse to public funds condition" which expires when permanent residence is granted, usually 5 years.
VAT on schools: 1) It will cost the state more money than it raises 2) Most people don't care because they see this as fair 3) Schools are using VAT to cover all number of things
I can understand the frustration of parents affected - it is unfair. Then again there are so many things which are egregiously unfair and this isn't anywhere near the top of the unfairness chart. Carers losing their entire allowance for going £1 over the earnings cap? More unfair. And there's stacks of examples of things done by merciless ministers to make the lives of the poor and sick practically unliveable which are more unfair.
This explains point 2 above.
Process State meets populist policy.
Sure! But for many of the people in point 2, they here the people complaining and consider that they largely are the people who support all of the egregious merciless stuff which hurts people at an existential level.
Sam Freedman (yes I know) was good on that in his piece on the anti-VAT campaign;
The TLDR is that campaigns against government policy work best when you have a back channel negotiation to come up with a mutually-acceptable deal. The Independent Schools Council went straight for berating the policy in the press, and only that, which was never going to work.
Yes, VAT on school fees is another version of "Do it to Julia"; accept that there needs to be pain to balance the books, but that pain should be experienced by other people. A lot of the anger was because people used to getting their way didn't.
(And whilst there will be some blowback from this policy, it will need a massive exodus to be a net negative for the government. There is no sign of that right now. In large part because British private schools are mostly fishing in the global elite market, which isn't very price-sensitive. Hard on those who have gone from just about affording school fees to not affording them, but they're a minority of a minority.)
Is that true? Would like to see some figures to back that up. My gut is that it’s true for the Public Schools and the London private schools but the vast majority of private schools aren’t them, they are private schools in towns and cities with good local reputations attracting the children of local professionals or they are the only alternative to failing state schools in an area where people decide to make a financial sacrifice to pay for their childrens’ education.
These are the schools that will suffer - the public schools with international or national reputation and big endowments alongside the London private day schools with a big global wealthy community to fill places who would never dream of sending their children off to board will largely be fine.
Excluding international schools, about 5% of private school pupils are non-British with parents living abroad. The largest group are from China (both mainland and Hong Kong).
Another 5% are non-British but with parents who live in Britain.
My old school's proudest boast was that it had students from 70 different countries. It really is a terrible reflection on us all that we have allowed that slimy toad Farage to corrupt us into seeing foreigners as people to be feared
We travelled home from York yesterday and an Indian family were in the seats in front
They consisted of a father and mother, three children aged 8, 4 and a babe in arms, and his 2 sisters
As we approached Colwyn Bay he came next to us to take photos of the lovely coast and I spoke to him and he said he was a taxi driver in Manchester and hadn't been to Llandudno. He was using the train as his taxi was limited to 5
I said he should really enjoy our home town and pointed out lots of things he could do with his family
They were impeccably dressed and polite and each tooks turns to look after the baby
The vast majority welcome everyone to our Country, but it is also something the left seem to overlook that like our wonderful Indian family the vast majority contribute enormousy, but it is not helping to suggest that anyone who objects to the boats, asylum hotels, and some crimes comitted by those arriving to our shores are rascists
The only way to assauge Farage is to stop the boats, control immigation and deal firmly with those committing crimes
Since Starmer took office, total immigration is down a lot, deportations are up, and deportations of foreign criminals are up. However, boat numbers are up.
I would suggest that the problem is at least as much those on the radical right who object to all immigrants (or all Muslims, etc.). There are several regulars here who voice such views.
The country is bust, it needs proper control of immigration and anyone who does come needs to look after themselves till they have paid a minimum of 5 or 10 years taxes etc. Should be no free housing or benefits for anyone who arrives or wants to arrive regardless of method.
What about the likes of Sandpit or my son who want to bring long-standing wives here, and who are prepared (not sure whether Sandpit is) catch up NIC?
No issue if they are not getting benefits etc and spouse who is taxpayer is supporting them. As it is now , people are let in , then have no means to support and start bringing in droves of family. Perception also is that asylum seekers ( illegal immigrants ) are also getting first calss service whilst local people get chhased , cannot get doctors , houses , etc. Whole benefits scheme is needing serious overhaul, people should not be able to make a career of being unemployed. everything is far to lax and most seems to just be online nowadays.
It's not just perception Malc, it's actually happening. These 4* asylum hotels have doctors, nurses and dentists on site, they get free gym memberships, they can refuse to leave the hotel and beat the government in court.
Asylum seekers and illegals need to be moved into camps with very high fences, basic conditions in tents. It sounds harsh but our generosity has run out, the nation is going bankrupt and we're spending billions on welfare for non-citizens while millions of citizens live in poverty or are unable to get access to basic healthcare. It's fundamentally and morally wrong that we're looking after strangers rather than our own families.
As we saw from the discussion here last night there are many people happy to be generous with others money to make themselves feel good.
There are also many people happy to lie through their teeth and repeat nonsense like referring to asylum accommodation as "4*".
Lol, you keep explaining to the public that "it's not actually 4* hotels because they closed the swimming pool and sauna" and see how far you get. I hope Labour put it on the side of a bus and add 5% to Reform overnight.
The NU10k inability to see the ABSOLUTE MASSIVE PR PROBLEM created by using hotels as temporary accommodation is utterly baffling to me.
The NU10k is a scare story to tell kiddies and doesn't exist.
The Government are very clearly aware that there is an "ABSOLUTE MASSIVE PR PROBLEM created by using hotels as temporary accommodation" and are doing their best to reduce numbers in hotels to 0. The number has roughly halved since Labour came to power.
However, these people exist and can't just be magically disappeared. Alternatives bring other problems (costs, local objections). So the process of reducing numbers takes time.
The only thing utterly baffling is your belief that the Government is not aware that there is a problem.
Are we 100% about that, yes the government say so. But what is a "hotel". I smell some serious spinnage.
e.g. the infamous Bell Hotel in Epping has not been open to the public for a while. Do we still class that as a hotel? If the government agrees a long term lease for the use of the hotel, ceases the ability for the it to take public bookings for say the next 2 years, is that now no longer a hotel? I bet under the government definition it is no longer a hotel, despite all the public pointing at the building and saying look they are staying at the Bell Hotel.
And this is literally what the government said they were going to do as part of their plan to "end hotel usage".
You could say that is good the government are getting the cost down. But people concerned about "migrant hotels" nothing has actually changed in their local environment.
A journalist with some brains would be firing off FOI asking for numbers of "former" hotels that government still rents.
Cynicism is often wise, but do you have anything to back any of this up?
I can't find a definition of what counts as a hotel.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgeqwv98d55o has some more data, showing the number in hotels is down and the government has also managed to reduce the average cost per person. This bit seems pertinent:
A senior Home Office source said one of the main factors behind the saving was moving some asylum seekers from hotels into other types of cheaper accommodation.
They said the department had prioritised moving families and children into regular housing so they were not living in hotels for long periods of time.
BBC News understands the majority of people moved out of hotels are now living in local housing, or houses in multiple occupation (HMOs), a type of rented accommodation where at least three individuals share the use of a bathroom and kitchen.
A hotel that has been shuttered and long term leased and adapted to put 3 people in a room, that could easily be covered under HMO. I presume in fact it probably has to be in rules and regs purposes, otherwise anybody could rent to 100 people similar conditions and avoid local licensing rules. Also that is "BBC understands" i.e. the government told us.
That would be massively expensive. You could be looking at £1200 per room just for the HMO licence.
Enroll them all as students, and it is zero Council Tax, however.
They are currently paying £120 / night on average and that is the "reduced" rate down for £160 / night..... per person....
So £1200 / room with 3-4 people in that, no that isn't massively expensive, not when we are spending these eye watering sums already, and if it allows you to do a long term lease deal where you aren't paying the £160 / night / per person anymore.
VAT on schools: 1) It will cost the state more money than it raises 2) Most people don't care because they see this as fair 3) Schools are using VAT to cover all number of things
I can understand the frustration of parents affected - it is unfair. Then again there are so many things which are egregiously unfair and this isn't anywhere near the top of the unfairness chart. Carers losing their entire allowance for going £1 over the earnings cap? More unfair. And there's stacks of examples of things done by merciless ministers to make the lives of the poor and sick practically unliveable which are more unfair.
This explains point 2 above.
Process State meets populist policy.
Sure! But for many of the people in point 2, they here the people complaining and consider that they largely are the people who support all of the egregious merciless stuff which hurts people at an existential level.
Sam Freedman (yes I know) was good on that in his piece on the anti-VAT campaign;
The TLDR is that campaigns against government policy work best when you have a back channel negotiation to come up with a mutually-acceptable deal. The Independent Schools Council went straight for berating the policy in the press, and only that, which was never going to work.
Yes, VAT on school fees is another version of "Do it to Julia"; accept that there needs to be pain to balance the books, but that pain should be experienced by other people. A lot of the anger was because people used to getting their way didn't.
(And whilst there will be some blowback from this policy, it will need a massive exodus to be a net negative for the government. There is no sign of that right now. In large part because British private schools are mostly fishing in the global elite market, which isn't very price-sensitive. Hard on those who have gone from just about affording school fees to not affording them, but they're a minority of a minority.)
Is that true? Would like to see some figures to back that up. My gut is that it’s true for the Public Schools and the London private schools but the vast majority of private schools aren’t them, they are private schools in towns and cities with good local reputations attracting the children of local professionals or they are the only alternative to failing state schools in an area where people decide to make a financial sacrifice to pay for their childrens’ education.
These are the schools that will suffer - the public schools with international or national reputation and big endowments alongside the London private day schools with a big global wealthy community to fill places who would never dream of sending their children off to board will largely be fine.
Excluding international schools, about 5% of private school pupils are non-British with parents living abroad. The largest group are from China (both mainland and Hong Kong).
Another 5% are non-British but with parents who live in Britain.
My old school's proudest boast was that it had students from 70 different countries. It really is a terrible reflection on us all that we have allowed that slimy toad Farage to corrupt us into seeing foreigners as people to be feared
We travelled home from York yesterday and an Indian family were in the seats in front
They consisted of a father and mother, three children aged 8, 4 and a babe in arms, and his 2 sisters
As we approached Colwyn Bay he came next to us to take photos of the lovely coast and I spoke to him and he said he was a taxi driver in Manchester and hadn't been to Llandudno. He was using the train as his taxi was limited to 5
I said he should really enjoy our home town and pointed out lots of things he could do with his family
They were impeccably dressed and polite and each tooks turns to look after the baby
The vast majority welcome everyone to our Country, but it is also something the left seem to overlook that like our wonderful Indian family the vast majority contribute enormousy, but it is not helping to suggest that anyone who objects to the boats, asylum hotels, and some crimes comitted by those arriving to our shores are rascists
The only way to assauge Farage is to stop the boats, control immigation and deal firmly with those committing crimes
Since Starmer took office, total immigration is down a lot, deportations are up, and deportations of foreign criminals are up. However, boat numbers are up.
I would suggest that the problem is at least as much those on the radical right who object to all immigrants (or all Muslims, etc.). There are several regulars here who voice such views.
The country is bust, it needs proper control of immigration and anyone who does come needs to look after themselves till they have paid a minimum of 5 or 10 years taxes etc. Should be no free housing or benefits for anyone who arrives or wants to arrive regardless of method.
What about the likes of Sandpit or my son who want to bring long-standing wives here, and who are prepared (not sure whether Sandpit is) catch up NIC?
No issue if they are not getting benefits etc and spouse who is taxpayer is supporting them. As it is now , people are let in , then have no means to support and start bringing in droves of family. Perception also is that asylum seekers ( illegal immigrants ) are also getting first calss service whilst local people get chhased , cannot get doctors , houses , etc. Whole benefits scheme is needing serious overhaul, people should not be able to make a career of being unemployed. everything is far to lax and most seems to just be online nowadays.
It's not just perception Malc, it's actually happening. These 4* asylum hotels have doctors, nurses and dentists on site, they get free gym memberships, they can refuse to leave the hotel and beat the government in court.
Asylum seekers and illegals need to be moved into camps with very high fences, basic conditions in tents. It sounds harsh but our generosity has run out, the nation is going bankrupt and we're spending billions on welfare for non-citizens while millions of citizens live in poverty or are unable to get access to basic healthcare. It's fundamentally and morally wrong that we're looking after strangers rather than our own families.
I still don’t understand why hotels were chosen in preference to military bases, where everything could be self-contained.
Which military bases? There aren't any that are empty yet are ready to house and feed thousands of people.
Fuck knows where Kemi is planning to put her Koncentration Kamps.
Yes, poor numbers for Labour but I think we know if any other party were in Government at this time their numbers would be as bad if not worse.
It's often said some elections are "bad ones to win" - 1992 being a good example - but 2024 would be right up there it seems. I'll be honest (and this seems a peculiarly London-centric view) - I don't think Starmer is doing too badly. At worst he's Continuity Sunak but big shifts in governance aren't easy - as has been said, there were probably only three really radical Governments in the 20th century - Asquith, Attlee and Thatcher.
In a globally interconnected world, doing something radical isn't easy and even within Britain one decision impacts on others. Cuts in public spending on the scale some here would seem to want don't end at the balance sheet - they would impact real people in their daily lives, perhaps not the individuals and their families urging the deep cuts but nonetheless.
Government is difficult especially at a time of weak economic growth - however you try to slice the cake someone complains about their share or lack of it. I do agree some of the initial ideas of the new Government were implemented in a hamfisted way - removing Winter Fuel Allowance from higher rate taxpayers while retaining it for those on basic rate would probably have been sellable. The "boats" defy all attempts at a solution for now though I suspect autumn and winter will slow things down a bit.
Cutting Peter's benefits to ensure Paul pays less tax isn't the answer and nor is raising Paul's taxes so Peter can keep all his benefits so it becomes dancing on a pinhead in terms of what you can and can't do.
It also becomes easier to look for scapegoats - blame the migrants, blame the scroungers, blame those with mental and physical challenges, blame those with long Covid, blame the last Government, blame this Government etc.
You can see the attraction of masterly inactivity and the destiny of the poor can as it gets propelled once more down the road. You can also see why those peddling "easy answers" get traction.
The problem I see it is that Starmer is built for a sort of managerial role when the country doesn’t need it. He might have been a decently average (or even average to good) PM conceivably, in 2015, or in the 1960s, or in the John Major role. He just isn’t the “cometh the hour” person.
The Atlees, Thatchers, Asquiths of this world are rare but they’re precisely what we need right now - a purpose, a radical sense of mission, and a party firmly behind them. Farage play-acts as one of those people, but isnt the real deal.
Ah, yes, the "strong" leader. The "radical" leader. It's seductive I know to think all our problems could be dealt with by such an individual - we could vote them in and then they would lead us from the valley of the shadow to the sunlit uplands...
Blah, blah, blah - that's how authoritarianism starts. I'd rather our imperfect, bumbling democracy than a "strong" leader. The truth probably is we could solve a lot of our problems ourselves with some changes in our personal behaviour and within our communities - that would be really radical.
The problem with top-down solutions is they create bottom-up problems. Somebody suggested yesterday it was all the fault of "fatties" as he called them and said everyone who was overweight should be given free Mounjaro. Well, setting aside the economics, the practicalities and the legalities (but they aren't that individual's strong suit), Mounjaro isn't side effect free as I know from a friend who has used it.
The other consequence is if you have a significant portion (sorry) of the population on appetite suppressing drugs, what happens to the catering and hospitality industries? Do the non-"fatties" have to become "fatties" in order to keep every cafe and restaurant from my cafe in the Barking Road to the top three Michelin star eaterie going? Will we see Gordon Ramsey begging on the streets as his restaurant empire collapses from lack of demand?
The claim that radical change in a democracy is dictatorship or something is an old, old cry.
The problem is that, in many areas, the government is not doing much, if anything.
On health in the community - why not some trials? Pick an area. Vitality style rewards for health indicators. You wouldn’t need legislation for that.
£100 off income tax (or added to your UC or State Pension) if you have a healthy BMI or can run 5K in less than 30 minutes.
First, we know BMI isn't the be all and end all as a measure of health. Second, physical exercise tests - seriously? Third, £100 - a lot of people will see it as not worth the effort (make it £10,000 a year and you;d get more takers).
Tough. The NHS is going to collapse under the weight of the population and we already have the classic insurance issues of moral hazard and adverse selection.
Health inequality is enormous. We have a group of well paid, healthy and active people paying a huge amount of tax for a service they rarely use because it's been overwhelmed by the old and inactive.
That's completely unsustainable, a breach of the social contract. And this is coming from someone who is instinctively generous with government support for those who need it.
Most of the redistribution done by the NHS is over time. If you're healthy and active, you are paying for your future care more than you are paying for inactive others'. Even if you eat well and do lots of physical activity, you're going to die at some point and most of the average person's health costs are at the end of life.
Now, that doesn't argue against the importance of health promotion. Health promotion is very cost effective. We should be doing more to encourage physical activity and healthy diets. What's the best way of doing that? Giving people £100 for being fit, or spending £4 billion on council gyms and good quality health promotion apps?
If we were paying for our future care that would be fine. But we aren't, are we?
We aren't even paying for current care requirements.
The whole Ponzi scheme is collapsing and nobody wants to admit it.
We pay for current old people's care, and when we're old, a younger generation will pay for our care. This is not a Ponzi scheme. (Calling it a Ponzi scheme is one of the laziest lines in politics.) The country is currently running a deficit, but talk of "collapsing" is hyperbole.
In the 47 years that I paid NI I never once objected to paying it. My parents and grandparents would have benefited from my contributions. Now my children and grandchildren are paying and I am benefiting. There are some utterly selfish and small minded scrooges on PB.
They want it all for nothing now Red. I happily paid NI for 50 years as well.
US and Russia ‘plan West Bank-style occupation of Ukraine’
Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff is said to support proposal revealed before president meets Putin in Alaska on Friday
Russia and the United States have discussed Israel’s occupation of the West Bank as a model for ending the war in Ukraine, The Times has been told.
Under this scenario Russia would have military and economic control of occupied Ukraine under its own governing body, imitating Israel’s de facto rule of Palestinian territory seized from Jordan in 1967.
You'd think all the asylos were camped in your living rooms the way you mad c-nts obsess over them.
you're right. The same same old f***ing weirdos every time. I wish they could go and park their firebombs wherever they choose and leave this site alone
US and Russia ‘plan West Bank-style occupation of Ukraine’
Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff is said to support proposal revealed before president meets Putin in Alaska on Friday
Russia and the United States have discussed Israel’s occupation of the West Bank as a model for ending the war in Ukraine, The Times has been told.
Under this scenario Russia would have military and economic control of occupied Ukraine under its own governing body, imitating Israel’s de facto rule of Palestinian territory seized from Jordan in 1967.
US and Russia ‘plan West Bank-style occupation of Ukraine’
Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff is said to support proposal revealed before president meets Putin in Alaska on Friday
Russia and the United States have discussed Israel’s occupation of the West Bank as a model for ending the war in Ukraine, The Times has been told.
Under this scenario Russia would have military and economic control of occupied Ukraine under its own governing body, imitating Israel’s de facto rule of Palestinian territory seized from Jordan in 1967.
Why would you choose one of the least successful precedents and think that people wouldn't notice?
There was an article a few weeks ago which said the American religious right view Israel as the model state for expanding state borders.
It all seems to be shaping up to force Ukraine to either accept a terrible peace, or to reject it, and be blamed for continuing the war - and therefore responsible for everything Russia does to them, while the US punishes Ukraine by blocking support.
Whoa. A SECOND (Syrian) migrant at the Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex, has been charged with sexual assault. Mohammed Sharwarq faces 7 charges of (alleged) assault
This situation is completely out of control. Get these people out of our communities & country @Keir_Starmer"
US and Russia ‘plan West Bank-style occupation of Ukraine’
Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff is said to support proposal revealed before president meets Putin in Alaska on Friday
Russia and the United States have discussed Israel’s occupation of the West Bank as a model for ending the war in Ukraine, The Times has been told.
Under this scenario Russia would have military and economic control of occupied Ukraine under its own governing body, imitating Israel’s de facto rule of Palestinian territory seized from Jordan in 1967.
Why would you choose one of the least successful precedents and think that people wouldn't notice?
There was an article a few weeks ago which said the American religious right view Israel as the model state for expanding state borders.
What the Russians and the Israeli religious right have in common is their belief that land-grabbing, for its own sake, is intelligent. Whereas a smaller, ethnically homogeneous, State, is always going to be more stable than one with a hostile ethnic minority.
US and Russia ‘plan West Bank-style occupation of Ukraine’
Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff is said to support proposal revealed before president meets Putin in Alaska on Friday
Russia and the United States have discussed Israel’s occupation of the West Bank as a model for ending the war in Ukraine, The Times has been told.
Under this scenario Russia would have military and economic control of occupied Ukraine under its own governing body, imitating Israel’s de facto rule of Palestinian territory seized from Jordan in 1967.
Why would you choose one of the least successful precedents and think that people wouldn't notice?
There was an article a few weeks ago which said the American religious right view Israel as the model state for expanding state borders.
It all seems to be shaping up to force Ukraine to either accept a terrible peace, or to reject it, and be blamed for continuing the war - and therefore responsible for everything Russia does to them, while the US punishes them by blocking support.
Yup, my contempt for the Trump enablers/defenders is off the scale.
Whoa. A SECOND (Syrian) migrant at the Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex, has been charged with sexual assault. Mohammed Sharwarq faces 7 charges of (alleged) assault
This situation is completely out of control. Get these people out of our communities & country @Keir_Starmer"
Specially for TSE - world's most noticeable footwear.
I’ve made Die Work Wear’s enemies list.
I am guilty of the latter two including the triple felony) although I would say I am showing support for Ukraine.
Some of the crimes I've seen in Washington DC:
— Beige sweater with beige chinos — Jacket sleeve tag left on — Tan shoes with navy suits — Giant Windsor knots (triple felony with the metal sports watch paired with dark suit and French cuffs)
US and Russia ‘plan West Bank-style occupation of Ukraine’
Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff is said to support proposal revealed before president meets Putin in Alaska on Friday
Russia and the United States have discussed Israel’s occupation of the West Bank as a model for ending the war in Ukraine, The Times has been told.
Under this scenario Russia would have military and economic control of occupied Ukraine under its own governing body, imitating Israel’s de facto rule of Palestinian territory seized from Jordan in 1967.
Why would you choose one of the least successful precedents and think that people wouldn't notice?
There was an article a few weeks ago which said the American religious right view Israel as the model state for expanding state borders.
What the Russians and the Israeli religious right have in common is their belief that land-grabbing, for its own sake, is intelligent. Whereas a smaller, ethnically homogeneous, State, is always going to be more stable than one with a hostile ethnic minority.
I think the Putinist Russian and Israeli religious right have (what they see as) a solution to a potentially hostile ethnic minority.
US and Russia ‘plan West Bank-style occupation of Ukraine’
Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff is said to support proposal revealed before president meets Putin in Alaska on Friday
Russia and the United States have discussed Israel’s occupation of the West Bank as a model for ending the war in Ukraine, The Times has been told.
Under this scenario Russia would have military and economic control of occupied Ukraine under its own governing body, imitating Israel’s de facto rule of Palestinian territory seized from Jordan in 1967.
Why would you choose one of the least successful precedents and think that people wouldn't notice?
There was an article a few weeks ago which said the American religious right view Israel as the model state for expanding state borders.
What the Russians and the Israeli religious right have in common is their belief that land-grabbing, for its own sake, is intelligent. Whereas a smaller, ethnically homogeneous, State, is always going to be more stable than one with a hostile ethnic minority.
I think the Putinist Russian and Israeli religious right have (what they see as) a solution to a potentially hostile ethnic minority.
Specially for TSE - world's most noticeable footwear.
I’ve made Die Work Wear’s enemies list.
I am guilty of the latter two including the triple felony) although I would say I am showing support for Ukraine.
Some of the crimes I've seen in Washington DC:
— Beige sweater with beige chinos — Jacket sleeve tag left on — Tan shoes with navy suits — Giant Windsor knots (triple felony with the metal sports watch paired with dark suit and French cuffs)
The Windsor knot is the invention of the nazi sympathising royal, so I am surprised at you. It also looks awful.
One thing that really pisses me off is dental floss thin ties and people who don’t wear ties properly, my use of the Windsor knot is the fight back against those outrages.
US and Russia ‘plan West Bank-style occupation of Ukraine’
Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff is said to support proposal revealed before president meets Putin in Alaska on Friday
Russia and the United States have discussed Israel’s occupation of the West Bank as a model for ending the war in Ukraine, The Times has been told.
Under this scenario Russia would have military and economic control of occupied Ukraine under its own governing body, imitating Israel’s de facto rule of Palestinian territory seized from Jordan in 1967.
Why would you choose one of the least successful precedents and think that people wouldn't notice?
There was an article a few weeks ago which said the American religious right view Israel as the model state for expanding state borders.
It all seems to be shaping up to force Ukraine to either accept a terrible peace, or to reject it, and be blamed for continuing the war - and therefore responsible for everything Russia does to them, while the US punishes them by blocking support.
Yup, my contempt for the Trump enablers/defenders is off the scale.
I was reading Peter Hitchens' Blog, where he was having a whinge that people brand him as a pro-Russian pro-Putin stooge.
Just before he went on to repeat a succession of Pro-Russian, Pro-Putin talking points.
Holidays always seem to throw up weird polls. I presume it becomes unbelievably hard to contact people willing to spend their vacation time or having to deal with the rugrats being off school filling in polls.
US and Russia ‘plan West Bank-style occupation of Ukraine’
Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff is said to support proposal revealed before president meets Putin in Alaska on Friday
Russia and the United States have discussed Israel’s occupation of the West Bank as a model for ending the war in Ukraine, The Times has been told.
Under this scenario Russia would have military and economic control of occupied Ukraine under its own governing body, imitating Israel’s de facto rule of Palestinian territory seized from Jordan in 1967.
Why would you choose one of the least successful precedents and think that people wouldn't notice?
There was an article a few weeks ago which said the American religious right view Israel as the model state for expanding state borders.
What the Russians and the Israeli religious right have in common is their belief that land-grabbing, for its own sake, is intelligent. Whereas a smaller, ethnically homogeneous, State, is always going to be more stable than one with a hostile ethnic minority.
That recent game on X which was who said it ‘The Nazis about the Jews’ or ‘The Israelis about the Palestinians’ was quite the eye opener.
VAT on schools: 1) It will cost the state more money than it raises 2) Most people don't care because they see this as fair 3) Schools are using VAT to cover all number of things
I can understand the frustration of parents affected - it is unfair. Then again there are so many things which are egregiously unfair and this isn't anywhere near the top of the unfairness chart. Carers losing their entire allowance for going £1 over the earnings cap? More unfair. And there's stacks of examples of things done by merciless ministers to make the lives of the poor and sick practically unliveable which are more unfair.
This explains point 2 above.
Process State meets populist policy.
Sure! But for many of the people in point 2, they here the people complaining and consider that they largely are the people who support all of the egregious merciless stuff which hurts people at an existential level.
Sam Freedman (yes I know) was good on that in his piece on the anti-VAT campaign;
The TLDR is that campaigns against government policy work best when you have a back channel negotiation to come up with a mutually-acceptable deal. The Independent Schools Council went straight for berating the policy in the press, and only that, which was never going to work.
Yes, VAT on school fees is another version of "Do it to Julia"; accept that there needs to be pain to balance the books, but that pain should be experienced by other people. A lot of the anger was because people used to getting their way didn't.
(And whilst there will be some blowback from this policy, it will need a massive exodus to be a net negative for the government. There is no sign of that right now. In large part because British private schools are mostly fishing in the global elite market, which isn't very price-sensitive. Hard on those who have gone from just about affording school fees to not affording them, but they're a minority of a minority.)
Is that true? Would like to see some figures to back that up. My gut is that it’s true for the Public Schools and the London private schools but the vast majority of private schools aren’t them, they are private schools in towns and cities with good local reputations attracting the children of local professionals or they are the only alternative to failing state schools in an area where people decide to make a financial sacrifice to pay for their childrens’ education.
These are the schools that will suffer - the public schools with international or national reputation and big endowments alongside the London private day schools with a big global wealthy community to fill places who would never dream of sending their children off to board will largely be fine.
Excluding international schools, about 5% of private school pupils are non-British with parents living abroad. The largest group are from China (both mainland and Hong Kong).
Another 5% are non-British but with parents who live in Britain.
My old school's proudest boast was that it had students from 70 different countries. It really is a terrible reflection on us all that we have allowed that slimy toad Farage to corrupt us into seeing foreigners as people to be feared
We travelled home from York yesterday and an Indian family were in the seats in front
They consisted of a father and mother, three children aged 8, 4 and a babe in arms, and his 2 sisters
As we approached Colwyn Bay he came next to us to take photos of the lovely coast and I spoke to him and he said he was a taxi driver in Manchester and hadn't been to Llandudno. He was using the train as his taxi was limited to 5
I said he should really enjoy our home town and pointed out lots of things he could do with his family
They were impeccably dressed and polite and each tooks turns to look after the baby
The vast majority welcome everyone to our Country, but it is also something the left seem to overlook that like our wonderful Indian family the vast majority contribute enormousy, but it is not helping to suggest that anyone who objects to the boats, asylum hotels, and some crimes comitted by those arriving to our shores are rascists
The only way to assauge Farage is to stop the boats, control immigation and deal firmly with those committing crimes
Since Starmer took office, total immigration is down a lot, deportations are up, and deportations of foreign criminals are up. However, boat numbers are up.
I would suggest that the problem is at least as much those on the radical right who object to all immigrants (or all Muslims, etc.). There are several regulars here who voice such views.
The country is bust, it needs proper control of immigration and anyone who does come needs to look after themselves till they have paid a minimum of 5 or 10 years taxes etc. Should be no free housing or benefits for anyone who arrives or wants to arrive regardless of method.
What about the likes of Sandpit or my son who want to bring long-standing wives here, and who are prepared (not sure whether Sandpit is) catch up NIC?
No issue if they are not getting benefits etc and spouse who is taxpayer is supporting them. As it is now , people are let in , then have no means to support and start bringing in droves of family. Perception also is that asylum seekers ( illegal immigrants ) are also getting first calss service whilst local people get chhased , cannot get doctors , houses , etc. Whole benefits scheme is needing serious overhaul, people should not be able to make a career of being unemployed. everything is far to lax and most seems to just be online nowadays.
It's not just perception Malc, it's actually happening. These 4* asylum hotels have doctors, nurses and dentists on site, they get free gym memberships, they can refuse to leave the hotel and beat the government in court.
Asylum seekers and illegals need to be moved into camps with very high fences, basic conditions in tents. It sounds harsh but our generosity has run out, the nation is going bankrupt and we're spending billions on welfare for non-citizens while millions of citizens live in poverty or are unable to get access to basic healthcare. It's fundamentally and morally wrong that we're looking after strangers rather than our own families.
As we saw from the discussion here last night there are many people happy to be generous with others money to make themselves feel good.
There are also many people happy to lie through their teeth and repeat nonsense like referring to asylum accommodation as "4*".
Lol, you keep explaining to the public that "it's not actually 4* hotels because they closed the swimming pool and sauna" and see how far you get. I hope Labour put it on the side of a bus and add 5% to Reform overnight.
Firstly the hotel must have a clearly designated reception area. Additionally it must have a minimum of five bedrooms available for rent. Furthermore, all of theses rooms must come with en suite bathrooms. As from the moment of registration the guest must have 24 hour access to the hotel without the need of a key. And the owner or staff is at minimum available via call for residents throughout day / night. The restaurant must be open a minimum of 6 days a week, serving bar snacks, breakfast or more. Hotels which do not offer dinner must be located in the vicinity of restaurants which do.
Furthermore, the hotel should have a liquor license and an area where beverages can be served. Room service must be available with a minimum of hot and cold drinks and light snacks (e.g. sandwiches) during daytime and evening. The hotel has the option to provide on request only, without having to promote its menu. Phone service available in-room as well as WiFi in all public areas. All areas of operation should meet the Three Star level of quality for cleanliness, maintenance and hospitality, and for the quality of physical facilities and delivery of services.
They ain't getting room service, so, no, not even 3*.
Well, most people never use room service, not if they're paying for it themselves.
If the hotel was formerly 4* but downgraded due to the lack of sauna, gym etc, it will still be furnished to 4* standard
The hotels being used are mostly run down dumps in third rate towns like Epping and Paisley. Hotels that were new in the 1960s and 70s with no major upgrades since. The ones that have lost their market to better offerings like Premier Inn. If the owners can get £150 per night for their rooms they will make more profit from keeping them as hotels. If they are struggling to fill their rooms for £80 per night and need to spend money upgrading them to current standards, they will be happy to take a guaranteed income from the Home Office. But, racists gotta lie. It’s what they do.
Yes, it's basic accommodation. It's a language issue, I think. "Hotel" links naturally to words like "luxury" and "holiday". So people get the wrong end of the stick. You get the opposite effect with "camp". That links to words like "concentration" and "boot". Unpleasant connotations. If the asylum hotels were simply to be rebadged as camps it'd be good-hearted people on the Left up in arms whilst the raging Right would be mollified. Just to head off the obvious objection to this theory, I know that "camp" and "holiday" can also go together as in Hi-de-Hi type holiday camps. However they are not viewed as particularly pleasant environments.
Specially for TSE - world's most noticeable footwear.
I’ve made Die Work Wear’s enemies list.
I am guilty of the latter two including the triple felony) although I would say I am showing support for Ukraine.
Some of the crimes I've seen in Washington DC:
— Beige sweater with beige chinos — Jacket sleeve tag left on — Tan shoes with navy suits — Giant Windsor knots (triple felony with the metal sports watch paired with dark suit and French cuffs)
The Windsor knot is the invention of the nazi sympathising royal, so I am surprised at you. It also looks awful.
One thing that really pisses me off is dental floss thin ties and people who don’t wear ties properly, my use of the Windsor knot is the fight back against those outrages.
Those are very nice tan shoes. I'm guessing Crockett & Jones, or Loakes?
Specially for TSE - world's most noticeable footwear.
I’ve made Die Work Wear’s enemies list.
I am guilty of the latter two including the triple felony) although I would say I am showing support for Ukraine.
Some of the crimes I've seen in Washington DC:
— Beige sweater with beige chinos — Jacket sleeve tag left on — Tan shoes with navy suits — Giant Windsor knots (triple felony with the metal sports watch paired with dark suit and French cuffs)
The Windsor knot is the invention of the nazi sympathising royal, so I am surprised at you. It also looks awful.
One thing that really pisses me off is dental floss thin ties and people who don’t wear ties properly, my use of the Windsor knot is the fight back against those outrages.
Those are very nice tan shoes. I'm guessing Crockett & Jones, or Loakes?
They’re not mine, just an example Derek was using.
I have long and wide feet so I don’t wear Oxfords, I do have loafers in that colour.
US and Russia ‘plan West Bank-style occupation of Ukraine’
Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff is said to support proposal revealed before president meets Putin in Alaska on Friday
Russia and the United States have discussed Israel’s occupation of the West Bank as a model for ending the war in Ukraine, The Times has been told.
Under this scenario Russia would have military and economic control of occupied Ukraine under its own governing body, imitating Israel’s de facto rule of Palestinian territory seized from Jordan in 1967.
Why would you choose one of the least successful precedents and think that people wouldn't notice?
There was an article a few weeks ago which said the American religious right view Israel as the model state for expanding state borders.
What the Russians and the Israeli religious right have in common is their belief that land-grabbing, for its own sake, is intelligent. Whereas a smaller, ethnically homogeneous, State, is always going to be more stable than one with a hostile ethnic minority.
That recent game on X which was who said it ‘The Nazis about the Jews’ or ‘The Israelis about the Palestinians’ was quite the eye opener.
Lebensraum at all costs.
And again, the Nazis were so stupid. Germany has difficulty feeding itself, but Germany worked out how to handle that, by using exports of manufactured goods to pay for imports of food. By 1900, Germany was the world's top manufacturer.
The Nazis' response was autarky, cutting back on exports and imports, driving the economy to bankruptcy, and attempting to pay for it all through plundering their neighbours.
Fashion accessories chain Claire's is on the brink of collapse after the retailer said it will appoint administrators in the UK and Ireland, putting 2,150 jobs at risk.
Holidays always seem to throw up weird polls. I presume it becomes unbelievably hard to contact people willing to spend their vacation time or having to deal with the rugrats being off school filling in polls.
Its not at all weird, More in Common have had the Tories on 22 as recently as Mid June and 20 or 21 generally since the May elections with the odd 19 and one 18 last week. So, 16 polls since LE 2025 all in.the 18 to 22 range, and 15 of them 19 to 22. Very consistent. Labour 21 to 25 in the same period Reform 27 to 31 LD 12 to 15 Green 6 to 9 SNP 2 or 3 Plaid 1
Whoa. A SECOND (Syrian) migrant at the Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex, has been charged with sexual assault. Mohammed Sharwarq faces 7 charges of (alleged) assault
This situation is completely out of control. Get these people out of our communities & country @Keir_Starmer"
I see Matt Goodwin doesn’t believe in the rule of law and the presumption of innocence, how very unBritish.
Somebody should start flooding the zone with real time reports of all violent crimes committed by us white Brits. I'm concerned we're being forgotten about in our own country.
I like the sound of that. Let's have licences required to drive a dirt bike on your own land.
And licences before you are allowed to be called Rod.
And a license before you are allowed to get a license.
Given the problems which Mrs C had on getting a Government Gateway account and then a taxpayers' account before she could prove she existed and deal with the tax she had paid for decades, there's a bit more truth to the latter than one might think.
I was only semi-joking. The Process State Processes.
TBF the problem turned out to be a punctuation in the address combined with a muddle with another taxpayer, so it got sorted out in the end ...
"Machete pulled on shadow home secretary at Calais migrant camp Chris Philp reveals he was confronted by man brandishing weapon before having glass bottles thrown at him"
Specially for TSE - world's most noticeable footwear.
I’ve made Die Work Wear’s enemies list.
I am guilty of the latter two including the triple felony) although I would say I am showing support for Ukraine.
Some of the crimes I've seen in Washington DC:
— Beige sweater with beige chinos — Jacket sleeve tag left on — Tan shoes with navy suits — Giant Windsor knots (triple felony with the metal sports watch paired with dark suit and French cuffs)
The Windsor knot is the invention of the nazi sympathising royal, so I am surprised at you. It also looks awful.
One thing that really pisses me off is dental floss thin ties and people who don’t wear ties properly, my use of the Windsor knot is the fight back against those outrages.
The Windsor is also displayed by the imbecile Hegseth.
Given it's the mark of the bounder, the taste deficient, and the fool, I can only assume you're the rare exception that proves the rule.
Specially for TSE - world's most noticeable footwear.
I’ve made Die Work Wear’s enemies list.
I am guilty of the latter two including the triple felony) although I would say I am showing support for Ukraine.
Some of the crimes I've seen in Washington DC:
— Beige sweater with beige chinos — Jacket sleeve tag left on — Tan shoes with navy suits — Giant Windsor knots (triple felony with the metal sports watch paired with dark suit and French cuffs)
The Windsor knot is the invention of the nazi sympathising royal, so I am surprised at you. It also looks awful.
One thing that really pisses me off is dental floss thin ties and people who don’t wear ties properly, my use of the Windsor knot is the fight back against those outrages.
Those are very nice tan shoes. I'm guessing Crockett & Jones, or Loakes?
Thick knots in ties, and pencil thin ties, are both tremendously Non U.
Ditto tan shoes with bright blue suits (or, indeed, anything other than black shoes with dark suits).
Fashion accessories chain Claire's is on the brink of collapse after the retailer said it will appoint administrators in the UK and Ireland, putting 2,150 jobs at risk.
"Machete pulled on shadow home secretary at Calais migrant camp Chris Philp reveals he was confronted by man brandishing weapon before having glass bottles thrown at him"
Comments
The Government are very clearly aware that there is an "ABSOLUTE MASSIVE PR PROBLEM created by using hotels as temporary accommodation" and are doing their best to reduce numbers in hotels to 0. The number has roughly halved since Labour came to power.
However, these people exist and can't just be magically disappeared. Alternatives bring other problems (costs, local objections). So the process of reducing numbers takes time.
The only thing utterly baffling is your belief that the Government is not aware that there is a problem.
They were told the main dealer has 8 mechanics but only 1 is working this week
The main dealer said they had not got the parts and but for his breakdown cover they would have been in a terrible predicament
Also why across Europe are countries looking at Rwanda schemes to address their problems and even changes to the ECHR
Also look at Ireland for its unrest
Using Brexit is lazy and irrelevant
If the hotel was formerly 4* but downgraded due to the lack of sauna, gym etc, it will still be furnished to 4* standard
Anything up to a million troops engaged.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Shanghai
...the first of the twenty-two major engagements fought between the National Revolutionary Army (NRA) of the Republic of China (ROC) and the Imperial Japanese Army (IJA) of the Empire of Japan at the beginning of the Second Sino-Japanese War. The Japanese eventually prevailed after over three months of extensive fighting on land, in the air and at sea. Both sides accused each other of using chemical weapons during the battle, with Japanese forces confirmed to have illegally deployed poison gas at least thirteen times. Historian Peter Harmsen stated that the battle "presaged urban combat as it was to be waged not just during the Second World War, but throughout the remainder of the twentieth century" and that it "signalled the totality of modern urban warfare". It was the single largest urban battle prior to the Battle of Stalingrad, which occurred almost 5 years later..
Ragged said, “You couldn’t make this up, I have just had the police in the shop only to be informed that the signs on my cabinets could be seen as provocative and offensive and they advised me to re word them”
https://wrexham.com/news/police-advised-scumbag-shoplifters-sign-was-provocative-and-offensive-claims-shop-owner-273943.html
And "reword the sign" got morphed to take the sign down and not just the Telegraph, every media outlet covered it. I bet what happened was various journalists are just ctrl-F for shoplifting stories.
I always bring up the FT story on the government will spend £10bn on equipment during COVID. Where somebody at the FT did a ctrl-F on all government tender documents and added up the numbers. Within a couple of days that was a "fact". When in fact, these documents were saying things we need this bits of kit over the next 5-10 years ...especially in the light of COVID blah blah blah.... and so putting out to tender this bit of kit i.e. it was just waffle people put in as an added justification for something they were already going to put out to tender.
How to fix that?
e.g. the infamous Bell Hotel in Epping has not been open to the public for a while. Do we still class that as a hotel? If the government agrees a long term lease for the use of the hotel, ceases the ability for the it to take public bookings for say the next 2 years, is that now no longer a hotel? I bet under the government definition it is no longer a hotel, despite all the public pointing at the building and saying look they are staying at the Bell Hotel.
And this is literally what the government said they were going to do as part of their plan to "end hotel usage".
You could say that is good the government are getting the cost down. But people concerned about "migrant hotels" nothing has actually changed in their local environment.
A journalist with some brains would be firing off FOI asking for numbers of "former" hotels that government still rents.
Specially for TSE - world's most noticeable footwear.
*Electoral, I think, but am hazy ...
I like the sound of that. Let's have licences required to drive a dirt bike on your own land.
And licences before you are allowed to be called Rod.
I am guilty of the latter two including the triple felony) although I would say I am showing support for Ukraine.
Some of the crimes I've seen in Washington DC:
— Beige sweater with beige chinos
— Jacket sleeve tag left on
— Tan shoes with navy suits
— Giant Windsor knots (triple felony with the metal sports watch paired with dark suit and French cuffs)
https://x.com/dieworkwear/status/1954982190703579178?s=61&t=c6bcp0cjChLfQN5Tc8A_6g
In August, Paris experiences a significant decrease in population as many residents take their annual vacation. It's estimated that Paris loses around 20% of its population during this month.
(See Richard Tice.)
One might also consider such things as going for a walk ikn the countryside. Massively criminalised by the landowners, only partly rectified today. (Scotland was different - landowners relied more on muscle and barriers than law, so the arguments and history are not the same.)
https://baselayer.co.uk/collections/injinji-toe-socks/products/injinji-womens-mid-weight-trail-run-toe-socks
The Home Office accounts suggest 273 hotels were in use in March 2024 but that number has now fallen by 71.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgeqwv98d55o
And in the UK and the US white politicians and other white people can't even black up, or dress as Native Americans (or "Indianer" as you're still allowed to say here) in public without getting into trouble. Unlike in bastion of free speech Germany.
If you really want a laugh, Google CSU leader Markus Söder dressed (and blacked) up as Mahatma Gandhi. Farage wouldn't be allowed to do that!
1. Increase the proportion of national income spent on the retired to the detriment of everyone and everything else. This is the main part of the status quo.
2. Reduce the number of retired - by increasing the retirement age. This is being done a bit, though only enough to reduce the rate of increase in the number of retired.
3. Reduce the amount spent on each retired person. The triple lock is the reverse of this.
The boring answer is that we should probably do a mixture of all three, but it's tempting to come up with a more radical answer, such as fixing the percentage of GDP spent, and allowing everyone to choose their own balance between how much money each month they receive for their pension vs how late they wait to receive it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgeqwv98d55o has some more data, showing the number in hotels is down and the government has also managed to reduce the average cost per person. This bit seems pertinent:
A senior Home Office source said one of the main factors behind the saving was moving some asylum seekers from hotels into other types of cheaper accommodation.
They said the department had prioritised moving families and children into regular housing so they were not living in hotels for long periods of time.
BBC News understands the majority of people moved out of hotels are now living in local housing, or houses in multiple occupation (HMOs), a type of rented accommodation where at least three individuals share the use of a bathroom and kitchen.
Does that mean we can keep JD Vance out, even though as an official crim he'll fit in better at Trump's White House?
It's a plan ...
That said, I was looking at numbers of asylum seekers, not numbers of hotels. https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/asylum-accommodation-support-use-of-hotels/ gives those.
There was a term in the 1958 wayleave agreement where we had to give them 6 months' notice of our intention to give them 12 months notice to remove their equipment.
In 2 years it had all gone.
Ha ha ha
You seem to believe more than about 0.1% of HMOs are registered.
(Checks with @Luckyguy1983 )
Do you have any actual evidence that the numbers discussed are "spun" because hotels housing asylum seekers have been turned into HMOs housing asylum seekers in significant numbers?
Enroll them all as students, and it is zero Council Tax, however.
Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff is said to support proposal revealed before president meets Putin in Alaska on Friday
Russia and the United States have discussed Israel’s occupation of the West Bank as a model for ending the war in Ukraine, The Times has been told.
Under this scenario Russia would have military and economic control of occupied Ukraine under its own governing body, imitating Israel’s de facto rule of Palestinian territory seized from Jordan in 1967.
https://www.thetimes.com/us/american-politics/article/us-russia-deal-west-bank-occupation-ukraine-wfvnt6v6f
Under this scenario Russia would have military and economic control of occupied Ukraine under its own governing body, imitating Israel’s de facto rule of Palestinian territory seized from Jordan in 1967.
The idea was raised weeks ago in discussions between Steve Witkoff, President Trump’s peace envoy, and his Russian counterparts, according to a source close to the US national security council.
Witkoff, who is also tasked by Trump with bringing peace to the Middle East, is understood to support the idea, which the Americans believe circumvents barriers in the Ukrainian constitution to ceding territory without holding an “all-Ukraine” referendum.
https://www.thetimes.com/us/american-politics/article/us-russia-deal-west-bank-occupation-ukraine-wfvnt6v6f?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1755093882
(However, "Individuals who arrived in the UK through the Ukraine schemes (the Ukraine Family Scheme, the Homes for Ukraine Sponsorship Scheme or the Ukraine Extension Scheme) are normally eligible for student loans and home fee status.")
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p038bnck/player
So £1200 / room with 3-4 people in that, no that isn't massively expensive, not when we are spending these eye watering sums already, and if it allows you to do a long term lease deal where you aren't paying the £160 / night / per person anymore.
@GoodwinMJ
Whoa. A SECOND (Syrian) migrant at the Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex, has been charged with sexual assault. Mohammed Sharwarq faces 7 charges of (alleged) assault
This situation is completely out of control. Get these people out of our communities & country
@Keir_Starmer"
https://x.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1955634685008331223
It also looks awful.
@ElectionMapsUK
Westminster Voting Intention:
RFM: 30% (-1)
CON: 22% (+4)
LAB: 22% (=)
LDM: 13% (-1)
GRN: 6% (-1)
SNP: 2% (-1)
Via @Moreincommon, 8-11 Aug"
https://x.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1955633517930676660
(If you though PA were bad...)
Just before he went on to repeat a succession of Pro-Russian, Pro-Putin talking points.
Warning: Abbott is very good indeed. Likable and bright
Lebensraum at all costs.
https://youtu.be/jGb8EKwDkBE?si=3Lqeq3RTIGqTsobo
I have long and wide feet so I don’t wear Oxfords, I do have loafers in that colour.
The Nazis' response was autarky, cutting back on exports and imports, driving the economy to bankruptcy, and attempting to pay for it all through plundering their neighbours.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp8zwdy98k8o
Labour 21 to 25 in the same period
Reform 27 to 31
LD 12 to 15
Green 6 to 9
SNP 2 or 3
Plaid 1
Extremely consistent in fact
Chris Philp reveals he was confronted by man brandishing weapon before having glass bottles thrown at him"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/08/13/chris-philp-machete-calais-migrant-camp
Given it's the mark of the bounder, the taste deficient, and the fool, I can only assume you're the rare exception that proves the rule.
Ditto tan shoes with bright blue suits (or, indeed, anything other than black shoes with dark suits).
NEW THREAD