Considering SKS's mantra of "change" its amusing to compare the first 12 months of Tony Blair versus Sir Keir Starmer, who represented "change" better? BTW not suggesting all these changes are good (indeed some I vehemently oppose as bad) but they're changes.
Blair: Bank of England independence Devolution Northern Ireland peace process House of Lords reform Human Rights Act Minimum wage legislation Increased funding for schools, introduction of literacy and numeracy hours in primary schools. New Deal for the unemployed Student finance reform Referendum on London government Introduction of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) Extra NHS funding and a pledge to reduce waiting lists; introduced the principle of targets and performance management.
Sir Keir Starmer Tax rise on NI Creation of Great British Energy Strategic Defence Review Cut winter fuel allowance then largely reversed the cut Proposed then reversed welfare reform
Where are the changes?
Blair never hammered farmers with a family farms tax
Nor has anyone.
There has never been a Family Farms Tax. As opposed to Tories lying about the reduction of the IHT tax relief on [edit] estates [the probate kind] of owners of agricultural land.
No lies, Labour have deliberately removed the exemption of family farms from IHT to destroy many family farms and see them being sold for development or taken over by solar panels
I do find it funny that some people who complain the most about immigration are the people who seem most keen to move to other countries.
I haven't seen anyone speak against skilled legal immigration, only illegal immigration and mass unskilled immigration. Indeed, I'm very comfortable for people with earnings above a £55-60k threshold to come here to work.
One hopes no one on PB is planning to illegally migrate to another country...
I expect many UK born and trained doctors aren't, certainly not unless they are offered the jobs first
Foreign doctors aren't being offered those salaries, but again, why not put it up to £80k for doctors? The best part about using salaries is that it can be variable when it needs to be.
I see @MaxPB was telling you all the obvious truth on the prior thread, yet he was predictably ignored or criticised by the PB Centrist Dads
If we want racism and associated unhappiness, in the UK, to go back to the pleasantly low levels of the Noughties - WHICH WE ALL DO - then we need to
1. Bring net migration down to under 100,000. It will hurt, but we now have no choice if we want a stable, prosperous country
2. End asylum as we know it. Stop the boats
3. Start huge deportations, and make sure the Boriswave doesn't get Leave to Remain, so they go home
That's it. If we do that we will return to the relative harmony of Yore. Why? Because British people are not racist. They are some of the most tolerant and accepting people on the planet, it is what we do - Live and Let Live. Don't bother me I won't bother you. We've been like this, in the UK, since Elizabeth the First refused to "make a window into men's souls"
To bring back the tolerant Britain we all knew and loved, we need to be really tough on migration and integration. They are doing exactly this in Denmark, and it is working. We can do it too
If you dispense with the Reform nasty tones then I broadly agree. Why, incidentally, have you become a rabble rouser?
lol
Rabble rouser?! I post on PB, that's it. Are you calling PBers a rabble? And how do I rouse you?
??? You post elsewhere, admittedly under a different name, but you definitely post in other places.
All my Labour friends hate Starmer . Equally they absolutely loathe Farage and Reform .
Labour have managed to alienate everyone . I’m surprised they’re even polling above the Tories in most polls.
My feelings. I loathe what Starmer did to those who understood Israel's genocidal tendancies before he did. He kicked them out of the Party on the most spurious grounds and brought in some hand picked 'Friends of Israel'.
Similar in many ways to Boris and his Brexiteers. By the time the penny dropped they'd both alienated the most principled members of their respective parties.
The only glint of light for Starmer is that his two opponents are worse. Whether that'ill save him is too early to say. Perhaps a sweetener like an offer to 'Rejoin' might do it.?
With a very tight clothes peg it would just about do it for me.
You'll be surprised to hear this, but I agree with you on this point
I've said it before, and so I will say it again. Labour and Starmer are in down-the-toilet territory, now. It's hard to see a way back. Yes it's only been a year but they have no obvious ideas for the future, and any ideas they do have tend to be bad and/or unpopular. And the lack of intellectual heft in the government is distressing. They are all so stupid. The Tories are easily as bad hence the polling for Reform
What can Sir Keir Traitor do to turn this around? It needs to be astonishing and dramatic
The answer is, come out and say "Things are so bad we need to rejoin the EU. I'm calling a referendum for 2027 (or 26 or 28). I will be campaigning whole heartedly for Rejoin"
Imagine the shock. Also, imagine the polling. Suddenly he will be a hero to millions of people like you. Also, if he wins his vote, he will have a legacy to prize, he can retire before the nexrt election (or after) knowing he Did Something. Also, he really believes in this, He was a Second Voter
He can leave all the painful negotiation of entry stuff to a successor and retreat in glory to Highbury Fields
He should do it for the shits and gigs, if nothing else
I do find it funny that some people who complain the most about immigration are the people who seem most keen to move to other countries.
I haven't seen anyone speak against skilled legal immigration, only illegal immigration and mass unskilled immigration. Indeed, I'm very comfortable for people with earnings above a £55-60k threshold to come here to work.
One hopes no one on PB is planning to illegally migrate to another country...
Here's the thing, though.
The most successful countries in the world - Singapore and Switzerland - are the ones that actually have some of the highest proportions of unskilled immigration. They do such a good job educating their kids to have skills, the people they need are the ones to do the shitty jobs.
Shouldn't that be our goal, rather than importing wealthy foreigners so that Brits can clean their toilets?
DSIT confirmed to Guido in response to an FoI request that “the department uses Zscaler, which provides a suite of secure access services including VPN functionality.” That’s part of a £2.17 million contract.
DSIT confirmed to Guido in response to an FoI request that “the department uses Zscaler, which provides a suite of secure access services including VPN functionality.” That’s part of a £2.17 million contract.
Why is Peter Kyle putting NordVPN on his expenses? His excuse was he needed a VPN to keep him secure for work.
Because I am guessing it was for his role as an MP and not as as a minister.
If I recall ministers cannot use government stuff for constituency work (with some exceptions such as Foreign/Defence/Norn Iron ministers.)
Fair enough...although we have seen consistently how government minister don't seem to distinguish i.e. they all appear to use the same phone for government business as for bitching about colleagues.
I will pleasantly surprised if they have total separation of government, MP and personal business across all devices for once.
I do find it funny that some people who complain the most about immigration are the people who seem most keen to move to other countries.
I haven't seen anyone speak against skilled legal immigration, only illegal immigration and mass unskilled immigration. Indeed, I'm very comfortable for people with earnings above a £55-60k threshold to come here to work.
One hopes no one on PB is planning to illegally migrate to another country...
Here's the thing, though.
The most successful countries in the world - Singapore and Switzerland - are the ones that actually have some of the highest proportions of unskilled immigration. They do such a good job educating their kids to have skills, the people they need are the ones to do the shitty jobs.
Shouldn't that be our goal, rather than importing wealthy foreigners so that Brits can clean their toilets?
But what it ends up being us Brits sitting at home on some kind of benefits while the foreigners work delivery jobs.
It's also much, much more difficult to get citizenship in Switzerland and Singapore than it is here or to get benefits. We have 1.8m foreigners who claim universal credit, really that figure should be zero And the number of new citizens we take from the unskilled migrant cohorts should be very low.
If you're looking for hope for Labour, I think mortgage rates might be promising. Slowly creeping down (though that might reverse given inflation), and some people like me will be re-mortgaging onto a lower rate. We're a smaller cohort than previously but a key one, if you loosely assume that renters are left and outright-owners are right.
Interestingly, social renters are also close to 50:50 right:left - Reform voters are significantly overepresented in council housing.
I see @MaxPB was telling you all the obvious truth on the prior thread, yet he was predictably ignored or criticised by the PB Centrist Dads
If we want racism and associated unhappiness, in the UK, to go back to the pleasantly low levels of the Noughties - WHICH WE ALL DO - then we need to
1. Bring net migration down to under 100,000. It will hurt, but we now have no choice if we want a stable, prosperous country
2. End asylum as we know it. Stop the boats
3. Start huge deportations, and make sure the Boriswave doesn't get Leave to Remain, so they go home
That's it. If we do that we will return to the relative harmony of Yore. Why? Because British people are not racist. They are some of the most tolerant and accepting people on the planet, it is what we do - Live and Let Live. Don't bother me I won't bother you. We've been like this, in the UK, since Elizabeth the First refused to "make a window into men's souls"
To bring back the tolerant Britain we all knew and loved, we need to be really tough on migration and integration. They are doing exactly this in Denmark, and it is working. We can do it too
If you dispense with the Reform nasty tones then I broadly agree. Why, incidentally, have you become a rabble rouser?
lol
Rabble rouser?! I post on PB, that's it. Are you calling PBers a rabble? And how do I rouse you?
You seem keen to have things break down. Always the first to the worst conclusion.
Ah
But that's not "rabble rousing". That's my very-easily-bored, bipolar personality - which I have never denied. I always seek the most dramatic explanation or outcome, as it tickles me. And I exaggerate the speed of change, even if I am directionally right (which I often am)
It's a glitch in my brain, a kink in the system. I can't even blame it on booze coz I'm probably WORSE when sober
I have said this before, but I am surprised just how unpopular Labour are. They appeared to have managed to piss everybody off.
I'm not surprised at all. Ruling out NI, VAT, income tax, and corporation tax rises was plainly stupid. It meant that all the incoming government could do is fart around with less effective taxes measures, that would lead to lots of complaints from marginal groups, and raise little money while they are at it.
I honestly think that this approach is one of the single most stupid things I've seen a goverment do in my lifetime.
It doesn't help the Starmer has no charisma and I'd argue less political sense than Sunak.
Labour have some reasonable goals, but they have ruled out using the most effective fiscal tools. They can't lead as nobody is enthused by them or believes them, and they couldn't sell water to a man in a desert dying of thirst.
I still wish them well as God help us but they are the only thing in the way of Reform.
I do find it funny that some people who complain the most about immigration are the people who seem most keen to move to other countries.
I haven't seen anyone speak against skilled legal immigration, only illegal immigration and mass unskilled immigration. Indeed, I'm very comfortable for people with earnings above a £55-60k threshold to come here to work.
One hopes no one on PB is planning to illegally migrate to another country...
Here's the thing, though.
The most successful countries in the world - Singapore and Switzerland - are the ones that actually have some of the highest proportions of unskilled immigration. They do such a good job educating their kids to have skills, the people they need are the ones to do the shitty jobs.
Shouldn't that be our goal, rather than importing wealthy foreigners so that Brits can clean their toilets?
But what it ends up being us Brits sitting at home on some kind of benefits while the foreigners work delivery jobs.
It's also much, much more difficult to get citizenship in Switzerland and Singapore than it is here or to get benefits. We have 1.8m foreigners who claim universal credit, really that figure should be zero And the number of new citizens we take from the unskilled migrant cohorts should be very low.
If you're looking for hope for Labour, I think mortgage rates might be promising. Slowly creeping down (though that might reverse given inflation), and some people like me will be re-mortgaging onto a lower rate. We're a smaller cohort than previously but a key one, if you loosely assume that renters are left and outright-owners are right.
Interestingly, social renters are also close to 50:50 right:left - Reform voters are significantly overepresented in council housing.
Most people are remortgaging to much higher rates though and Labour's jobs tax has put off at least two rate cuts this year so that proportion of people going to lower rate mortgages is much lower than it would otherwise have been.
Mortgage rates aren't going to save Labour, they might have if interest rates dropped to 3% this year as they would have done under the Tories with 2% inflation but millions of people are going to renew at way higher than they currently have.
I see @MaxPB was telling you all the obvious truth on the prior thread, yet he was predictably ignored or criticised by the PB Centrist Dads
If we want racism and associated unhappiness, in the UK, to go back to the pleasantly low levels of the Noughties - WHICH WE ALL DO - then we need to
1. Bring net migration down to under 100,000. It will hurt, but we now have no choice if we want a stable, prosperous country
2. End asylum as we know it. Stop the boats
3. Start huge deportations, and make sure the Boriswave doesn't get Leave to Remain, so they go home
That's it. If we do that we will return to the relative harmony of Yore. Why? Because British people are not racist. They are some of the most tolerant and accepting people on the planet, it is what we do - Live and Let Live. Don't bother me I won't bother you. We've been like this, in the UK, since Elizabeth the First refused to "make a window into men's souls"
To bring back the tolerant Britain we all knew and loved, we need to be really tough on migration and integration. They are doing exactly this in Denmark, and it is working. We can do it too
If you dispense with the Reform nasty tones then I broadly agree. Why, incidentally, have you become a rabble rouser?
lol
Rabble rouser?! I post on PB, that's it. Are you calling PBers a rabble? And how do I rouse you?
You seem keen to have things break down. Always the first to the worst conclusion.
Ah
But that's not "rabble rousing". That's my very-easily-bored, bipolar personality - which I have never denied. I always seek the most dramatic explanation or outcome, as it tickles me. And I exaggerate the speed of change, even if I am directionally right (which I often am)
It's a glitch in my brain, a kink in the system. I can't even blame it on booze coz I'm probably WORSE when sober
Well, fair enough. At least you admit to rabble rousing
I do find it funny that some people who complain the most about immigration are the people who seem most keen to move to other countries.
I haven't seen anyone speak against skilled legal immigration, only illegal immigration and mass unskilled immigration. Indeed, I'm very comfortable for people with earnings above a £55-60k threshold to come here to work.
One hopes no one on PB is planning to illegally migrate to another country...
Here's the thing, though.
The most successful countries in the world - Singapore and Switzerland - are the ones that actually have some of the highest proportions of unskilled immigration. They do such a good job educating their kids to have skills, the people they need are the ones to do the shitty jobs.
Shouldn't that be our goal, rather than importing wealthy foreigners so that Brits can clean their toilets?
But what it ends up being us Brits sitting at home on some kind of benefits while the foreigners work delivery jobs.
It's also much, much more difficult to get citizenship in Switzerland and Singapore than it is here or to get benefits. We have 1.8m foreigners who claim universal credit, really that figure should be zero And the number of new citizens we take from the unskilled migrant cohorts should be very low.
Well, why don't we do something about that?
Well I think the country is going to vote Reform in 2029 and give them a majority because the last few governments didn't do anything about it.
Burnham was a very poor minister (as was Khan), that is how he ended up as Mayor of the North. There is a huge difference between a Mayor of a city and being PM, as Boris found out.
Burnham was a very poor minister (as was Khan), that is how he ended up as Mayor of the North. There is a huge difference between a Mayor of a city and being PM, as Boris found out.
I do find it funny that some people who complain the most about immigration are the people who seem most keen to move to other countries.
I haven't seen anyone speak against skilled legal immigration, only illegal immigration and mass unskilled immigration. Indeed, I'm very comfortable for people with earnings above a £55-60k threshold to come here to work.
One hopes no one on PB is planning to illegally migrate to another country...
Here's the thing, though.
The most successful countries in the world - Singapore and Switzerland - are the ones that actually have some of the highest proportions of unskilled immigration. They do such a good job educating their kids to have skills, the people they need are the ones to do the shitty jobs.
Shouldn't that be our goal, rather than importing wealthy foreigners so that Brits can clean their toilets?
Legacy of 1066. Britons think it's a good thing to import a ruling class.
I do find it funny that some people who complain the most about immigration are the people who seem most keen to move to other countries.
I haven't seen anyone speak against skilled legal immigration, only illegal immigration and mass unskilled immigration. Indeed, I'm very comfortable for people with earnings above a £55-60k threshold to come here to work.
One hopes no one on PB is planning to illegally migrate to another country...
Here's the thing, though.
The most successful countries in the world - Singapore and Switzerland - are the ones that actually have some of the highest proportions of unskilled immigration. They do such a good job educating their kids to have skills, the people they need are the ones to do the shitty jobs.
Shouldn't that be our goal, rather than importing wealthy foreigners so that Brits can clean their toilets?
But what it ends up being us Brits sitting at home on some kind of benefits while the foreigners work delivery jobs.
It's also much, much more difficult to get citizenship in Switzerland and Singapore than it is here or to get benefits. We have 1.8m foreigners who claim universal credit, really that figure should be zero And the number of new citizens we take from the unskilled migrant cohorts should be very low.
Well, why don't we do something about that?
Well I think the country is going to vote Reform in 2029 and give them a majority because the last few governments didn't do anything about it.
Clamping down on immigration, without dealing with the reason why we have demand for low skilled immigrant labour is attempting to treat the symptoms not the cause. It is profoundly unserious.
Burnham was a very poor minister (as was Khan), that is how he ended up as Mayor of the North. There is a huge difference between a Mayor of a city and being PM, as Boris found out.
But Johnson was bad at both jobs.
Was he? He got comfortably re-elected, crime was down, etc, in a city that leans heavily against the Tories. I think he did a pretty good job of cheerleading for London, getting business investment etc, while is team of minions handled boring day to day stuff. That was probably actually the ideal role for him, go around giving the classic Boris speeches, glad hand loads of people, while still plenty of time for some "extra circulars" away from too much media spotlight and where he wasn't asked to make huge decisions on a daily basis.
But running the country you can't operate like that and the media don't let you get away with it. You are expected to be "on" 24/7, require constantly being fed information where people are waiting on your decision that will have huge consequences, etc.
If you're looking for hope for Labour, I think mortgage rates might be promising. Slowly creeping down (though that might reverse given inflation), and some people like me will be re-mortgaging onto a lower rate. We're a smaller cohort than previously but a key one, if you loosely assume that renters are left and outright-owners are right.
Interestingly, social renters are also close to 50:50 right:left - Reform voters are significantly overepresented in council housing.
Most people are remortgaging to much higher rates though and Labour's jobs tax has put off at least two rate cuts this year so that proportion of people going to lower rate mortgages is much lower than it would otherwise have been.
Mortgage rates aren't going to save Labour, they might have if interest rates dropped to 3% this year as they would have done under the Tories with 2% inflation but millions of people are going to renew at way higher than they currently have.
I don't think people consider counterfactuals, just the interest rate they are offered. And do we have any stats on how long people fix, and how many people are remortgaging? This is the second time since 2022 for me.
The mini-budget was and continues to be devastating for the Conservatives and so the expectation management for Labour is pretty positive I think. If they are below 5% they'll be fine.
I do find it funny that some people who complain the most about immigration are the people who seem most keen to move to other countries.
I haven't seen anyone speak against skilled legal immigration, only illegal immigration and mass unskilled immigration. Indeed, I'm very comfortable for people with earnings above a £55-60k threshold to come here to work.
One hopes no one on PB is planning to illegally migrate to another country...
Here's the thing, though.
The most successful countries in the world - Singapore and Switzerland - are the ones that actually have some of the highest proportions of unskilled immigration. They do such a good job educating their kids to have skills, the people they need are the ones to do the shitty jobs.
Shouldn't that be our goal, rather than importing wealthy foreigners so that Brits can clean their toilets?
But what it ends up being us Brits sitting at home on some kind of benefits while the foreigners work delivery jobs.
It's also much, much more difficult to get citizenship in Switzerland and Singapore than it is here or to get benefits. We have 1.8m foreigners who claim universal credit, really that figure should be zero And the number of new citizens we take from the unskilled migrant cohorts should be very low.
Well, why don't we do something about that?
Well I think the country is going to vote Reform in 2029 and give them a majority because the last few governments didn't do anything about it.
All my Labour friends hate Starmer . Equally they absolutely loathe Farage and Reform .
Labour have managed to alienate everyone . I’m surprised they’re even polling above the Tories in most polls.
My feelings. I loathe what Starmer did to those who understood Israel's genocidal tendancies before he did. He kicked them out of the Party on the most spurious grounds and brought in some hand picked 'Friends of Israel'.
Similar in many ways to Boris and his Brexiteers. By the time the penny dropped they'd both alienated the most principled members of their respective parties.
The only glint of light for Starmer is that his two opponents are worse. Whether that'ill save him is too early to say. Perhaps a sweetener like an offer to 'Rejoin' might do it.?
With a very tight clothes peg it would just about do it for me.
You'll be surprised to hear this, but I agree with you on this point
I've said it before, and so I will say it again. Labour and Starmer are in down-the-toilet territory, now. It's hard to see a way back. Yes it's only been a year but they have no obvious ideas for the future, and any ideas they do have tend to be bad and/or unpopular. And the lack of intellectual heft in the government is distressing. They are all so stupid. The Tories are easily as bad hence the polling for Reform
What can Sir Keir Traitor do to turn this around? It needs to be astonishing and dramatic
The answer is, come out and say "Things are so bad we need to rejoin the EU. I'm calling a referendum for 2027 (or 26 or 28). I will be campaigning whole heartedly for Rejoin"
Imagine the shock. Also, imagine the polling. Suddenly he will be a hero to millions of people like you. Also, if he wins his vote, he will have a legacy to prize, he can retire before the nexrt election (or after) knowing he Did Something. Also, he really believes in this, He was a Second Voter
He can leave all the painful negotiation of entry stuff to a successor and retreat in glory to Highbury Fields
He should do it for the shits and gigs, if nothing else
All our politicians are so awful, the only thing to do is to outsource the UK's leadership to other country's politicians. But outsourcing to the EU would be very expensive. Why not outsource to Russia's Putin?
I do find it funny that some people who complain the most about immigration are the people who seem most keen to move to other countries.
I haven't seen anyone speak against skilled legal immigration, only illegal immigration and mass unskilled immigration. Indeed, I'm very comfortable for people with earnings above a £55-60k threshold to come here to work.
One hopes no one on PB is planning to illegally migrate to another country...
Here's the thing, though.
The most successful countries in the world - Singapore and Switzerland - are the ones that actually have some of the highest proportions of unskilled immigration. They do such a good job educating their kids to have skills, the people they need are the ones to do the shitty jobs.
Shouldn't that be our goal, rather than importing wealthy foreigners so that Brits can clean their toilets?
Much smaller countries though, on landmass and population than the UK.
Plenty of wealthy foreigners based in Singapore and Switzerland as well due to the low tax regime and we still have a long way to go before we get the likes of Stoke and Burnley and Merthyr residents with the same level of educational qualifications as those in Singapore and Switzerland
I do find it funny that some people who complain the most about immigration are the people who seem most keen to move to other countries.
I haven't seen anyone speak against skilled legal immigration, only illegal immigration and mass unskilled immigration. Indeed, I'm very comfortable for people with earnings above a £55-60k threshold to come here to work.
One hopes no one on PB is planning to illegally migrate to another country...
Here's the thing, though.
The most successful countries in the world - Singapore and Switzerland - are the ones that actually have some of the highest proportions of unskilled immigration. They do such a good job educating their kids to have skills, the people they need are the ones to do the shitty jobs.
Shouldn't that be our goal, rather than importing wealthy foreigners so that Brits can clean their toilets?
Your important statement is buried in the middle. It should read: The most successful countries in the world - Singapore and Switzerland - are the ones that do such a good job educating their kids to have skills.
I do find it funny that some people who complain the most about immigration are the people who seem most keen to move to other countries.
I haven't seen anyone speak against skilled legal immigration, only illegal immigration and mass unskilled immigration. Indeed, I'm very comfortable for people with earnings above a £55-60k threshold to come here to work.
One hopes no one on PB is planning to illegally migrate to another country...
Here's the thing, though.
The most successful countries in the world - Singapore and Switzerland - are the ones that actually have some of the highest proportions of unskilled immigration. They do such a good job educating their kids to have skills, the people they need are the ones to do the shitty jobs.
Shouldn't that be our goal, rather than importing wealthy foreigners so that Brits can clean their toilets?
But what it ends up being us Brits sitting at home on some kind of benefits while the foreigners work delivery jobs.
It's also much, much more difficult to get citizenship in Switzerland and Singapore than it is here or to get benefits. We have 1.8m foreigners who claim universal credit, really that figure should be zero And the number of new citizens we take from the unskilled migrant cohorts should be very low.
Well, why don't we do something about that?
Well I think the country is going to vote Reform in 2029 and give them a majority because the last few governments didn't do anything about it.
Clamping down on immigration, without dealing with the reason why we have demand for low skilled immigrant labour is attempting to treat the symptoms not the cause. It is profoundly unserious.
Given there are now more job applicants than vacancies in the UK maybe those causes are declining
All my Labour friends hate Starmer . Equally they absolutely loathe Farage and Reform .
Labour have managed to alienate everyone . I’m surprised they’re even polling above the Tories in most polls.
My feelings. I loathe what Starmer did to those who understood Israel's genocidal tendancies before he did. He kicked them out of the Party on the most spurious grounds and brought in some hand picked 'Friends of Israel'.
Similar in many ways to Boris and his Brexiteers. By the time the penny dropped they'd both alienated the most principled members of their respective parties.
The only glint of light for Starmer is that his two opponents are worse. Whether that'ill save him is too early to say. Perhaps a sweetener like an offer to 'Rejoin' might do it.?
With a very tight clothes peg it would just about do it for me.
You'll be surprised to hear this, but I agree with you on this point
I've said it before, and so I will say it again. Labour and Starmer are in down-the-toilet territory, now. It's hard to see a way back. Yes it's only been a year but they have no obvious ideas for the future, and any ideas they do have tend to be bad and/or unpopular. And the lack of intellectual heft in the government is distressing. They are all so stupid. The Tories are easily as bad hence the polling for Reform
What can Sir Keir Traitor do to turn this around? It needs to be astonishing and dramatic
The answer is, come out and say "Things are so bad we need to rejoin the EU. I'm calling a referendum for 2027 (or 26 or 28). I will be campaigning whole heartedly for Rejoin"
Imagine the shock. Also, imagine the polling. Suddenly he will be a hero to millions of people like you. Also, if he wins his vote, he will have a legacy to prize, he can retire before the nexrt election (or after) knowing he Did Something. Also, he really believes in this, He was a Second Voter
He can leave all the painful negotiation of entry stuff to a successor and retreat in glory to Highbury Fields
He should do it for the shits and gigs, if nothing else
Re unpopularity, by coming in without having a plan to do anything, has meant that Labour are governing (in practice and by default) as a slightly right of centre conservative party. This ought to be in the sweet spot of where the country is politically, but isn't working for them for four reasons.
1. A lot of traditional 'Red Wall' Labour support was very right wing (I know this from canvassing in my LD days), but supported them out of habit. Brexit, Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage between them have severed that connection, and they are now with Reform. The populist media is making sure that they stay there. 2. Anyone to the left of, well, me, is alienated because they wanted change and for things to get better after 14 years of the Tories, and Labour have done none of those things. Israel/Palestine doesn't help with this group of people. 3. Ruling as a conservative party doesn't help attract any new support because people who are conservative vote for the Conservative party. They might occasionally think otherwise and can be persuaded in extremis to vote LD but there is a brain/arm/wrist malfunction which means they can never write an X against Labour on a piece of paper. 4. Labour's instincts are centralist and authoritarian so they don't appeal much to people with a liberal viewpoint, who currently might tolerate them as better than the Tories but that's it.
That only leaves them with vaguely centrist floating voters who might support them as being more competent and serious than the Tories (and however uninspiring, they are still that), which might include me in a different constituency. However if they carry on not being much better than the Tories, they lose that group so there is potential for them to go even lower.
The UK's third-largest steelworks has been placed under government control, creating an uncertain future for nearly 1,500 workers in Rotherham and Sheffield
I wouldn't have expected Labour to become quite so unpopular quite so fast (and I don't think the Tories expected it either, given it was too soon for them to benefit as a result).
I guess the public are just increasingly lacking in patience, we demand and expect an awful lot, and if you get off to a bad start you don't get benefit of the doubt.
Good news - arrived in Glasgow and it’s actually sunny not raining.
Bad news - Lufthansa lost our bag.
Now waiting in airport hotel for the next LH flight which will have our bag on it!
No wife for scale, she’s in one of those moods that only copious amounts of Prosecco can fix.
Welcome to Glasgow. We will try to keep the rain away for as long as possible. Are you touring or staying in Glasgow?
Main reason for being here is a family party on Saturday.
Will be mostly touring as the missus has never been to Scotland before. Today’s plan was to go to Edinburgh, but that’s probably getting cancelled now. We’re hoping to go the bottom of Loch Ness, even if we just take the train up, walk around for a bit, and take the train back, because it’s a wonderful journey. Sadly for Wifey we’re got going to be able to go far enough North to see the live haggis. She still thinks I’m joking and they’re not real, despite them being on the menu in the hotel.
Considering SKS's mantra of "change" its amusing to compare the first 12 months of Tony Blair versus Sir Keir Starmer, who represented "change" better? BTW not suggesting all these changes are good (indeed some I vehemently oppose as bad) but they're changes.
Blair: Bank of England independence Devolution Northern Ireland peace process House of Lords reform Human Rights Act Minimum wage legislation Increased funding for schools, introduction of literacy and numeracy hours in primary schools. New Deal for the unemployed Student finance reform Referendum on London government Introduction of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) Extra NHS funding and a pledge to reduce waiting lists; introduced the principle of targets and performance management.
Sir Keir Starmer Tax rise on NI Creation of Great British Energy Strategic Defence Review Cut winter fuel allowance then largely reversed the cut Proposed then reversed welfare reform
Where are the changes?
Blair never hammered farmers with a family farms tax
Nor has anyone.
There has never been a Family Farms Tax. As opposed to Tories lying about the reduction of the IHT tax relief on [edit] estates [the probate kind] of owners of agricultural land.
No lies, Labour have deliberately removed the exemption of family farms from IHT to destroy many family farms and see them being sold for development or taken over by solar panels
No they haven't. They're removed the reduced IHT relief on farmland.
Lots of "family farms" don't own land. Lots of farms aren't operated by families. Lots of agric land isn't farmed by the owner of the land.
Your name is as stupid as claiming there is a Morris Countryman Car Tax. And then that Morris Countrymen are discriminated against.
I have said this before, but I am surprised just how unpopular Labour are.
You can't come in promising change and then deliver the same shoddy, half baked governing as the last lot. If anything they've made things worse, inflation is back up, the economy is slowing down, business investment has cratered, unemployment is up and the border crisis is worse than what the Tories left behind.
There aren't any measures where Labour are doing anything appreciably better than the previous government, therefore they are now just as unpopular. I also think people really, really don't like Starmer. Very few defenders left (mostly on here).
The change they implemented was to increase the worst possible tax to increase, one they said they wouldn't.
Queue people defending it by pretending its only the other half of NI they said they wouldn't increase.
There have been no serious reforms implemented at all. No ideas.
SKS never promised to not increase Employer NI which is why they increased it.
Now it was a very stupid idea especially when attached to a minimum wage increase that was beyond what many companies could afford but given how much Reeves’s tried to avoid breaking the promise she had little choice.
The IFS have repeated called them out on this as having broken their promises. Some of their material they put out just talked about NI in general, not employer vs employee NI.
That’s never going to get traction because the promise was not to increase taxes voters pay.
Yes, they hoped that voters wouldn't notice 4 years of high inflation as companies clawed back their margins but apparently not, given these ratings.
You will note that I’m very consistent in my “ I wouldn’t be doing it that way” viewpoint
And we are witnessing another example this week because I haven’t a clue what the purpose of the current housing story is beyond scaring people into not doing nothing in case they end up in an impossible situation come November’s budget
I believe they are trying the same trick as last time, by using anchoring. Leak all this stuff that makes it sound like daily punishment beatings, the media jump all over it with the most doomster predictions, then when it turns out we only get beaten on weekends, the government spin is things aren't that bad, it could have been worse, but because of how good Rachel from Accounts is that saved us from the worst of it.
It would be understandable if the plan was vaguely sane, but capital gains tax on first homes, no-one is going to downsize because that will crystallize a massive tax bill they don’t want to see let alone pay
The only solution is remove stamp duty and merge it into a new council tax scheme - implemented in a way that makes revaluations simple - no need to scare people there just talk about simplification and abolishing stamp duty so it’s easier to move
Removing stamp duty done right could be a really sensible policy, I always thought it is a really stupid tax for a number of reasons. I fear both the need and instincts of the current government will be they will find a way to make it a massive tax hike with a load of negative consequences.
Except the current kite flying looks to be saying we are keeping stamp duty as the other option (CGT is worse)
Annual property tax, replaces stamp duty and council tax..
Personally I think capital gains should be taxed as income, as I regard the "double taxation" arguments as spurious.
Considering SKS's mantra of "change" its amusing to compare the first 12 months of Tony Blair versus Sir Keir Starmer, who represented "change" better? BTW not suggesting all these changes are good (indeed some I vehemently oppose as bad) but they're changes.
Blair: Bank of England independence Devolution Northern Ireland peace process House of Lords reform Human Rights Act Minimum wage legislation Increased funding for schools, introduction of literacy and numeracy hours in primary schools. New Deal for the unemployed Student finance reform Referendum on London government Introduction of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) Extra NHS funding and a pledge to reduce waiting lists; introduced the principle of targets and performance management.
Sir Keir Starmer Tax rise on NI Creation of Great British Energy Strategic Defence Review Cut winter fuel allowance then largely reversed the cut Proposed then reversed welfare reform
Where are the changes?
Blair never hammered farmers with a family farms tax
Nor has anyone.
There has never been a Family Farms Tax. As opposed to Tories lying about the reduction of the IHT tax relief on [edit] estates [the probate kind] of owners of agricultural land.
No lies, Labour have deliberately removed the exemption of family farms from IHT to destroy many family farms and see them being sold for development or taken over by solar panels
No they haven't. They're removed the reduced IHT relief on farmland.
Lots of "family farms" don't own land. Lots of farms aren't operated by families. Lots of agric land isn't farmed by the owner of the land.
Your name is as stupid as claiming there is a Morris Countryman Car Tax. And then that Morris Countrymen are discriminated against.
Yes they have, that IHT relief is the main reason many family owned farms can be passed on to the next generation.
Most farms in the UK are still owned by one family and have been for generations, this was an ideological act by Labour as farmers don't vote Labour on the whole and to free up land for development and solar panels
Re unpopularity, by coming in without having a plan to do anything, has meant that Labour are governing (in practice and by default) as a slightly right of centre conservative party. This ought to be in the sweet spot of where the country is politically, but isn't working for them for four reasons.
1. A lot of traditional 'Red Wall' Labour support was very right wing (I know this from canvassing in my LD days), but supported them out of habit. Brexit, Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage between them have severed that connection, and they are now with Reform. The populist media is making sure that they stay there. 2. Anyone to the left of, well, me, is alienated because they wanted change and for things to get better after 14 years of the Tories, and Labour have done none of those things. Israel/Palestine doesn't help with this group of people. 3. Ruling as a conservative party doesn't help attract any new support because people who are conservative vote for the Conservative party. They might occasionally think otherwise and can be persuaded in extremis to vote LD but there is a brain/arm/wrist malfunction which means they can never write an X against Labour on a piece of paper. 4. Labour's instincts are centralist and authoritarian so they don't appeal much to people with a liberal viewpoint, who currently might tolerate them as better than the Tories but that's it.
That only leaves them with vaguely centrist floating voters who might support them as being more competent and serious than the Tories (and however uninspiring, they are still that), which might include me in a different constituency. However if they carry on not being much better than the Tories, they lose that group so there is potential for them to go even lower.
In most seats at the moment the alternative to Labour is now Farage's Reform, not the Tories
I have said this before, but I am surprised just how unpopular Labour are.
You can't come in promising change and then deliver the same shoddy, half baked governing as the last lot. If anything they've made things worse, inflation is back up, the economy is slowing down, business investment has cratered, unemployment is up and the border crisis is worse than what the Tories left behind.
There aren't any measures where Labour are doing anything appreciably better than the previous government, therefore they are now just as unpopular. I also think people really, really don't like Starmer. Very few defenders left (mostly on here).
The change they implemented was to increase the worst possible tax to increase, one they said they wouldn't.
Queue people defending it by pretending its only the other half of NI they said they wouldn't increase.
There have been no serious reforms implemented at all. No ideas.
SKS never promised to not increase Employer NI which is why they increased it.
Now it was a very stupid idea especially when attached to a minimum wage increase that was beyond what many companies could afford but given how much Reeves’s tried to avoid breaking the promise she had little choice.
The IFS have repeated called them out on this as having broken their promises. Some of their material they put out just talked about NI in general, not employer vs employee NI.
That’s never going to get traction because the promise was not to increase taxes voters pay.
Yes, they hoped that voters wouldn't notice 4 years of high inflation as companies clawed back their margins but apparently not, given these ratings.
You will note that I’m very consistent in my “ I wouldn’t be doing it that way” viewpoint
And we are witnessing another example this week because I haven’t a clue what the purpose of the current housing story is beyond scaring people into not doing nothing in case they end up in an impossible situation come November’s budget
I believe they are trying the same trick as last time, by using anchoring. Leak all this stuff that makes it sound like daily punishment beatings, the media jump all over it with the most doomster predictions, then when it turns out we only get beaten on weekends, the government spin is things aren't that bad, it could have been worse, but because of how good Rachel from Accounts is that saved us from the worst of it.
It would be understandable if the plan was vaguely sane, but capital gains tax on first homes, no-one is going to downsize because that will crystallize a massive tax bill they don’t want to see let alone pay
The only solution is remove stamp duty and merge it into a new council tax scheme - implemented in a way that makes revaluations simple - no need to scare people there just talk about simplification and abolishing stamp duty so it’s easier to move
Removing stamp duty done right could be a really sensible policy, I always thought it is a really stupid tax for a number of reasons. I fear both the need and instincts of the current government will be they will find a way to make it a massive tax hike with a load of negative consequences.
Except the current kite flying looks to be saying we are keeping stamp duty as the other option (CGT is worse)
Annual property tax, replaces stamp duty and council tax..
Well that's where we should be going - ideally with 2 percentages applied 1 on a national government, another for local government but given the kite flying I'm not seeing it.
Burnham was a very poor minister (as was Khan), that is how he ended up as Mayor of the North. There is a huge difference between a Mayor of a city and being PM, as Boris found out.
But Johnson was bad at both jobs.
Was he? He got comfortably re-elected, crime was down, etc, in a city that leans heavily against the Tories. I think he did a pretty good job of cheerleading for London, getting business investment etc, while is team of minions handled boring day to day stuff. That was probably actually the ideal role for him, go around giving the classic Boris speeches, glad hand loads of people, while still plenty of time for some "extra circulars" away from too much media spotlight and where he wasn't asked to make huge decisions on a daily basis.
But running the country you can't operate like that and the media don't let you get away with it. You are expected to be "on" 24/7, require constantly being fed information where people are waiting on your decision that will have huge consequences, etc.
Not can we get some bank to sponsors some bikes.
Agreed
In retrospect Mayor of London was the ideal political job for him, and he was good at it
It's a shame, because he is highly skilled in many ways, just not the skills to be PM
Good news - arrived in Glasgow and it’s actually sunny not raining.
Bad news - Lufthansa lost our bag.
Now waiting in airport hotel for the next LH flight which will have our bag on it!
No wife for scale, she’s in one of those moods that only copious amounts of Prosecco can fix.
Welcome to Glasgow. We will try to keep the rain away for as long as possible. Are you touring or staying in Glasgow?
Main reason for being here is a family party on Saturday.
Will be mostly touring as the missus has never been to Scotland before. Today’s plan was to go to Edinburgh, but that’s probably getting cancelled now. We’re hoping to go the bottom of Loch Ness, even if we just take the train up, walk around for a bit, and take the train back, because it’s a wonderful journey. Sadly for Wifey we’re got going to be able to go far enough North to see the live haggis. She still thinks I’m joking and they’re not real, despite them being on the menu in the hotel.
If you're at the bottom of Loch Ness the rain won't be a problem. Say hello to the monster for us if you meet it.
An appeals court has thrown out a $500m (£372m) penalty that President Donald Trump was ordered to pay in a New York civil fraud trial last year.
I recall at the time it was expected it would be reduced down quite a bit as apparently that is common, though tossing it out entirely at this point was not. Since the outcome is still fraud (and it was pretty blatant at that) presumably they have to come up with some new, smaller number (or wait for the highest court in the state to do it when it is further appealed)?
Burnham was a very poor minister (as was Khan), that is how he ended up as Mayor of the North. There is a huge difference between a Mayor of a city and being PM, as Boris found out.
But Johnson was bad at both jobs.
Was he? He got comfortably re-elected, crime was down, etc, in a city that leans heavily against the Tories. I think he did a pretty good job of cheerleading for London, getting business investment etc, while is team of minions handled boring day to day stuff. That was probably actually the ideal role for him, go around giving the classic Boris speeches, glad hand loads of people, while still plenty of time for some "extra circulars" away from too much media spotlight and where he wasn't asked to make huge decisions on a daily basis.
But running the country you can't operate like that and the media don't let you get away with it. You are expected to be "on" 24/7, require constantly being fed information where people are waiting on your decision that will have huge consequences, etc.
Not can we get some bank to sponsors some bikes.
Agreed
In retrospect Mayor of London was the ideal political job for him, and he was good at it
It's a shame, because he is highly skilled in many ways, just not the skills to be PM
Being mayor of a major city, especially one like London, feels ideal for someone good at bluff boosterism, and who is unconventional or slightly maverick, either in policy in personal behaviour. London being London you get plenty of profile as well, even if power is not as grand.
Good news - arrived in Glasgow and it’s actually sunny not raining.
Bad news - Lufthansa lost our bag.
Now waiting in airport hotel for the next LH flight which will have our bag on it!
No wife for scale, she’s in one of those moods that only copious amounts of Prosecco can fix.
Welcome to Glasgow. We will try to keep the rain away for as long as possible. Are you touring or staying in Glasgow?
Main reason for being here is a family party on Saturday.
Will be mostly touring as the missus has never been to Scotland before. Today’s plan was to go to Edinburgh, but that’s probably getting cancelled now. We’re hoping to go the bottom of Loch Ness, even if we just take the train up, walk around for a bit, and take the train back, because it’s a wonderful journey. Sadly for Wifey we’re got going to be able to go far enough North to see the live haggis. She still thinks I’m joking and they’re not real, despite them being on the menu in the hotel.
Loch Ness - walking? The loch is some way upstream from Inverness; though the River Ness passes through the city centre. Maybe walk or bike or go on a boat cruise along the Caledonian Canal from the locks basin and lock staircase at Dochfour in west Inverness (and it's worth a walk from there down to the sea entrance lock as well if you are so minded). Last time we were there, admittedly some years back, we stayed at IIRC the Trafford Bank b and b next the locks. Some way out of the centre but the area was blissfully quiet at this time of year.
Serioius engineering on the canal, of course - Telford.
I believe some of the cruises go well into the Loch to e.g. Castle Urquhart.
Burnham was a very poor minister (as was Khan), that is how he ended up as Mayor of the North. There is a huge difference between a Mayor of a city and being PM, as Boris found out.
I still give Burnham massive props for his role in the Hillsborough inquiry, after the day he turned up as Sports Minister at Anfield for the memorial and got booed by 25,000 people. He understood the level of anger and turned it into something positive, which is pretty rare for any of the current generation of politicians.
An appeals court has thrown out a $500m (£372m) penalty that President Donald Trump was ordered to pay in a New York civil fraud trial last year.
I recall at the time it was expected it would be reduced down quite a bit as apparently that is common, though tossing it out entirely at this point was not. Since the outcome is still fraud (and it was pretty blatant at that) presumably they have to come up with some new, smaller number (or wait for the highest court in the state to do it when it is further appealed)?
Of all the dodgy stuff Trump has done, which is far too long to even start to list, this seemed the far less egregious. He overstated the value of his properties to get a loan that he paid back, a practice it appears to be fairly common place tactic at the time amongst property developers and even rich individuals wanting to purchase additional homes. Then the judge then came up with with ridiculous low ball valuation to exaggerate the value of the fraud.
Burnham was a very poor minister (as was Khan), that is how he ended up as Mayor of the North. There is a huge difference between a Mayor of a city and being PM, as Boris found out.
I still give Burnham massive props for his role in the Hillsborough inquiry, after the day he turned up as Sports Minister at Anfield for the memorial and got booed by 25,000 people. He understood the level of anger and turned it into something positive, which is pretty rare for any of the current generation of politicians.
Like Boris being Mayor of London was probably his level, Sports Minister was Burnham's (or as now being a Mayor as well*). They gave him health and he was totally out of his depth.
* although we can think back to COVID and him trying to play Billy Big Bollocks over things and getting in a right mess.
An appeals court has thrown out a $500m (£372m) penalty that President Donald Trump was ordered to pay in a New York civil fraud trial last year.
I recall at the time it was expected it would be reduced down quite a bit as apparently that is common, though tossing it out entirely at this point was not. Since the outcome is still fraud (and it was pretty blatant at that) presumably they have to come up with some new, smaller number (or wait for the highest court in the state to do it when it is further appealed)?
Of all the dodgy stuff Trump has done, which is far too long to even start to list, this seemed the far less egregious. He overstated the value of his properties to get a loan that he paid back, a practice it appears to be fairly common place tactic at the time amongst property developers and even rich individuals wanting to purchase additional homes. Then the judge then came up with with ridiculous low ball valuation to exaggerate the value of the fraud.
Some of those valuations were Trump's, when talking to different people.
But while the value of appropriate damage was obviously overblown it being common doesn't seem to change the fact it was fraudulent. There were so many cases of claiming value based on being able to develop things they knew the could not, whilst pointing to that they could not to other bodies to lower obligations and the like.
My main takeaway from the trial was that his company was run like a basketcase, he has had to be adept at ball juggling for decades to keep it from falling down.
An appeals court has thrown out a $500m (£372m) penalty that President Donald Trump was ordered to pay in a New York civil fraud trial last year.
I recall at the time it was expected it would be reduced down quite a bit as apparently that is common, though tossing it out entirely at this point was not. Since the outcome is still fraud (and it was pretty blatant at that) presumably they have to come up with some new, smaller number (or wait for the highest court in the state to do it when it is further appealed)?
Of all the dodgy stuff Trump has done, which is far too long to even start to list, this seemed the far less egregious. He overstated the value of his properties to get a loan that he paid back, a practice it appears to be fairly common place tactic at the time amongst property developers and even rich individuals wanting to purchase additional homes. Then the judge then came up with with ridiculous low ball valuation to exaggerate the value of the fraud.
An American friend in the UK described this particular charge as similar to using the current market value vs the 1991 council tax valuations for any given property. The banks involved had no problem with either authorising the loan or seeing it paid back.
Good news - arrived in Glasgow and it’s actually sunny not raining.
Bad news - Lufthansa lost our bag.
Now waiting in airport hotel for the next LH flight which will have our bag on it!
No wife for scale, she’s in one of those moods that only copious amounts of Prosecco can fix.
Welcome to Glasgow. We will try to keep the rain away for as long as possible. Are you touring or staying in Glasgow?
Main reason for being here is a family party on Saturday.
Will be mostly touring as the missus has never been to Scotland before. Today’s plan was to go to Edinburgh, but that’s probably getting cancelled now. We’re hoping to go the bottom of Loch Ness, even if we just take the train up, walk around for a bit, and take the train back, because it’s a wonderful journey. Sadly for Wifey we’re got going to be able to go far enough North to see the live haggis. She still thinks I’m joking and they’re not real, despite them being on the menu in the hotel.
PS Unfortunate bit of news the other day: worth being aware of it when walking around (there are other bridges over the river).
An appeals court has thrown out a $500m (£372m) penalty that President Donald Trump was ordered to pay in a New York civil fraud trial last year.
I recall at the time it was expected it would be reduced down quite a bit as apparently that is common, though tossing it out entirely at this point was not. Since the outcome is still fraud (and it was pretty blatant at that) presumably they have to come up with some new, smaller number (or wait for the highest court in the state to do it when it is further appealed)?
Of all the dodgy stuff Trump has done, which is far too long to even start to list, this seemed the far less egregious. He overstated the value of his properties to get a loan that he paid back, a practice it appears to be fairly common place tactic at the time amongst property developers and even rich individuals wanting to purchase additional homes. Then the judge then came up with with ridiculous low ball valuation to exaggerate the value of the fraud.
Some of those valuations were Trump's, when talking to different people.
But while the value of appropriate damage was obviously overblown it being common doesn't seem to change the fact it was fraudulent. There were so many cases of claiming value based on being able to develop things they knew the could not, whilst pointing to that they could not to other bodies to lower obligations and the like.
My main takeaway from the trial was that his company was run like a basketcase, he has had to be adept at ball juggling for decades to keep it from falling down.
I think they were very unwise going for Trump on this, as lots of the public saw it as political, particularly the judgment. If it wasn't Trump and he wasn't going to run for president, most likely not gone for any criminal charges, and worst small fine settlement.
Its not like there isn't mountains of other dodgy stuff he has done over the years to look into.
I do find it funny that some people who complain the most about immigration are the people who seem most keen to move to other countries.
I haven't seen anyone speak against skilled legal immigration, only illegal immigration and mass unskilled immigration. Indeed, I'm very comfortable for people with earnings above a £55-60k threshold to come here to work.
One hopes no one on PB is planning to illegally migrate to another country...
Here's the thing, though.
The most successful countries in the world - Singapore and Switzerland - are the ones that actually have some of the highest proportions of unskilled immigration. They do such a good job educating their kids to have skills, the people they need are the ones to do the shitty jobs.
Shouldn't that be our goal, rather than importing wealthy foreigners so that Brits can clean their toilets?
Much smaller countries though, on landmass and population than the UK.
Plenty of wealthy foreigners based in Singapore and Switzerland as well due to the low tax regime and we still have a long way to go before we get the likes of Stoke and Burnley and Merthyr residents with the same level of educational qualifications as those in Singapore and Switzerland
That's easy enough to solve: we can divide the UK into half a dozen countries. If we're too big to be successful, then let's get smaller.
Considering SKS's mantra of "change" its amusing to compare the first 12 months of Tony Blair versus Sir Keir Starmer, who represented "change" better? BTW not suggesting all these changes are good (indeed some I vehemently oppose as bad) but they're changes.
Blair: Bank of England independence Devolution Northern Ireland peace process House of Lords reform Human Rights Act Minimum wage legislation Increased funding for schools, introduction of literacy and numeracy hours in primary schools. New Deal for the unemployed Student finance reform Referendum on London government Introduction of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) Extra NHS funding and a pledge to reduce waiting lists; introduced the principle of targets and performance management.
Sir Keir Starmer Tax rise on NI Creation of Great British Energy Strategic Defence Review Cut winter fuel allowance then largely reversed the cut Proposed then reversed welfare reform
Where are the changes?
Blair never hammered farmers with a family farms tax
Nor has anyone.
There has never been a Family Farms Tax. As opposed to Tories lying about the reduction of the IHT tax relief on [edit] estates [the probate kind] of owners of agricultural land.
No lies, Labour have deliberately removed the exemption of family farms from IHT to destroy many family farms and see them being sold for development or taken over by solar panels
No they haven't. They're removed the reduced IHT relief on farmland.
Lots of "family farms" don't own land. Lots of farms aren't operated by families. Lots of agric land isn't farmed by the owner of the land.
Your name is as stupid as claiming there is a Morris Countryman Car Tax. And then that Morris Countrymen are discriminated against.
Yes they have, that IHT relief is the main reason many family owned farms can be passed on to the next generation.
Most farms in the UK are still owned by one family and have been for generations, this was an ideological act by Labour as farmers don't vote Labour on the whole and to free up land for development and solar panels
Nothing stopping farmers from passing it on as a gift. The 7 year rule still applies.
Considering SKS's mantra of "change" its amusing to compare the first 12 months of Tony Blair versus Sir Keir Starmer, who represented "change" better? BTW not suggesting all these changes are good (indeed some I vehemently oppose as bad) but they're changes.
Blair: Bank of England independence Devolution Northern Ireland peace process House of Lords reform Human Rights Act Minimum wage legislation Increased funding for schools, introduction of literacy and numeracy hours in primary schools. New Deal for the unemployed Student finance reform Referendum on London government Introduction of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) Extra NHS funding and a pledge to reduce waiting lists; introduced the principle of targets and performance management.
Sir Keir Starmer Tax rise on NI Creation of Great British Energy Strategic Defence Review Cut winter fuel allowance then largely reversed the cut Proposed then reversed welfare reform
Where are the changes?
Blair never hammered farmers with a family farms tax
Nor has anyone.
There has never been a Family Farms Tax. As opposed to Tories lying about the reduction of the IHT tax relief on [edit] estates [the probate kind] of owners of agricultural land.
No lies, Labour have deliberately removed the exemption of family farms from IHT to destroy many family farms and see them being sold for development or taken over by solar panels
No they haven't. They're removed the reduced IHT relief on farmland.
Lots of "family farms" don't own land. Lots of farms aren't operated by families. Lots of agric land isn't farmed by the owner of the land.
Your name is as stupid as claiming there is a Morris Countryman Car Tax. And then that Morris Countrymen are discriminated against.
Yes they have, that IHT relief is the main reason many family owned farms can be passed on to the next generation.
Most farms in the UK are still owned by one family and have been for generations, this was an ideological act by Labour as farmers don't vote Labour on the whole and to free up land for development and solar panels
Nothing stopping farmers from passing it on as a gift. The 7 year rule still applies.
I do find it funny that some people who complain the most about immigration are the people who seem most keen to move to other countries.
I haven't seen anyone speak against skilled legal immigration, only illegal immigration and mass unskilled immigration. Indeed, I'm very comfortable for people with earnings above a £55-60k threshold to come here to work.
One hopes no one on PB is planning to illegally migrate to another country...
Here's the thing, though.
The most successful countries in the world - Singapore and Switzerland - are the ones that actually have some of the highest proportions of unskilled immigration. They do such a good job educating their kids to have skills, the people they need are the ones to do the shitty jobs.
Shouldn't that be our goal, rather than importing wealthy foreigners so that Brits can clean their toilets?
Much smaller countries though, on landmass and population than the UK.
Plenty of wealthy foreigners based in Singapore and Switzerland as well due to the low tax regime and we still have a long way to go before we get the likes of Stoke and Burnley and Merthyr residents with the same level of educational qualifications as those in Singapore and Switzerland
That's easy enough to solve: we can divide the UK into half a dozen countries. If we're too big to be successful, then let's get smaller.
That might be fine for London and the SE and at a push Scotland, it would be even worse for the rest of the UK
Good news - arrived in Glasgow and it’s actually sunny not raining.
Bad news - Lufthansa lost our bag.
Now waiting in airport hotel for the next LH flight which will have our bag on it!
No wife for scale, she’s in one of those moods that only copious amounts of Prosecco can fix.
Welcome to Glasgow. We will try to keep the rain away for as long as possible. Are you touring or staying in Glasgow?
Main reason for being here is a family party on Saturday.
Will be mostly touring as the missus has never been to Scotland before. Today’s plan was to go to Edinburgh, but that’s probably getting cancelled now. We’re hoping to go the bottom of Loch Ness, even if we just take the train up, walk around for a bit, and take the train back, because it’s a wonderful journey. Sadly for Wifey we’re got going to be able to go far enough North to see the live haggis. She still thinks I’m joking and they’re not real, despite them being on the menu in the hotel.
PS Unfortunate bit of news the other day: worth being aware of it when walking around (there are other bridges over the river).
Considering SKS's mantra of "change" its amusing to compare the first 12 months of Tony Blair versus Sir Keir Starmer, who represented "change" better? BTW not suggesting all these changes are good (indeed some I vehemently oppose as bad) but they're changes.
Blair: Bank of England independence Devolution Northern Ireland peace process House of Lords reform Human Rights Act Minimum wage legislation Increased funding for schools, introduction of literacy and numeracy hours in primary schools. New Deal for the unemployed Student finance reform Referendum on London government Introduction of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) Extra NHS funding and a pledge to reduce waiting lists; introduced the principle of targets and performance management.
Sir Keir Starmer Tax rise on NI Creation of Great British Energy Strategic Defence Review Cut winter fuel allowance then largely reversed the cut Proposed then reversed welfare reform
Where are the changes?
Blair never hammered farmers with a family farms tax
Nor has anyone.
There has never been a Family Farms Tax. As opposed to Tories lying about the reduction of the IHT tax relief on [edit] estates [the probate kind] of owners of agricultural land.
No lies, Labour have deliberately removed the exemption of family farms from IHT to destroy many family farms and see them being sold for development or taken over by solar panels
No they haven't. They're removed the reduced IHT relief on farmland.
Lots of "family farms" don't own land. Lots of farms aren't operated by families. Lots of agric land isn't farmed by the owner of the land.
Your name is as stupid as claiming there is a Morris Countryman Car Tax. And then that Morris Countrymen are discriminated against.
Yes they have, that IHT relief is the main reason many family owned farms can be passed on to the next generation.
Most farms in the UK are still owned by one family and have been for generations, this was an ideological act by Labour as farmers don't vote Labour on the whole and to free up land for development and solar panels
Nothing stopping farmers from passing it on as a gift. The 7 year rule still applies.
Which is no help if you survive more than 7 years after the gift
I do find it funny that some people who complain the most about immigration are the people who seem most keen to move to other countries.
I haven't seen anyone speak against skilled legal immigration, only illegal immigration and mass unskilled immigration. Indeed, I'm very comfortable for people with earnings above a £55-60k threshold to come here to work.
One hopes no one on PB is planning to illegally migrate to another country...
Here's the thing, though.
The most successful countries in the world - Singapore and Switzerland - are the ones that actually have some of the highest proportions of unskilled immigration. They do such a good job educating their kids to have skills, the people they need are the ones to do the shitty jobs.
Shouldn't that be our goal, rather than importing wealthy foreigners so that Brits can clean their toilets?
Was the Swiss model before they got into bed with the EU and FOM.
Considering SKS's mantra of "change" its amusing to compare the first 12 months of Tony Blair versus Sir Keir Starmer, who represented "change" better? BTW not suggesting all these changes are good (indeed some I vehemently oppose as bad) but they're changes.
Blair: Bank of England independence Devolution Northern Ireland peace process House of Lords reform Human Rights Act Minimum wage legislation Increased funding for schools, introduction of literacy and numeracy hours in primary schools. New Deal for the unemployed Student finance reform Referendum on London government Introduction of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) Extra NHS funding and a pledge to reduce waiting lists; introduced the principle of targets and performance management.
Sir Keir Starmer Tax rise on NI Creation of Great British Energy Strategic Defence Review Cut winter fuel allowance then largely reversed the cut Proposed then reversed welfare reform
Where are the changes?
Blair never hammered farmers with a family farms tax
Nor has anyone.
There has never been a Family Farms Tax. As opposed to Tories lying about the reduction of the IHT tax relief on [edit] estates [the probate kind] of owners of agricultural land.
No lies, Labour have deliberately removed the exemption of family farms from IHT to destroy many family farms and see them being sold for development or taken over by solar panels
No they haven't. They're removed the reduced IHT relief on farmland.
Lots of "family farms" don't own land. Lots of farms aren't operated by families. Lots of agric land isn't farmed by the owner of the land.
Your name is as stupid as claiming there is a Morris Countryman Car Tax. And then that Morris Countrymen are discriminated against.
Yes they have, that IHT relief is the main reason many family owned farms can be passed on to the next generation.
Most farms in the UK are still owned by one family and have been for generations, this was an ideological act by Labour as farmers don't vote Labour on the whole and to free up land for development and solar panels
Nothing stopping farmers from passing it on as a gift. The 7 year rule still applies.
Which is no help if you survive more than 7 years after the gift
Why would that matter if you're so keen to support the next generation?
I do find it funny that some people who complain the most about immigration are the people who seem most keen to move to other countries.
I haven't seen anyone speak against skilled legal immigration, only illegal immigration and mass unskilled immigration. Indeed, I'm very comfortable for people with earnings above a £55-60k threshold to come here to work.
One hopes no one on PB is planning to illegally migrate to another country...
Here's the thing, though.
The most successful countries in the world - Singapore and Switzerland - are the ones that actually have some of the highest proportions of unskilled immigration. They do such a good job educating their kids to have skills, the people they need are the ones to do the shitty jobs.
Shouldn't that be our goal, rather than importing wealthy foreigners so that Brits can clean their toilets?
Was the Swiss model before they got into bed with the EU and FOM.
Yes; they offered lots of short term work permits to people from poorer countries.
I do find it funny that some people who complain the most about immigration are the people who seem most keen to move to other countries.
I haven't seen anyone speak against skilled legal immigration, only illegal immigration and mass unskilled immigration. Indeed, I'm very comfortable for people with earnings above a £55-60k threshold to come here to work.
One hopes no one on PB is planning to illegally migrate to another country...
Here's the thing, though.
The most successful countries in the world - Singapore and Switzerland - are the ones that actually have some of the highest proportions of unskilled immigration. They do such a good job educating their kids to have skills, the people they need are the ones to do the shitty jobs.
Shouldn't that be our goal, rather than importing wealthy foreigners so that Brits can clean their toilets?
Much smaller countries though, on landmass and population than the UK.
Plenty of wealthy foreigners based in Singapore and Switzerland as well due to the low tax regime and we still have a long way to go before we get the likes of Stoke and Burnley and Merthyr residents with the same level of educational qualifications as those in Singapore and Switzerland
That's easy enough to solve: we can divide the UK into half a dozen countries. If we're too big to be successful, then let's get smaller.
That might be fine for London and the SE and at a push Scotland, it would be even worse for the rest of the UK
Why? Surely them being the same size as Switzerland would allow them to be just like Switzerland?
I do find it funny that some people who complain the most about immigration are the people who seem most keen to move to other countries.
I haven't seen anyone speak against skilled legal immigration, only illegal immigration and mass unskilled immigration. Indeed, I'm very comfortable for people with earnings above a £55-60k threshold to come here to work.
One hopes no one on PB is planning to illegally migrate to another country...
Here's the thing, though.
The most successful countries in the world - Singapore and Switzerland - are the ones that actually have some of the highest proportions of unskilled immigration. They do such a good job educating their kids to have skills, the people they need are the ones to do the shitty jobs.
Shouldn't that be our goal, rather than importing wealthy foreigners so that Brits can clean their toilets?
Legacy of 1066. Britons The English think it's a good thing to import a ruling class.
I do find it funny that some people who complain the most about immigration are the people who seem most keen to move to other countries.
I haven't seen anyone speak against skilled legal immigration, only illegal immigration and mass unskilled immigration. Indeed, I'm very comfortable for people with earnings above a £55-60k threshold to come here to work.
One hopes no one on PB is planning to illegally migrate to another country...
Here's the thing, though.
The most successful countries in the world - Singapore and Switzerland - are the ones that actually have some of the highest proportions of unskilled immigration. They do such a good job educating their kids to have skills, the people they need are the ones to do the shitty jobs.
Shouldn't that be our goal, rather than importing wealthy foreigners so that Brits can clean their toilets?
But what it ends up being us Brits sitting at home on some kind of benefits while the foreigners work delivery jobs.
It's also much, much more difficult to get citizenship in Switzerland and Singapore than it is here or to get benefits. We have 1.8m foreigners who claim universal credit, really that figure should be zero And the number of new citizens we take from the unskilled migrant cohorts should be very low.
Well, why don't we do something about that?
We do. Virtually all visas include a stipulation "no recourse to public funds".
This only lapses when permanent residence is granted after a minimum of 5 years, with only rare exceptions.
Of course it is possible and not even unusual to live your entire life in the UK if an Irish or Commonwealth citizen or even RoW, as we see with the Windrush scandal. It's a misunderstanding of the rules to think that none of these people should be eligible for UC.
All my Labour friends hate Starmer . Equally they absolutely loathe Farage and Reform .
Labour have managed to alienate everyone . I’m surprised they’re even polling above the Tories in most polls.
My feelings. I loathe what Starmer did to those who understood Israel's genocidal tendancies before he did. He kicked them out of the Party on the most spurious grounds and brought in some hand picked 'Friends of Israel'.
Similar in many ways to Boris and his Brexiteers. By the time the penny dropped they'd both alienated the most principled members of their respective parties.
The only glint of light for Starmer is that his two opponents are worse. Whether that'ill save him is too early to say. Perhaps a sweetener like an offer to 'Rejoin' might do it.?
With a very tight clothes peg it would just about do it for me.
The people that Starmer kicked out went *a long* way further than simply criticising the Israeli government. They were the sort of people no party wants in its ranks.
Do you have some examples? It's almost impossible to to be anti semitic anymore. You'd have to be more racist than Smodrich Ben Gvir Netanyahu the Knesset and a hundred thousand settlers . Anti Israelism has spread to America like a plague and it is multiplying very fast.
I do find it funny that some people who complain the most about immigration are the people who seem most keen to move to other countries.
I haven't seen anyone speak against skilled legal immigration, only illegal immigration and mass unskilled immigration. Indeed, I'm very comfortable for people with earnings above a £55-60k threshold to come here to work.
One hopes no one on PB is planning to illegally migrate to another country...
Here's the thing, though.
The most successful countries in the world - Singapore and Switzerland - are the ones that actually have some of the highest proportions of unskilled immigration. They do such a good job educating their kids to have skills, the people they need are the ones to do the shitty jobs.
Shouldn't that be our goal, rather than importing wealthy foreigners so that Brits can clean their toilets?
Was the Swiss model before they got into bed with the EU and FOM.
Yes; they offered lots of short term work permits to people from poorer countries.
The Gulf State model, with the key being that visas are tied to employment and the employer is responsible for the person leaving the country at the end of their stay.
I do find it funny that some people who complain the most about immigration are the people who seem most keen to move to other countries.
I haven't seen anyone speak against skilled legal immigration, only illegal immigration and mass unskilled immigration. Indeed, I'm very comfortable for people with earnings above a £55-60k threshold to come here to work.
One hopes no one on PB is planning to illegally migrate to another country...
Here's the thing, though.
The most successful countries in the world - Singapore and Switzerland - are the ones that actually have some of the highest proportions of unskilled immigration. They do such a good job educating their kids to have skills, the people they need are the ones to do the shitty jobs.
Shouldn't that be our goal, rather than importing wealthy foreigners so that Brits can clean their toilets?
Much smaller countries though, on landmass and population than the UK.
Plenty of wealthy foreigners based in Singapore and Switzerland as well due to the low tax regime and we still have a long way to go before we get the likes of Stoke and Burnley and Merthyr residents with the same level of educational qualifications as those in Singapore and Switzerland
That's easy enough to solve: we can divide the UK into half a dozen countries. If we're too big to be successful, then let's get smaller.
That might be fine for London and the SE and at a push Scotland, it would be even worse for the rest of the UK
Why? Surely them being the same size as Switzerland would allow them to be just like Switzerland?
Switzerland is a low tax, low spend tax haven where over half the population are graduates a long way from what the North of England or Wales are. They would certainly not vote for that form of uber Thatcherite libertarian capitalism either
Considering SKS's mantra of "change" its amusing to compare the first 12 months of Tony Blair versus Sir Keir Starmer, who represented "change" better? BTW not suggesting all these changes are good (indeed some I vehemently oppose as bad) but they're changes.
Blair: Bank of England independence Devolution Northern Ireland peace process House of Lords reform Human Rights Act Minimum wage legislation Increased funding for schools, introduction of literacy and numeracy hours in primary schools. New Deal for the unemployed Student finance reform Referendum on London government Introduction of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) Extra NHS funding and a pledge to reduce waiting lists; introduced the principle of targets and performance management.
Sir Keir Starmer Tax rise on NI Creation of Great British Energy Strategic Defence Review Cut winter fuel allowance then largely reversed the cut Proposed then reversed welfare reform
Where are the changes?
Blair never hammered farmers with a family farms tax
Nor has anyone.
There has never been a Family Farms Tax. As opposed to Tories lying about the reduction of the IHT tax relief on [edit] estates [the probate kind] of owners of agricultural land.
No lies, Labour have deliberately removed the exemption of family farms from IHT to destroy many family farms and see them being sold for development or taken over by solar panels
No they haven't. They're removed the reduced IHT relief on farmland.
Lots of "family farms" don't own land. Lots of farms aren't operated by families. Lots of agric land isn't farmed by the owner of the land.
Your name is as stupid as claiming there is a Morris Countryman Car Tax. And then that Morris Countrymen are discriminated against.
Yes they have, that IHT relief is the main reason many family owned farms can be passed on to the next generation.
Most farms in the UK are still owned by one family and have been for generations, this was an ideological act by Labour as farmers don't vote Labour on the whole and to free up land for development and solar panels
Nothing stopping farmers from passing it on as a gift. The 7 year rule still applies.
Which is no help if you survive more than 7 years after the gift
Why would that matter if you're so keen to support the next generation?
As you need to avoid IHT to ensure you can pass on the family farm in full to your eldest son
I do find it funny that some people who complain the most about immigration are the people who seem most keen to move to other countries.
I haven't seen anyone speak against skilled legal immigration, only illegal immigration and mass unskilled immigration. Indeed, I'm very comfortable for people with earnings above a £55-60k threshold to come here to work.
One hopes no one on PB is planning to illegally migrate to another country...
Here's the thing, though.
The most successful countries in the world - Singapore and Switzerland - are the ones that actually have some of the highest proportions of unskilled immigration. They do such a good job educating their kids to have skills, the people they need are the ones to do the shitty jobs.
Shouldn't that be our goal, rather than importing wealthy foreigners so that Brits can clean their toilets?
Much smaller countries though, on landmass and population than the UK.
Plenty of wealthy foreigners based in Singapore and Switzerland as well due to the low tax regime and we still have a long way to go before we get the likes of Stoke and Burnley and Merthyr residents with the same level of educational qualifications as those in Singapore and Switzerland
That's easy enough to solve: we can divide the UK into half a dozen countries. If we're too big to be successful, then let's get smaller.
That might be fine for London and the SE and at a push Scotland, it would be even worse for the rest of the UK
Why? Surely them being the same size as Switzerland would allow them to be just like Switzerland?
Switzerland is a low tax, low spend tax haven where over half the population are graduates a long way from what the North of England or Wales are. They would certainly not vote for that form of uber Thatcherite libertarian capitalism either
I thought you were against lots of people going to university?
From the 'comment is free but facts are sacred' Guardian:
Why wouldn't they succeed? They have done it before. Both parties have done it, but Republicans are the masters of gerrymandering, of limiting access to polls for unfavourable communities, tossing ballots for marginal reasons (remember hanging chad?). Texas is the perfect example and topical as it's in the news. As of the last election, there were more votes for Democrat candidates than Republican. Because of how the electoral districts were carved up, the state went Republican. Now with continued growth in Democrat support, they have to gerrymander for the mid terms or they risk losing up to 5 seats. The attempts to eliminate mail in ballots is similarly motivated. Mail in votes heavily favour Democrat candidates. The presidential order is illegal, but they will try it anyway.
Now some ignorant liberal talking crap in the Guardian isn't unusual but what is interesting is that this obviously factually inaccurate comment is given a 'Guardian pick'.
Perhaps 'facts' are only sacred if they align with the Guardian's views.
I do find it funny that some people who complain the most about immigration are the people who seem most keen to move to other countries.
I haven't seen anyone speak against skilled legal immigration, only illegal immigration and mass unskilled immigration. Indeed, I'm very comfortable for people with earnings above a £55-60k threshold to come here to work.
One hopes no one on PB is planning to illegally migrate to another country...
Here's the thing, though.
The most successful countries in the world - Singapore and Switzerland - are the ones that actually have some of the highest proportions of unskilled immigration. They do such a good job educating their kids to have skills, the people they need are the ones to do the shitty jobs.
Shouldn't that be our goal, rather than importing wealthy foreigners so that Brits can clean their toilets?
Much smaller countries though, on landmass and population than the UK.
Plenty of wealthy foreigners based in Singapore and Switzerland as well due to the low tax regime and we still have a long way to go before we get the likes of Stoke and Burnley and Merthyr residents with the same level of educational qualifications as those in Singapore and Switzerland
That's easy enough to solve: we can divide the UK into half a dozen countries. If we're too big to be successful, then let's get smaller.
That might be fine for London and the SE and at a push Scotland, it would be even worse for the rest of the UK
Why? Surely them being the same size as Switzerland would allow them to be just like Switzerland?
Switzerland is a low tax, low spend tax haven where over half the population are graduates a long way from what the North of England or Wales are. They would certainly not vote for that form of uber Thatcherite libertarian capitalism either
If they do vote Reform then that is what they would get. The Reform Leadership are mock-Thatcherites, even if the voters are not.
Reform is very much the Face Eating Leopards Party, seasoned with Xenophobia.
I do find it funny that some people who complain the most about immigration are the people who seem most keen to move to other countries.
I haven't seen anyone speak against skilled legal immigration, only illegal immigration and mass unskilled immigration. Indeed, I'm very comfortable for people with earnings above a £55-60k threshold to come here to work.
One hopes no one on PB is planning to illegally migrate to another country...
Here's the thing, though.
The most successful countries in the world - Singapore and Switzerland - are the ones that actually have some of the highest proportions of unskilled immigration. They do such a good job educating their kids to have skills, the people they need are the ones to do the shitty jobs.
Shouldn't that be our goal, rather than importing wealthy foreigners so that Brits can clean their toilets?
Much smaller countries though, on landmass and population than the UK.
Plenty of wealthy foreigners based in Singapore and Switzerland as well due to the low tax regime and we still have a long way to go before we get the likes of Stoke and Burnley and Merthyr residents with the same level of educational qualifications as those in Singapore and Switzerland
That's easy enough to solve: we can divide the UK into half a dozen countries. If we're too big to be successful, then let's get smaller.
That might be fine for London and the SE and at a push Scotland, it would be even worse for the rest of the UK
Why? Surely them being the same size as Switzerland would allow them to be just like Switzerland?
Switzerland is a low tax, low spend tax haven where over half the population are graduates a long way from what the North of England or Wales are. They would certainly not vote for that form of uber Thatcherite libertarian capitalism either
I thought you were against lots of people going to university?
*confused*
Even in Switzerland nearly half the population don't go to university but I never said I was against those going to university who have above average intelligence and are suitable to join the professions or senior management
I do find it funny that some people who complain the most about immigration are the people who seem most keen to move to other countries.
I haven't seen anyone speak against skilled legal immigration, only illegal immigration and mass unskilled immigration. Indeed, I'm very comfortable for people with earnings above a £55-60k threshold to come here to work.
One hopes no one on PB is planning to illegally migrate to another country...
Here's the thing, though.
The most successful countries in the world - Singapore and Switzerland - are the ones that actually have some of the highest proportions of unskilled immigration. They do such a good job educating their kids to have skills, the people they need are the ones to do the shitty jobs.
Shouldn't that be our goal, rather than importing wealthy foreigners so that Brits can clean their toilets?
Much smaller countries though, on landmass and population than the UK.
Plenty of wealthy foreigners based in Singapore and Switzerland as well due to the low tax regime and we still have a long way to go before we get the likes of Stoke and Burnley and Merthyr residents with the same level of educational qualifications as those in Singapore and Switzerland
That's easy enough to solve: we can divide the UK into half a dozen countries. If we're too big to be successful, then let's get smaller.
That might be fine for London and the SE and at a push Scotland, it would be even worse for the rest of the UK
Why? Surely them being the same size as Switzerland would allow them to be just like Switzerland?
Switzerland is a low tax, low spend tax haven where over half the population are graduates a long way from what the North of England or Wales are. They would certainly not vote for that form of uber Thatcherite libertarian capitalism either
If they do vote Reform then that is what they would get. The Reform Leadership are mock-Thatcherites, even if the voters are not.
Reform is very much the Face Eating Leopards Party, seasoned with Xenophobia.
They might but the they would likely swiftly revert to Labour again, in any case Reform are polling higher in the Midlands and East of England than the North and Wales
I do find it funny that some people who complain the most about immigration are the people who seem most keen to move to other countries.
I haven't seen anyone speak against skilled legal immigration, only illegal immigration and mass unskilled immigration. Indeed, I'm very comfortable for people with earnings above a £55-60k threshold to come here to work.
One hopes no one on PB is planning to illegally migrate to another country...
Here's the thing, though.
The most successful countries in the world - Singapore and Switzerland - are the ones that actually have some of the highest proportions of unskilled immigration. They do such a good job educating their kids to have skills, the people they need are the ones to do the shitty jobs.
Shouldn't that be our goal, rather than importing wealthy foreigners so that Brits can clean their toilets?
Your important statement is buried in the middle. It should read: The most successful countries in the world - Singapore and Switzerland - are the ones that do such a good job educating their kids to have skills.
That should indeed be our goal.
Instead the PB consensus is that too many British people go to university and we should encourage university-educated immigrants instead...
I do find it funny that some people who complain the most about immigration are the people who seem most keen to move to other countries.
I haven't seen anyone speak against skilled legal immigration, only illegal immigration and mass unskilled immigration. Indeed, I'm very comfortable for people with earnings above a £55-60k threshold to come here to work.
One hopes no one on PB is planning to illegally migrate to another country...
Here's the thing, though.
The most successful countries in the world - Singapore and Switzerland - are the ones that actually have some of the highest proportions of unskilled immigration. They do such a good job educating their kids to have skills, the people they need are the ones to do the shitty jobs.
Shouldn't that be our goal, rather than importing wealthy foreigners so that Brits can clean their toilets?
Much smaller countries though, on landmass and population than the UK.
Plenty of wealthy foreigners based in Singapore and Switzerland as well due to the low tax regime and we still have a long way to go before we get the likes of Stoke and Burnley and Merthyr residents with the same level of educational qualifications as those in Singapore and Switzerland
That's easy enough to solve: we can divide the UK into half a dozen countries. If we're too big to be successful, then let's get smaller.
That might be fine for London and the SE and at a push Scotland, it would be even worse for the rest of the UK
Why? Surely them being the same size as Switzerland would allow them to be just like Switzerland?
Switzerland is a low tax, low spend tax haven where over half the population are graduates a long way from what the North of England or Wales are. They would certainly not vote for that form of uber Thatcherite libertarian capitalism either
If they do vote Reform then that is what they would get. The Reform Leadership are mock-Thatcherites, even if the voters are not.
Reform is very much the Face Eating Leopards Party, seasoned with Xenophobia.
They might but the they would likely swiftly revert to Labour again, in any case Reform are polling higher in the Midlands and East of England than the North and Wales
If Reform get a majority, it wouldn't matter much. They would be stuck with them for 5 years, even if Farages ratings crater worse than Starmers. That's how our system works.
Re unpopularity, by coming in without having a plan to do anything, has meant that Labour are governing (in practice and by default) as a slightly right of centre conservative party. This ought to be in the sweet spot of where the country is politically, but isn't working for them for four reasons.
1. A lot of traditional 'Red Wall' Labour support was very right wing (I know this from canvassing in my LD days), but supported them out of habit. Brexit, Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage between them have severed that connection, and they are now with Reform. The populist media is making sure that they stay there. 2. Anyone to the left of, well, me, is alienated because they wanted change and for things to get better after 14 years of the Tories, and Labour have done none of those things. Israel/Palestine doesn't help with this group of people. 3. Ruling as a conservative party doesn't help attract any new support because people who are conservative vote for the Conservative party. They might occasionally think otherwise and can be persuaded in extremis to vote LD but there is a brain/arm/wrist malfunction which means they can never write an X against Labour on a piece of paper. 4. Labour's instincts are centralist and authoritarian so they don't appeal much to people with a liberal viewpoint, who currently might tolerate them as better than the Tories but that's it.
That only leaves them with vaguely centrist floating voters who might support them as being more competent and serious than the Tories (and however uninspiring, they are still that), which might include me in a different constituency. However if they carry on not being much better than the Tories, they lose that group so there is potential for them to go even lower.
Yes, this is about right. And a good description of why, as a One nation Tory I voted Labour in 2024 and would, reluctantly, vote for them again if an election were held today. Simply: no other party is remotely competent to govern; and all politics is relative. However bad it is, if there's only one party in the running, they get the vote.
As to what could change. A sense of total despair looks the most likely, with a Reform government as consequence; there are two other possibles at the moment. One is that Reform actually find a credible team, credible policies, credible economics and fiscal policy and present as competent social democrat modernisers + UK nationalism and closed borders.
The other (last chance IMO is Reeves in October) is for Labour to govern as if it planned to do the absolutely right thing for the country, and tell us so and tell us why and how in some detail, and use its massive majority to get it through and not care whether it loses the next election. It may be their best chance of winning it.
From the 'comment is free but facts are sacred' Guardian:
Why wouldn't they succeed? They have done it before. Both parties have done it, but Republicans are the masters of gerrymandering, of limiting access to polls for unfavourable communities, tossing ballots for marginal reasons (remember hanging chad?). Texas is the perfect example and topical as it's in the news. As of the last election, there were more votes for Democrat candidates than Republican. Because of how the electoral districts were carved up, the state went Republican. Now with continued growth in Democrat support, they have to gerrymander for the mid terms or they risk losing up to 5 seats. The attempts to eliminate mail in ballots is similarly motivated. Mail in votes heavily favour Democrat candidates. The presidential order is illegal, but they will try it anyway.
Now some ignorant liberal talking crap in the Guardian isn't unusual but what is interesting is that this obviously factually inaccurate comment is given a 'Guardian pick'.
Perhaps 'facts' are only sacred if they align with the Guardian's views.
I do find it funny that some people who complain the most about immigration are the people who seem most keen to move to other countries.
I haven't seen anyone speak against skilled legal immigration, only illegal immigration and mass unskilled immigration. Indeed, I'm very comfortable for people with earnings above a £55-60k threshold to come here to work.
One hopes no one on PB is planning to illegally migrate to another country...
Here's the thing, though.
The most successful countries in the world - Singapore and Switzerland - are the ones that actually have some of the highest proportions of unskilled immigration. They do such a good job educating their kids to have skills, the people they need are the ones to do the shitty jobs.
Shouldn't that be our goal, rather than importing wealthy foreigners so that Brits can clean their toilets?
Much smaller countries though, on landmass and population than the UK.
Plenty of wealthy foreigners based in Singapore and Switzerland as well due to the low tax regime and we still have a long way to go before we get the likes of Stoke and Burnley and Merthyr residents with the same level of educational qualifications as those in Singapore and Switzerland
That's easy enough to solve: we can divide the UK into half a dozen countries. If we're too big to be successful, then let's get smaller.
That might be fine for London and the SE and at a push Scotland, it would be even worse for the rest of the UK
Why? Surely them being the same size as Switzerland would allow them to be just like Switzerland?
Switzerland is a low tax, low spend tax haven where over half the population are graduates a long way from what the North of England or Wales are. They would certainly not vote for that form of uber Thatcherite libertarian capitalism either
I thought you were against lots of people going to university?
*confused*
Even in Switzerland nearly half the population don't go to university but I never said I was against those going to university who have above average intelligence and are suitable to join the professions or senior management
I would argue you don't need to go to university to be senior management. You need to go to university for certain very specialist skills e.g. medicine - or specialist fields e.g. chemistry. Struggling to think of any other examples in which a university education is as good as three years experience and training in your chosen field.
I do find it funny that some people who complain the most about immigration are the people who seem most keen to move to other countries.
I haven't seen anyone speak against skilled legal immigration, only illegal immigration and mass unskilled immigration. Indeed, I'm very comfortable for people with earnings above a £55-60k threshold to come here to work.
One hopes no one on PB is planning to illegally migrate to another country...
Here's the thing, though.
The most successful countries in the world - Singapore and Switzerland - are the ones that actually have some of the highest proportions of unskilled immigration. They do such a good job educating their kids to have skills, the people they need are the ones to do the shitty jobs.
Shouldn't that be our goal, rather than importing wealthy foreigners so that Brits can clean their toilets?
But what it ends up being us Brits sitting at home on some kind of benefits while the foreigners work delivery jobs.
It's also much, much more difficult to get citizenship in Switzerland and Singapore than it is here or to get benefits. We have 1.8m foreigners who claim universal credit, really that figure should be zero And the number of new citizens we take from the unskilled migrant cohorts should be very low.
Well, why don't we do something about that?
Well I think the country is going to vote Reform in 2029 and give them a majority because the last few governments didn't do anything about it.
Clamping down on immigration, without dealing with the reason why we have demand for low skilled immigrant labour is attempting to treat the symptoms not the cause. It is profoundly unserious.
Not all low skilled labour is the same though.
Care workers (if you consider them low skilled, they're certainly low paid) are filling a genuine requirement.
But car washers and food deliverers for lazy, fat slobs could all go and the country would be better for it.
I do find it funny that some people who complain the most about immigration are the people who seem most keen to move to other countries.
I haven't seen anyone speak against skilled legal immigration, only illegal immigration and mass unskilled immigration. Indeed, I'm very comfortable for people with earnings above a £55-60k threshold to come here to work.
One hopes no one on PB is planning to illegally migrate to another country...
Here's the thing, though.
The most successful countries in the world - Singapore and Switzerland - are the ones that actually have some of the highest proportions of unskilled immigration. They do such a good job educating their kids to have skills, the people they need are the ones to do the shitty jobs.
Shouldn't that be our goal, rather than importing wealthy foreigners so that Brits can clean their toilets?
But what it ends up being us Brits sitting at home on some kind of benefits while the foreigners work delivery jobs.
It's also much, much more difficult to get citizenship in Switzerland and Singapore than it is here or to get benefits. We have 1.8m foreigners who claim universal credit, really that figure should be zero And the number of new citizens we take from the unskilled migrant cohorts should be very low.
Well, why don't we do something about that?
Well I think the country is going to vote Reform in 2029 and give them a majority because the last few governments didn't do anything about it.
Clamping down on immigration, without dealing with the reason why we have demand for low skilled immigrant labour is attempting to treat the symptoms not the cause. It is profoundly unserious.
Not all low skilled labour is the same though.
Care workers (if you consider them low skilled, they're certainly low paid) are filling a genuine requirement.
But car washers and food deliverers for lazy, fat slobs could all go and the country would be better for it.
Care workers don't tend to be arriving via the small boats/asylum route though?
From the 'comment is free but facts are sacred' Guardian:
Why wouldn't they succeed? They have done it before. Both parties have done it, but Republicans are the masters of gerrymandering, of limiting access to polls for unfavourable communities, tossing ballots for marginal reasons (remember hanging chad?). Texas is the perfect example and topical as it's in the news. As of the last election, there were more votes for Democrat candidates than Republican. Because of how the electoral districts were carved up, the state went Republican. Now with continued growth in Democrat support, they have to gerrymander for the mid terms or they risk losing up to 5 seats. The attempts to eliminate mail in ballots is similarly motivated. Mail in votes heavily favour Democrat candidates. The presidential order is illegal, but they will try it anyway.
Now some ignorant liberal talking crap in the Guardian isn't unusual but what is interesting is that this obviously factually inaccurate comment is given a 'Guardian pick'.
Perhaps 'facts' are only sacred if they align with the Guardian's views.
Right. It is a bit disingenuous to talk about the Democrats receiving more votes overall and that it is gerrymandering that they didn't win most seats, when there were so many districts that the Republicans didn't contest.
Plus, also, the Democrats might have won most seats too, if they had managed to convince Green voters in District 27 to support them. Votes lost to third parties can cause distortions in FPTP votes to seats results which have nothing to do with gerrymandering.
I do find it funny that some people who complain the most about immigration are the people who seem most keen to move to other countries.
I haven't seen anyone speak against skilled legal immigration, only illegal immigration and mass unskilled immigration. Indeed, I'm very comfortable for people with earnings above a £55-60k threshold to come here to work.
One hopes no one on PB is planning to illegally migrate to another country...
Here's the thing, though.
The most successful countries in the world - Singapore and Switzerland - are the ones that actually have some of the highest proportions of unskilled immigration. They do such a good job educating their kids to have skills, the people they need are the ones to do the shitty jobs.
Shouldn't that be our goal, rather than importing wealthy foreigners so that Brits can clean their toilets?
Much smaller countries though, on landmass and population than the UK.
Plenty of wealthy foreigners based in Singapore and Switzerland as well due to the low tax regime and we still have a long way to go before we get the likes of Stoke and Burnley and Merthyr residents with the same level of educational qualifications as those in Singapore and Switzerland
That's easy enough to solve: we can divide the UK into half a dozen countries. If we're too big to be successful, then let's get smaller.
That might be fine for London and the SE and at a push Scotland, it would be even worse for the rest of the UK
Why? Surely them being the same size as Switzerland would allow them to be just like Switzerland?
Switzerland is a low tax, low spend tax haven where over half the population are graduates a long way from what the North of England or Wales are. They would certainly not vote for that form of uber Thatcherite libertarian capitalism either
If they do vote Reform then that is what they would get. The Reform Leadership are mock-Thatcherites, even if the voters are not.
Reform is very much the Face Eating Leopards Party, seasoned with Xenophobia.
They might but the they would likely swiftly revert to Labour again, in any case Reform are polling higher in the Midlands and East of England than the North and Wales
If Reform get a majority, it wouldn't matter much. They would be stuck with them for 5 years, even if Farages ratings crater worse than Starmers. That's how our system works.
Not quite. Parliament is in charge of who forms a government, and if they wish, in effect, when there is an election. A Reform government is an unknown quantity in multiple ways. This includes how 'loyal' their MPs would be as and when either there is the sound of flying flak, or their supporters realise there are no magic solutions to stuff, or a black swan emerges, or when it becomes obvious their ministers have few skills.
Reform have an interesting choice: A unicorn manifesto, which is impossible to implement; or a serious and honest manifesto, which would expose them in the campaign as being sensible and serious in the face of a voter base that isn't.
The UK is not the USA. Voters don't have quasi religious adherence to people. A Reform government could lose a VONC at any time. This either enables a new government to be cobbled together, or an election.
I wouldn't have expected Labour to become quite so unpopular quite so fast (and I don't think the Tories expected it either, given it was too soon for them to benefit as a result).
I guess the public are just increasingly lacking in patience, we demand and expect an awful lot, and if you get off to a bad start you don't get benefit of the doubt.
I’m not over enamoured by their performance at all, but it’s really not helped that their comms has been utter sh*te. Gobsmackingly so.
Everything they’ve needed to emphasise, they’ve done so poorly and unconvincingly (you don’t need to keep repeating 22bn black hole to persuade everyone the Tories were useless) and everything they’ve needed to avoid, they’ve blundered right into. Doesn’t help that Starmer contradicts himself on pretty much a daily basis too.
People can debate the issue of gerrymandering in the USA but in terms of voter suppression there is no argument . The Reps continue to do this especially in urban areas where the Dems are strongest .
From the 'comment is free but facts are sacred' Guardian:
Why wouldn't they succeed? They have done it before. Both parties have done it, but Republicans are the masters of gerrymandering, of limiting access to polls for unfavourable communities, tossing ballots for marginal reasons (remember hanging chad?). Texas is the perfect example and topical as it's in the news. As of the last election, there were more votes for Democrat candidates than Republican. Because of how the electoral districts were carved up, the state went Republican. Now with continued growth in Democrat support, they have to gerrymander for the mid terms or they risk losing up to 5 seats. The attempts to eliminate mail in ballots is similarly motivated. Mail in votes heavily favour Democrat candidates. The presidential order is illegal, but they will try it anyway.
Now some ignorant liberal talking crap in the Guardian isn't unusual but what is interesting is that this obviously factually inaccurate comment is given a 'Guardian pick'.
Perhaps 'facts' are only sacred if they align with the Guardian's views.
I wouldn't have expected Labour to become quite so unpopular quite so fast (and I don't think the Tories expected it either, given it was too soon for them to benefit as a result).
I guess the public are just increasingly lacking in patience, we demand and expect an awful lot, and if you get off to a bad start you don't get benefit of the doubt.
I’m not over enamoured by their performance at all, but it’s really not helped that their comms has been utter sh*te. Gobsmackingly so.
Everything they’ve needed to emphasise, they’ve done so poorly and unconvincingly (you don’t need to keep repeating 22bn black hole to persuade everyone the Tories were useless) and everything they’ve needed to avoid, they’ve blundered right into. Doesn’t help that Starmer contradicts himself on pretty much a daily basis too.
Yes. a minimum expectation of government is that it runs all the things it has undertaken to run really well, and that you know what its story is: a couple of sentences describing where we are, where we have come from, and where we are going and how we are going to get there.
it's basically the difference between telling us our glass is half empty because the past was so useless and it's all very difficult so blame the past lot (they are still majoring on that, even more than a year in!); and telling us our glass is half full and this is how it gets fuller.
They are very short of story tellers and gift of the gab people. Have they heard of T Blair?
I'm typing these by voice dictation because I've had surgery on both my hands. That's why it's all bit fucked with the clipped prose style of a Raymond Chandler novel.
I do find it funny that some people who complain the most about immigration are the people who seem most keen to move to other countries.
I haven't seen anyone speak against skilled legal immigration, only illegal immigration and mass unskilled immigration. Indeed, I'm very comfortable for people with earnings above a £55-60k threshold to come here to work.
One hopes no one on PB is planning to illegally migrate to another country...
Here's the thing, though.
The most successful countries in the world - Singapore and Switzerland - are the ones that actually have some of the highest proportions of unskilled immigration. They do such a good job educating their kids to have skills, the people they need are the ones to do the shitty jobs.
Shouldn't that be our goal, rather than importing wealthy foreigners so that Brits can clean their toilets?
Here's the thing though, thats not actually true.
Switzerland prioritises high skilled migration. A majority (53%) of immigrants to Switzerland are tertiary educated at least. Only 44% in the UK.
So if we desire to be more like Switzerland, we need more high skilled migration and less low skilled.
I do find it funny that some people who complain the most about immigration are the people who seem most keen to move to other countries.
I haven't seen anyone speak against skilled legal immigration, only illegal immigration and mass unskilled immigration. Indeed, I'm very comfortable for people with earnings above a £55-60k threshold to come here to work.
One hopes no one on PB is planning to illegally migrate to another country...
Here's the thing, though.
The most successful countries in the world - Singapore and Switzerland - are the ones that actually have some of the highest proportions of unskilled immigration. They do such a good job educating their kids to have skills, the people they need are the ones to do the shitty jobs.
Shouldn't that be our goal, rather than importing wealthy foreigners so that Brits can clean their toilets?
But what it ends up being us Brits sitting at home on some kind of benefits while the foreigners work delivery jobs.
It's also much, much more difficult to get citizenship in Switzerland and Singapore than it is here or to get benefits. We have 1.8m foreigners who claim universal credit, really that figure should be zero And the number of new citizens we take from the unskilled migrant cohorts should be very low.
Well, why don't we do something about that?
Well I think the country is going to vote Reform in 2029 and give them a majority because the last few governments didn't do anything about it.
Clamping down on immigration, without dealing with the reason why we have demand for low skilled immigrant labour is attempting to treat the symptoms not the cause. It is profoundly unserious.
Not all low skilled labour is the same though.
Care workers (if you consider them low skilled, they're certainly low paid) are filling a genuine requirement.
But car washers and food deliverers for lazy, fat slobs could all go and the country would be better for it.
Care workers don't tend to be arriving via the small boats/asylum route though?
Some do. After one year asylum applicants are allowed to work, but only in shortage areas, notably Social Care.
I find this sort of thing by Reform understandable but disappointing. As a voter who believes in right wing solutions, I want a competent Government capable of implementing those solutions - I'm not interested in power-crazed coked up SPADs trying to eliminate the most capable of their opponents. It may benefit them but it offers no benefit to me.
Comments
I've said it before, and so I will say it again. Labour and Starmer are in down-the-toilet territory, now. It's hard to see a way back. Yes it's only been a year but they have no obvious ideas for the future, and any ideas they do have tend to be bad and/or unpopular. And the lack of intellectual heft in the government is distressing. They are all so stupid. The Tories are easily as bad hence the polling for Reform
What can Sir Keir Traitor do to turn this around? It needs to be astonishing and dramatic
The answer is, come out and say "Things are so bad we need to rejoin the EU. I'm calling a referendum for 2027 (or 26 or 28). I will be campaigning whole heartedly for Rejoin"
Imagine the shock. Also, imagine the polling. Suddenly he will be a hero to millions of people like you. Also, if he wins his vote, he will have a legacy to prize, he can retire before the nexrt election (or after) knowing he Did Something. Also, he really believes in this, He was a Second Voter
He can leave all the painful negotiation of entry stuff to a successor and retreat in glory to Highbury Fields
He should do it for the shits and gigs, if nothing else
The most successful countries in the world - Singapore and Switzerland - are the ones that actually have some of the highest proportions of unskilled immigration. They do such a good job educating their kids to have skills, the people they need are the ones to do the shitty jobs.
Shouldn't that be our goal, rather than importing wealthy foreigners so that Brits can clean their toilets?
If I recall ministers cannot use government stuff for constituency work (with some exceptions such as Foreign/Defence/Norn Iron ministers.)
My wife is on holiday. I am not.
I am quite glad, as apparently it's going to be 38 degrees over there. That's beyond my melting point.
(Hope you enjoy Scotland)
I will pleasantly surprised if they have total separation of government, MP and personal business across all devices for once.
It's also much, much more difficult to get citizenship in Switzerland and Singapore than it is here or to get benefits. We have 1.8m foreigners who claim universal credit, really that figure should be zero And the number of new citizens we take from the unskilled migrant cohorts should be very low.
Interestingly, social renters are also close to 50:50 right:left - Reform voters are significantly overepresented in council housing.
But that's not "rabble rousing". That's my very-easily-bored, bipolar personality - which I have never denied. I always seek the most dramatic explanation or outcome, as it tickles me. And I exaggerate the speed of change, even if I am directionally right (which I often am)
It's a glitch in my brain, a kink in the system. I can't even blame it on booze coz I'm probably WORSE when sober
I honestly think that this approach is one of the single most stupid things I've seen a goverment do in my lifetime.
It doesn't help the Starmer has no charisma and I'd argue less political sense than Sunak.
Labour have some reasonable goals, but they have ruled out using the most effective fiscal tools. They can't lead as nobody is enthused by them or believes them, and they couldn't sell water to a man in a desert dying of thirst.
I still wish them well as God help us but they are the only thing in the way of Reform.
Mortgage rates aren't going to save Labour, they might have if interest rates dropped to 3% this year as they would have done under the Tories with 2% inflation but millions of people are going to renew at way higher than they currently have.
Favourability of +44.
Admittedly in April 2024.
But he'd been mayor for seven years then.
But running the country you can't operate like that and the media don't let you get away with it. You are expected to be "on" 24/7, require constantly being fed information where people are waiting on your decision that will have huge consequences, etc.
Not can we get some bank to sponsors some bikes.
The mini-budget was and continues to be devastating for the Conservatives and so the expectation management for Labour is pretty positive I think. If they are below 5% they'll be fine.
Plenty of wealthy foreigners based in Singapore and Switzerland as well due to the low tax regime and we still have a long way to go before we get the likes of Stoke and Burnley and Merthyr residents with the same level of educational qualifications as those in Singapore and Switzerland
That should indeed be our goal.
1. A lot of traditional 'Red Wall' Labour support was very right wing (I know this from canvassing in my LD days), but supported them out of habit. Brexit, Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage between them have severed that connection, and they are now with Reform. The populist media is making sure that they stay there.
2. Anyone to the left of, well, me, is alienated because they wanted change and for things to get better after 14 years of the Tories, and Labour have done none of those things. Israel/Palestine doesn't help with this group of people.
3. Ruling as a conservative party doesn't help attract any new support because people who are conservative vote for the Conservative party. They might occasionally think otherwise and can be persuaded in extremis to vote LD but there is a brain/arm/wrist malfunction which means they can never write an X against Labour on a piece of paper.
4. Labour's instincts are centralist and authoritarian so they don't appeal much to people with a liberal viewpoint, who currently might tolerate them as better than the Tories but that's it.
That only leaves them with vaguely centrist floating voters who might support them as being more competent and serious than the Tories (and however uninspiring, they are still that), which might include me in a different constituency. However if they carry on not being much better than the Tories, they lose that group so there is potential for them to go even lower.
BBC News - UK's third-largest steelworks collapses into government control - BBC News
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy0818y4jdlo
I guess the public are just increasingly lacking in patience, we demand and expect an awful lot, and if you get off to a bad start you don't get benefit of the doubt.
Will be mostly touring as the missus has never been to Scotland before. Today’s plan was to go to Edinburgh, but that’s probably getting cancelled now. We’re hoping to go the bottom of Loch Ness, even if we just take the train up, walk around for a bit, and take the train back, because it’s a wonderful journey. Sadly for Wifey we’re got going to be able to go far enough North to see the live haggis. She still thinks I’m joking and they’re not real, despite them being on the menu in the hotel.
Lots of "family farms" don't own land. Lots of farms aren't operated by families. Lots of agric land isn't farmed by the owner of the land.
Your name is as stupid as claiming there is a Morris Countryman Car Tax. And then that Morris Countrymen are discriminated against.
Personally I think capital gains should be taxed as income, as I regard the "double taxation" arguments as spurious.
Most farms in the UK are still owned by one family and have been for generations, this was an ideological act by Labour as farmers don't vote Labour on the whole and to free up land for development and solar panels
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y09q1zgg8o
In retrospect Mayor of London was the ideal political job for him, and he was good at it
It's a shame, because he is highly skilled in many ways, just not the skills to be PM
Serioius engineering on the canal, of course - Telford.
I believe some of the cruises go well into the Loch to e.g. Castle Urquhart.
https://www.walkhighlands.co.uk/lochness/caledonian-canal.shtml [edit] covers part of the walk from the staircase. But the rest is easy, along the towpath!
https://youtube.com/watch?v=FedZPS1nrwk
* although we can think back to COVID and him trying to play Billy Big Bollocks over things and getting in a right mess.
Spencer Hakimian
@SpencerHakimian
*WALMART CEO SAYS TARIFF COSTS INCREASING EACH WEEK
*WALMART INVENTORY COSTS UP ON IMPORT COSTS
The biggest retailer in the country is telling you that they’re getting slammed by tariffs.
And you still think foreigners are paying the bill for you?
But while the value of appropriate damage was obviously overblown it being common doesn't seem to change the fact it was fraudulent. There were so many cases of claiming value based on being able to develop things they knew the could not, whilst pointing to that they could not to other bodies to lower obligations and the like.
My main takeaway from the trial was that his company was run like a basketcase, he has had to be adept at ball juggling for decades to keep it from falling down.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/25399237.historic-140-year-old-metal-bridge-inverness-closes/
The barman, confused, enquires: "Perhaps you meant to say martini?"
The centurion replies "If I wanted two drinks I would have said so”.
Its not like there isn't mountains of other dodgy stuff he has done over the years to look into.
James, William and George say hello
This only lapses when permanent residence is granted after a minimum of 5 years, with only rare exceptions.
Of course it is possible and not even unusual to live your entire life in the UK if an Irish or Commonwealth citizen or even RoW, as we see with the Windrush scandal. It's a misunderstanding of the rules to think that none of these people should be eligible for UC.
Do you have some examples? It's almost impossible to to be anti semitic anymore. You'd have to be more racist than Smodrich Ben Gvir Netanyahu the Knesset and a hundred thousand settlers . Anti Israelism has spread to America like a plague and it is multiplying very fast.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-3GwcihvhE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOeYIDjQOVI
*confused*
Why wouldn't they succeed? They have done it before. Both parties have done it, but Republicans are the masters of gerrymandering, of limiting access to polls for unfavourable communities, tossing ballots for marginal reasons (remember hanging chad?).
Texas is the perfect example and topical as it's in the news. As of the last election, there were more votes for Democrat candidates than Republican. Because of how the electoral districts were carved up, the state went Republican. Now with continued growth in Democrat support, they have to gerrymander for the mid terms or they risk losing up to 5 seats.
The attempts to eliminate mail in ballots is similarly motivated. Mail in votes heavily favour Democrat candidates. The presidential order is illegal, but they will try it anyway.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/aug/19/republicans-midterm-elections
The actual votes in the Texas House elections in 2024 were:
GOP 6,235,017 58%
Dem 4,311,123 40%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Texas
Now some ignorant liberal talking crap in the Guardian isn't unusual but what is interesting is that this obviously factually inaccurate comment is given a 'Guardian pick'.
Perhaps 'facts' are only sacred if they align with the Guardian's views.
Reform is very much the Face Eating Leopards Party, seasoned with Xenophobia.
As to what could change. A sense of total despair looks the most likely, with a Reform government as consequence; there are two other possibles at the moment. One is that Reform actually find a credible team, credible policies, credible economics and fiscal policy and present as competent social democrat modernisers + UK nationalism and closed borders.
The other (last chance IMO is Reeves in October) is for Labour to govern as if it planned to do the absolutely right thing for the country, and tell us so and tell us why and how in some detail, and use its massive majority to get it through and not care whether it loses the next election. It may be their best chance of winning it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Texas_Senate_election
Care workers (if you consider them low skilled, they're certainly low paid) are filling a genuine requirement.
But car washers and food deliverers for lazy, fat slobs could all go and the country would be better for it.
Plus, also, the Democrats might have won most seats too, if they had managed to convince Green voters in District 27 to support them. Votes lost to third parties can cause distortions in FPTP votes to seats results which have nothing to do with gerrymandering.
Reform have an interesting choice: A unicorn manifesto, which is impossible to implement; or a serious and honest manifesto, which would expose them in the campaign as being sensible and serious in the face of a voter base that isn't.
The UK is not the USA. Voters don't have quasi religious adherence to people. A Reform government could lose a VONC at any time. This either enables a new government to be cobbled together, or an election.
Everything they’ve needed to emphasise, they’ve done so poorly and unconvincingly (you don’t need to keep repeating 22bn black hole to persuade everyone the Tories were useless) and everything they’ve needed to avoid, they’ve blundered right into. Doesn’t help that Starmer contradicts himself on pretty much a daily basis too.
In any case about the Texas Senate:
Due to the high number of uncontested seats, however, Democratic candidates received more votes statewide than Republican candidates.
Which is why the actual votes in the Texas Senate election were only half of those in either the federal elections or the Texas House election.
Here's the Texas House results which had elections in every district:
GOP 5,707,863 56%
Dem 4,362,814 43%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Texas_House_of_Representatives_election
it's basically the difference between telling us our glass is half empty because the past was so useless and it's all very difficult so blame the past lot (they are still majoring on that, even more than a year in!); and telling us our glass is half full and this is how it gets fuller.
They are very short of story tellers and gift of the gab people. Have they heard of T Blair?
Switzerland prioritises high skilled migration. A majority (53%) of immigrants to Switzerland are tertiary educated at least. Only 44% in the UK.
So if we desire to be more like Switzerland, we need more high skilled migration and less low skilled.