Indeed. But that's not the narrative. it's an event that draws 5000 people that was being held on an SSSI which is an important nature site .
The tweet, and the video attached to the tweet, frames it as 'Natural England banning you from having a day out flying kites across the country', where NE are actually considering the impact on an SSSI Common.
My perspective is that imo the answer to unthinking, populist politics is not just more unthinking, populist politics.
The tweet frames it as Natural England banning you from having a day out flying kites at this specific location. There's even a map showing where the event was going to be (and was previously) held. It doesn't say anything about banning kite flying nationwide.
I disagree. The Looking for Growth tweet is not location specific. And the first phrase in the video is "Why are we banned from having fun in Britain?". The text of the tweet:
Looking for Growth @lfg_uk You wanted a nice day out flying kites with your family. But @NaturalEngland won't let you.
Natural England won't let us build, won't let us have fun. It won't let us do anything.
The Government empowers them to block everything. This has to end.
The tweet also includes a video, accompanying said text. If you watch the video, it is clear they are referring to a specific case.
A lot of people locally were pi**ed off that this lovely festival, which ran for over 30 years with no reported issues, was cancelled by Natural England on spurious grounds. Lots of money no longer being raised for charity.
(Though I can think of at least one who won't be happy that the case is being used for political purposes...)
The thought that occurs to me - if this festival and the preparations for it have been happening for 30 years then it is a part of the annual cycle of nature in that area.
Cancelling the festival is altering the environment.
Note in the article they are talking about timings to mow the area. This isn’t pristine nature - it’s a curated space. Say like Kew Gardens.
Some morons fail to understand that human activity is part of the environment. The Lake District looks the way it does, because of lots of human activity. The Norfolk Broads are the result of flooded turf mining. And so on.
All of the UK is curated space, but we have to decide how to curate it.
I guarantee the Pasque flower isn't there because of a kite festival.
My point it that by changing the usage of the land, you may be fucking up what's there. You need to consider all inputs into the system.
That is true, but the kite festival probably isn't a positive here.
There are indeed cases where what is seen as "abuse" actually helps maintain unique habitats, though.
We have quarries or sand pits that would scrub over if people didn't keep razzing motorbikes and quadbikes on them and the special species that like bare ground would die out.
The wildlife trust was offered one such site but declined as they couldn't deal with the liabilities.
You can tell why he’s annoyed 8 of the social houses opposite the one he has bought have families that don’t work with motobility cars that are better than the 11 year old polo they have to share
Worse the poster can’t afford children but that isn’t a problem in the social housing
This, going around recently, has radicalised a fair number of people:
(It works by checking Dartford crossing free ticket eligibility IIRC).
Did the story about 20% of new car sales being via Motability ever get stood up, or is there something else going on?
Surely the government could start by limiting the scheme to cars made in the UK, so as not to be sending subsidy money abroad?
Wasn't it over 30%?
Motability was set up to replace the Invacar three wheeled scooter.
Why does anyone need a choice? If a user needs a small car, a basic Corsa should suffice. If a larger car is required a Citroen Berlingo should do the trick. If one can afford to upgrade to a BMW M5 they don't need a Motability car.
PIP is not means tested.
Because of the VAT exemption, the lease is less than half the price (46% per Motability themselves) so they can only afford the M5 by using motability's VAT exemption.
The VAT is 20%, the purported 45% saving Motability claim is if you bundle in maintenance, insurance and breakdown cover and note 5 on hteir press release "Percentage savings shown are the difference between the Motability Scheme lease cost and the highest priced alternative option, expressed as a percentage."
everything is included though, insurance , service, tyres , road tax , etc
Tyres are always premium. An ex Motability car we own came with a new set of Continental tyres supplied via a central contract from Kwik Fit. Stick a set of mid range tyres like Kuhmo on every wheel on every Motability car when the tyres need replacing and the tyre bill is halved. The guy who had our car before us wouldn't be spending his own money on Continental tyres when there are cheap Chinese brands available.
I didn't know much about it until we acquired an ex Motability car but I have learned a great deal since. An absolute abuse of tax payer money.
I know I shouldn't take these things personally but there have been a number of people on here today who would support stripping my husband of his ILR and sending him back to Canada as well as taking the car that my aunt relies on away from her. Oh and also robbing my disabled uncle of his means of transport as my aunt also drives him around. I don't have that many more relations left to lose.
You can tell why he’s annoyed 8 of the social houses opposite the one he has bought have families that don’t work with motobility cars that are better than the 11 year old polo they have to share
Worse the poster can’t afford children but that isn’t a problem in the social housing
This, going around recently, has radicalised a fair number of people:
(It works by checking Dartford crossing free ticket eligibility IIRC).
Did the story about 20% of new car sales being via Motability ever get stood up, or is there something else going on?
Surely the government could start by limiting the scheme to cars made in the UK, so as not to be sending subsidy money abroad?
Wasn't it over 30%?
Motability was set up to replace the Invacar three wheeled scooter.
Why does anyone need a choice? If a user needs a small car, a basic Corsa should suffice. If a larger car is required a Citroen Berlingo should do the trick. If one can afford to upgrade to a BMW M5 they don't need a Motability car.
PIP is not means tested.
Because of the VAT exemption, the lease is less than half the price (46% per Motability themselves) so they can only afford the M5 by using motability's VAT exemption.
The VAT is 20%, the purported 45% saving Motability claim is if you bundle in maintenance, insurance and breakdown cover and note 5 on hteir press release "Percentage savings shown are the difference between the Motability Scheme lease cost and the highest priced alternative option, expressed as a percentage."
everything is included though, insurance , service, tyres , road tax , etc
Tyres are always premium. An ex Motability car we own came with a new set of Continental tyres supplied via a central contract from Kwik Fit. Stick a set of mid range tyres like Kuhmo on every wheel on every Motability car when the tyres need replacing and the tyre bill is halved. The guy who had our car before us wouldn't be spending his own money on Continental tyres when there are cheap Chinese brands available.
I didn't know much about it until we acquired an ex Motability car but I have learned a great deal since. An absolute abuse of tax payer money.
I know I shouldn't take these things personally but there have been a number of people on here today who would support stripping my husband of his ILR and sending him back to Canada as well as taking the car that my aunt relies on away from her. Oh and also robbing my disabled uncle of his means of transport as my aunt also drives him around. I don't have that many more relations left to lose.
Returning from town, switch on TV, and Farage is front, centre, and everywhere dominating the media over his unacceptable proposals over immigration
He not only receives media coverage almost daily and answers every question put to him
He may be speaking to millions but it is all so divisive
And Ed Davey, is he having a conference as he hardly appears in the media ?
Ed Davey coming onto the conference stage to the clown music was quite remarkable.
Nigel is box office, particularly in the Trump era. The BBC and Sky love him. If Nigel becomes PM it will be in no small part due to ramping by the mainstream media. One can hope that Trump brings him down over the next three years.
The UK electorate need to bring Farage down
This is probably the start of them doing so. There will be stories of people who have been here years, friends, neighbours etc who might get deported,or families separated over the policy and a number of current Reformites will say 'hang on.......' and those not wedded to hardline immigration policy will likewise react to stop them. Remigration is not popular enough as a concept to win an election but its unpopular enough to stop someone winning one
My wife has just said this is terrible and many will be scared by such a shocking policy and should not be
I would add - this is not the British way of treating people
I want the boats stopped, sensible immigration, and to make sure everyone living and working in our communities do not feel threatened by a right wing mob copying Trump
You'll find no disagreement from me to any of that
Would you give Indefinite Leave to Remain to the entire Boriswave? That seems to be your position. Farcical
I wouldn't be revisiting ILR already granted. Im open to a review of future ILR and who gets it etc
So you agree with the idea that some of the Boriswave must be deported. They won’t all get ILR. In which case your only dispute is the exact level of deportations, or the income level for new visas
Anyone who doesnt have ILR should leave once their visa expires if its not renewed or ILR when granted. We need a sensible policy around that. Im vehemently opposed to kicking out people told they can stay.
He’s not saying they are all going to be expelled. He’s saying that they will tighten the rules on the ILR status, so yes some will be deported
It’s not nice. But then to my mind what mass migration has done to Britain is not nice. We’ve gone beyond nice, tragically - due to both main parties calamitously lying about and mishandling immigration
Any solution to the problem is going to be unpleasant for some people, just as open borders have been very very unpleasant for a lot of Brits
I know what hes saying and I know the situation. We disagree (in part) on what is a reasonable solution to the issues. Just because Nigel is wading across the Rubicon i dont have to get fish in my keks
Judging by the Daily Mail comments section this is wildly popular. But that’s the Daily Mail of course
I am surprised myself at how forthright this policy is. He’s certainly put the snake on the table. I’m not quite sure it’s a rubicon
However on examination I see why he’s done it. As @Luckyguy1983 says - a lot of the Boriswave will get ILR in the coming 4 years unless Labour does something (which they claim to be doing but never do). So he’s making it retrospective
It may or may nif end up wildly popular, that's up to the electorate. It wont be wildly popular (the bits ive mentioned anyway) with me. I think but cant be certain that its popularity will be commensurate with how much heat is in the immigration issue
The next set of polls will be interesting, indeed
I remember when Nigel first announced his “we will deport 600,000” policy. I said on here that this would possibly damage his polling, “it sounds too extreme”. It did nothing of the kind. Reform’s polling is either unchanged or it has risen - as others have fallen further
We consistently underestimate how far to the right the electorate is, now, on these migration/asylum issues. Something has changed
But maybe this WILL be “too extreme”? Let’s see
There is also an "it's popular until it's real" aspect to a lot of this deportation stuff.
Deport the mother of your child's friend at school who is married to a British national? Deport your parents' long-standing care worker who no longer meets the minimum income threshold? Outrageous.
So I expect this will be popular with a sufficiently large part of the electorate until it comes into contact with reality.
We are now going to find out how popular the Four Star Party is. The knuckle draggers and plastic patriots will of course cheer on sending "foreigners" home, especially ones who are "British". Go look on X, there's a load of posts from patriots saying anyone who isn't white isn't British.
For everyone else? I expect we are going to be fed endless propaganda to demonise the people targeted for deportation. How Dare They live here taking our jobs / benefits / women etc
We live in repellent political times.
Indeed, the "White British are going to take over" stuff is jus dog-whistling to put down anyone who is different.
This directly affects me, my family and friends. I guess it directly affects many of the posters on here, including some who are spreading it.
Let's go through the looking glass. The fukers get elected and there is a voluntary exodus as people flee. Others are paid to leave*
Who will do the jobs they leave? It won't be these knuckle-dragging fucks. So we have swathes of jobs we can't fill, a big drop in tax revenues and money circulating which in turn closes businesses and puts more people out of work.
*Here's money to "go home" was the policy of the BNP, who also wanted all the immigrants out. One of my Brother in Laws supported them and I asked if he - as a second generation migrant - planned to repatriate himself to Spain or Ireland
The reason that people in the UK won't do those jobs is that the rate of pay is very, very low.
Which is why, despite the Boriswave etc, barely any change happened in the care sector ( "bottom wiping" ).
The migrants who'd been extorted by the care home bosses, into paying thousands for their visas, didn't want to work for barely minimum wage. Surprise!
Well we could get the private sector out but I can imagine what the response would be to that...
My point is simple - we have holes in the workforce which we fill with migrants. It isn't just pay - we have people who don't want to work on a farm or in a factory or in a vast list of roles that our Simon Cowell generation consider beneath them.
Shocking as it might be, "just pay more" isn't an option without consequences.
Ah, British Lassitude. The semi-demi-racist belief, like Orriental Lassitude that the natives are lazy because they don’t enjoy be flogged around the fields for barely enough money to feed them.
Shall I get you a G&T on your veranda, Sahib? Then kick the cookies for you?
What Farrage is proposing seems like pragmatic steps that address two of the greatest problems facing this country: uncontrolled mass immigration and a welfare system that is bankrupting the country.
Khan and other bleeding heart liberals clutching their pearls and telling him "you can't say that" will only add to the appeal this policy has to an increasingly NOTA electorate.
The establishment has done nothing to sort either issue, despite Labour and the Conservatives having large majorities respectively and the time to do so.
Like Thatcher, Farrage is being bold and doubling down in a way that is easily understood and relatable as him "sticking to his guns".
He will be rewarded, like she was, because of dear old TINA in the end. The absence of any solution other than continued fingers in ears and 'let's pretend ' everything is lovely.
Worth pointing out that Labour already crossed the restrospectiveness Rubicon, in a sense:
"On Monday the government announced immigrants would now typically have to live in the UK for 10 years before applying for the right to stay here indefinitely - double the current five-year period.
It was previously unclear whether this would apply to the approximately 1.5 million foreign workers who have moved to the UK since 2020.
The BBC understands a document published in the coming weeks will make clear the government is preparing to apply the 10-year qualifying period to those who are already in the UK as well as to new visa applicants."
You can tell why he’s annoyed 8 of the social houses opposite the one he has bought have families that don’t work with motobility cars that are better than the 11 year old polo they have to share
Worse the poster can’t afford children but that isn’t a problem in the social housing
This, going around recently, has radicalised a fair number of people:
(It works by checking Dartford crossing free ticket eligibility IIRC).
Did the story about 20% of new car sales being via Motability ever get stood up, or is there something else going on?
Surely the government could start by limiting the scheme to cars made in the UK, so as not to be sending subsidy money abroad?
Wasn't it over 30%?
Motability was set up to replace the Invacar three wheeled scooter.
Why does anyone need a choice? If a user needs a small car, a basic Corsa should suffice. If a larger car is required a Citroen Berlingo should do the trick. If one can afford to upgrade to a BMW M5 they don't need a Motability car.
PIP is not means tested.
Because of the VAT exemption, the lease is less than half the price (46% per Motability themselves) so they can only afford the M5 by using motability's VAT exemption.
The VAT is 20%, the purported 45% saving Motability claim is if you bundle in maintenance, insurance and breakdown cover and note 5 on hteir press release "Percentage savings shown are the difference between the Motability Scheme lease cost and the highest priced alternative option, expressed as a percentage."
everything is included though, insurance , service, tyres , road tax , etc
Tyres are always premium. An ex Motability car we own came with a new set of Continental tyres supplied via a central contract from Kwik Fit. Stick a set of mid range tyres like Kuhmo on every wheel on every Motability car when the tyres need replacing and the tyre bill is halved. The guy who had our car before us wouldn't be spending his own money on Continental tyres when there are cheap Chinese brands available.
I didn't know much about it until we acquired an ex Motability car but I have learned a great deal since. An absolute abuse of tax payer money.
I know I shouldn't take these things personally but there have been a number of people on here today who would support stripping my husband of his ILR and sending him back to Canada as well as taking the car that my aunt relies on away from her. Oh and also robbing my disabled uncle of his means of transport as my aunt also drives him around. I don't have that many more relations left to lose.
I have not demanded the removal of Motability. I have questioned the need for such a wide vehicle choice (including upgrades to prestige marques) and the procurement policy for maintenance. I am not sure Motability is managed as efficiently as it could be.
Worth pointing out that Labour already crossed the restrospectiveness Rubicon, in a sense:
"On Monday the government announced immigrants would now typically have to live in the UK for 10 years before applying for the right to stay here indefinitely - double the current five-year period.
It was previously unclear whether this would apply to the approximately 1.5 million foreign workers who have moved to the UK since 2020.
The BBC understands a document published in the coming weeks will make clear the government is preparing to apply the 10-year qualifying period to those who are already in the UK as well as to new visa applicants."
Isn’t the difference that they won’t be asked to re-apply for their visas so won’t face the threat of deportation. Regardless I don’t agree with retrospective changes .
Worth pointing out that Labour already crossed the restrospectiveness Rubicon, in a sense:
"On Monday the government announced immigrants would now typically have to live in the UK for 10 years before applying for the right to stay here indefinitely - double the current five-year period.
It was previously unclear whether this would apply to the approximately 1.5 million foreign workers who have moved to the UK since 2020.
The BBC understands a document published in the coming weeks will make clear the government is preparing to apply the 10-year qualifying period to those who are already in the UK as well as to new visa applicants."
Isn’t the difference that they won’t be asked to re-apply for their visas so won’t face the threat of deportation. Regardless I don’t agree with retrospective changes .
If you extend ILR to 10 years retrospectively, people will need to reapply for their work visas after five years but before ten years. Which they would otherwise not have to do. They thought they were on a pathway to ILR. Pathway got longer and weedier. Retrospectively.
Catherine Connolly - the independent left TD backed by Sinn Fein and all the small left-wing parties as their candidate for the Irish Presidential election - has said that Hamas is "part of the fabric of the Palestinian people". Delightful.
You can tell why he’s annoyed 8 of the social houses opposite the one he has bought have families that don’t work with motobility cars that are better than the 11 year old polo they have to share
Worse the poster can’t afford children but that isn’t a problem in the social housing
This, going around recently, has radicalised a fair number of people:
(It works by checking Dartford crossing free ticket eligibility IIRC).
Did the story about 20% of new car sales being via Motability ever get stood up, or is there something else going on?
Surely the government could start by limiting the scheme to cars made in the UK, so as not to be sending subsidy money abroad?
Wasn't it over 30%?
Motability was set up to replace the Invacar three wheeled scooter.
Why does anyone need a choice? If a user needs a small car, a basic Corsa should suffice. If a larger car is required a Citroen Berlingo should do the trick. If one can afford to upgrade to a BMW M5 they don't need a Motability car.
PIP is not means tested.
Because of the VAT exemption, the lease is less than half the price (46% per Motability themselves) so they can only afford the M5 by using motability's VAT exemption.
The VAT is 20%, the purported 45% saving Motability claim is if you bundle in maintenance, insurance and breakdown cover and note 5 on hteir press release "Percentage savings shown are the difference between the Motability Scheme lease cost and the highest priced alternative option, expressed as a percentage."
everything is included though, insurance , service, tyres , road tax , etc
Tyres are always premium. An ex Motability car we own came with a new set of Continental tyres supplied via a central contract from Kwik Fit. Stick a set of mid range tyres like Kuhmo on every wheel on every Motability car when the tyres need replacing and the tyre bill is halved. The guy who had our car before us wouldn't be spending his own money on Continental tyres when there are cheap Chinese brands available.
I didn't know much about it until we acquired an ex Motability car but I have learned a great deal since. An absolute abuse of tax payer money.
I know I shouldn't take these things personally but there have been a number of people on here today who would support stripping my husband of his ILR and sending him back to Canada as well as taking the car that my aunt relies on away from her. Oh and also robbing my disabled uncle of his means of transport as my aunt also drives him around. I don't have that many more relations left to lose.
I have not demanded the removal of Motability. I have questioned the need for such a wide vehicle choice (including upgrades to prestige marques) and the procurement policy for maintenance. I am not sure Motability is managed as efficiently as it could be.
I'm somewhat puzzled about how Motability works. I'm over 65 (well over!) with Attendance Allowance and I've been allocated a wheelchair, Zimmer frame and sundry other disabled aids. I'm no longer allowed to drive, so my wife has to do all the driving, but I'm told I'm not eligible for Motability. I'm not envious (well, not very!) of people who do get it, but I wonder...... It's a bit of a pig getting in and out of cars, too.
My fear is that once again, no matter how ridiculous and delusional Farage's proposals are, people are going to be genuinely astonished to learn that you can apply for ILR having been here for 5 years. A lot of people who would have been quite relaxed about foreigners coming here to do unpleasant and low paid jobs for a time will not have appreciated the rights that are given as a matter of course to those who do them.
The response of the government rather gives the game away on this, stating that they are in the process (honest) of extending the period to 10 years. Whether Farage's solutions have any credibility he has succeeded once again in demonstrating that the established parties are universally seeking to pull the wool over the eyes of the British public and many will be a lot more annoyed about that than any alleged imperfections in his solution.
You can tell why he’s annoyed 8 of the social houses opposite the one he has bought have families that don’t work with motobility cars that are better than the 11 year old polo they have to share
Worse the poster can’t afford children but that isn’t a problem in the social housing
This, going around recently, has radicalised a fair number of people:
(It works by checking Dartford crossing free ticket eligibility IIRC).
Did the story about 20% of new car sales being via Motability ever get stood up, or is there something else going on?
Surely the government could start by limiting the scheme to cars made in the UK, so as not to be sending subsidy money abroad?
Wasn't it over 30%?
Motability was set up to replace the Invacar three wheeled scooter.
Why does anyone need a choice? If a user needs a small car, a basic Corsa should suffice. If a larger car is required a Citroen Berlingo should do the trick. If one can afford to upgrade to a BMW M5 they don't need a Motability car.
PIP is not means tested.
Because of the VAT exemption, the lease is less than half the price (46% per Motability themselves) so they can only afford the M5 by using motability's VAT exemption.
The VAT is 20%, the purported 45% saving Motability claim is if you bundle in maintenance, insurance and breakdown cover and note 5 on hteir press release "Percentage savings shown are the difference between the Motability Scheme lease cost and the highest priced alternative option, expressed as a percentage."
everything is included though, insurance , service, tyres , road tax , etc
Tyres are always premium. An ex Motability car we own came with a new set of Continental tyres supplied via a central contract from Kwik Fit. Stick a set of mid range tyres like Kuhmo on every wheel on every Motability car when the tyres need replacing and the tyre bill is halved. The guy who had our car before us wouldn't be spending his own money on Continental tyres when there are cheap Chinese brands available.
I didn't know much about it until we acquired an ex Motability car but I have learned a great deal since. An absolute abuse of tax payer money.
I know I shouldn't take these things personally but there have been a number of people on here today who would support stripping my husband of his ILR and sending him back to Canada as well as taking the car that my aunt relies on away from her. Oh and also robbing my disabled uncle of his means of transport as my aunt also drives him around. I don't have that many more relations left to lose.
I have not demanded the removal of Motability. I have questioned the need for such a wide vehicle choice (including upgrades to prestige marques) and the procurement policy for maintenance. I am not sure Motability is managed as efficiently as it could be.
I'm somewhat puzzled about how Motability works. I'm over 65 (well over!) with Attendance Allowance and I've been allocated a wheelchair, Zimmer frame and sundry other disabled aids. I'm no longer allowed to drive, so my wife has to do all the driving, but I'm told I'm not eligible for Motability. I'm not envious (well, not very!) of people who do get it, but I wonder...... It's a bit of a pig getting in and out of cars, too.
Catherine Connolly - the independent left TD backed by Sinn Fein and all the small left-wing parties as their candidate for the Irish Presidential election - has said that Hamas is "part of the fabric of the Palestinian people". Delightful.
They must be part of the fabric of the Palestinian people because the IDF seem incapable of distinguishing them from yer average Gazan. Unless all Palestinians are Hamas of course.
I've got a radical idea - if you are a British taxpayer you get equal treatment with other British taxpayers.
Yes, even the ones with a funny name and brown skin.
You want to be the only country in the world allowing non-citizens to vote in national elections?
As has been pointed out, we've long allowed non-citizens to vote in national elections.
Also, we are not the only country in the world to do this. New Zealand, Chile, Uruguay etc. let those with permanent residence of various sorts vote. UK citizens can vote in Ireland.
You can tell why he’s annoyed 8 of the social houses opposite the one he has bought have families that don’t work with motobility cars that are better than the 11 year old polo they have to share
Worse the poster can’t afford children but that isn’t a problem in the social housing
This, going around recently, has radicalised a fair number of people:
(It works by checking Dartford crossing free ticket eligibility IIRC).
Did the story about 20% of new car sales being via Motability ever get stood up, or is there something else going on?
Surely the government could start by limiting the scheme to cars made in the UK, so as not to be sending subsidy money abroad?
Wasn't it over 30%?
Motability was set up to replace the Invacar three wheeled scooter.
Why does anyone need a choice? If a user needs a small car, a basic Corsa should suffice. If a larger car is required a Citroen Berlingo should do the trick. If one can afford to upgrade to a BMW M5 they don't need a Motability car.
PIP is not means tested.
Because of the VAT exemption, the lease is less than half the price (46% per Motability themselves) so they can only afford the M5 by using motability's VAT exemption.
The VAT is 20%, the purported 45% saving Motability claim is if you bundle in maintenance, insurance and breakdown cover and note 5 on hteir press release "Percentage savings shown are the difference between the Motability Scheme lease cost and the highest priced alternative option, expressed as a percentage."
everything is included though, insurance , service, tyres , road tax , etc
Tyres are always premium. An ex Motability car we own came with a new set of Continental tyres supplied via a central contract from Kwik Fit. Stick a set of mid range tyres like Kuhmo on every wheel on every Motability car when the tyres need replacing and the tyre bill is halved. The guy who had our car before us wouldn't be spending his own money on Continental tyres when there are cheap Chinese brands available.
I didn't know much about it until we acquired an ex Motability car but I have learned a great deal since. An absolute abuse of tax payer money.
I know I shouldn't take these things personally but there have been a number of people on here today who would support stripping my husband of his ILR and sending him back to Canada as well as taking the car that my aunt relies on away from her. Oh and also robbing my disabled uncle of his means of transport as my aunt also drives him around. I don't have that many more relations left to lose.
I have not demanded the removal of Motability. I have questioned the need for such a wide vehicle choice (including upgrades to prestige marques) and the procurement policy for maintenance. I am not sure Motability is managed as efficiently as it could be.
I'm somewhat puzzled about how Motability works. I'm over 65 (well over!) with Attendance Allowance and I've been allocated a wheelchair, Zimmer frame and sundry other disabled aids. I'm no longer allowed to drive, so my wife has to do all the driving, but I'm told I'm not eligible for Motability. I'm not envious (well, not very!) of people who do get it, but I wonder...... It's a bit of a pig getting in and out of cars, too.
Such air defences are complex systems, requiring a number of vehicles all talking to each other. What I suspect is the case is that the missiles themselves are plentiful in russia, but complete systems less so. Ukraine has been focussing on taking out the radars rather than the missiles themselves, AIUI the S-series radars are full of Ukranian components from the Soviet era, and are pretty much irreplaceable by russia.
Catherine Connolly - the independent left TD backed by Sinn Fein and all the small left-wing parties as their candidate for the Irish Presidential election - has said that Hamas is "part of the fabric of the Palestinian people". Delightful.
They must be part of the fabric of the Palestinian people because the IDF seem incapable of distinguishing them from yer average Gazan. Unless all Palestinians are Hamas of course.
So Catherine Connolly is agreeing with Netanyahu and chums?
Where Nigel has been massively successful is pinning the influx of foreigners purely on Boris - the term BorisWave is now firmly part of the lexicon. Astonishing to think that the BorisWave - a Brexit measure - has cemented Boris's political doom. How did the Tories get this all so wrong?
Worth pointing out that Labour already crossed the restrospectiveness Rubicon, in a sense:
"On Monday the government announced immigrants would now typically have to live in the UK for 10 years before applying for the right to stay here indefinitely - double the current five-year period.
It was previously unclear whether this would apply to the approximately 1.5 million foreign workers who have moved to the UK since 2020.
The BBC understands a document published in the coming weeks will make clear the government is preparing to apply the 10-year qualifying period to those who are already in the UK as well as to new visa applicants."
Isn’t the difference that they won’t be asked to re-apply for their visas so won’t face the threat of deportation. Regardless I don’t agree with retrospective changes .
I think there's a difference between being in the process and the process changes, and having achieved the end of the process but the process then being changed retroactively.
For example, during my lifetime, the pension age has moved. I think that's acceptable. I don't think it would be acceptable to take a state pension away from someone who had already started to receive one. Likewise, I think it's acceptable to change the requirements for ILR before someone has earned it, but once they've been awarded ILR, you shouldn't retroactively change the rules and make them do more.
My fear is that once again, no matter how ridiculous and delusional Farage's proposals are, people are going to be genuinely astonished to learn that you can apply for ILR having been here for 5 years. A lot of people who would have been quite relaxed about foreigners coming here to do unpleasant and low paid jobs for a time will not have appreciated the rights that are given as a matter of course to those who do them.
The response of the government rather gives the game away on this, stating that they are in the process (honest) of extending the period to 10 years. Whether Farage's solutions have any credibility he has succeeded once again in demonstrating that the established parties are universally seeking to pull the wool over the eyes of the British public and many will be a lot more annoyed about that than any alleged imperfections in his solution.
If you want people to integrate then you need to give them some certainty over their status. Farage's proposals are a recipe from precisely the kind of immigration - working age single men, sending all their money home, failing to integrate - that he claims not to want. He's also based the whole plan on some bogus numbers that the think-tank who came up with them are now disowning. The UK's fiscal hole is not down to immigrants, and Farage's proposals, apart from being divisive and unfair, will only make the fiscal outlook worse.
I agree with all of that. But the perception that the established parties simply cannot be trusted to reflect or respect the wishes of the British people has received another boost.
You can tell why he’s annoyed 8 of the social houses opposite the one he has bought have families that don’t work with motobility cars that are better than the 11 year old polo they have to share
Worse the poster can’t afford children but that isn’t a problem in the social housing
This, going around recently, has radicalised a fair number of people:
(It works by checking Dartford crossing free ticket eligibility IIRC).
Did the story about 20% of new car sales being via Motability ever get stood up, or is there something else going on?
Surely the government could start by limiting the scheme to cars made in the UK, so as not to be sending subsidy money abroad?
Wasn't it over 30%?
Motability was set up to replace the Invacar three wheeled scooter.
Why does anyone need a choice? If a user needs a small car, a basic Corsa should suffice. If a larger car is required a Citroen Berlingo should do the trick. If one can afford to upgrade to a BMW M5 they don't need a Motability car.
PIP is not means tested.
Because of the VAT exemption, the lease is less than half the price (46% per Motability themselves) so they can only afford the M5 by using motability's VAT exemption.
The VAT is 20%, the purported 45% saving Motability claim is if you bundle in maintenance, insurance and breakdown cover and note 5 on hteir press release "Percentage savings shown are the difference between the Motability Scheme lease cost and the highest priced alternative option, expressed as a percentage."
everything is included though, insurance , service, tyres , road tax , etc
Tyres are always premium. An ex Motability car we own came with a new set of Continental tyres supplied via a central contract from Kwik Fit. Stick a set of mid range tyres like Kuhmo on every wheel on every Motability car when the tyres need replacing and the tyre bill is halved. The guy who had our car before us wouldn't be spending his own money on Continental tyres when there are cheap Chinese brands available.
I didn't know much about it until we acquired an ex Motability car but I have learned a great deal since. An absolute abuse of tax payer money.
I know I shouldn't take these things personally but there have been a number of people on here today who would support stripping my husband of his ILR and sending him back to Canada as well as taking the car that my aunt relies on away from her. Oh and also robbing my disabled uncle of his means of transport as my aunt also drives him around. I don't have that many more relations left to lose.
Asking your Aunt to spend £5k, leased monthly, on a decent used car like the rest of us have to is not taking anything away. If she needs special modifications, those can be subsidised.
She has restricted growth so yes it does need to be heavily modified. I want to reiterate that the point of PIP is that disabled people spend it on the things they personally need to help them live independently. For some that will be a car, for others a modified bathroom or a special bed or whatever. You could set up specific grants for each of those things but it would be even more a nightmare to navigate for disabled people and probably a lot more expensive to administer. I also personally think it's a good thing that disabled people are given the respect to judge where they spend the help they get.
My fear is that once again, no matter how ridiculous and delusional Farage's proposals are, people are going to be genuinely astonished to learn that you can apply for ILR having been here for 5 years. A lot of people who would have been quite relaxed about foreigners coming here to do unpleasant and low paid jobs for a time will not have appreciated the rights that are given as a matter of course to those who do them.
The response of the government rather gives the game away on this, stating that they are in the process (honest) of extending the period to 10 years. Whether Farage's solutions have any credibility he has succeeded once again in demonstrating that the established parties are universally seeking to pull the wool over the eyes of the British public and many will be a lot more annoyed about that than any alleged imperfections in his solution.
If you want people to integrate then you need to give them some certainty over their status. Farage's proposals are a recipe from precisely the kind of immigration - working age single men, sending all their money home, failing to integrate - that he claims not to want. He's also based the whole plan on some bogus numbers that the think-tank who came up with them are now disowning. The UK's fiscal hole is not down to immigrants, and Farage's proposals, apart from being divisive and unfair, will only make the fiscal outlook worse.
I agree with all of that. But the perception that the established parties simply cannot be trusted to reflect or respect the wishes of the British people has received another boost.
That segment of the British people focused on immigration ahead of the economy is still only about half, or even less in some surveys. Labour and Reform just need them electorally.
What Farrage is proposing seems like pragmatic steps that address two of the greatest problems facing this country: uncontrolled mass immigration and a welfare system that is bankrupting the country.
Khan and other bleeding heart liberals clutching their pearls and telling him "you can't say that" will only add to the appeal this policy has to an increasingly NOTA electorate.
The establishment has done nothing to sort either issue, despite Labour and the Conservatives having large majorities respectively and the time to do so.
Like Thatcher, Farrage is being bold and doubling down in a way that is easily understood and relatable as him "sticking to his guns".
He will be rewarded, like she was, because of dear old TINA in the end. The absence of any solution other than continued fingers in ears and 'let's pretend ' everything is lovely.
The welfare system is being bankrupted by population ageing, not immigration. Immigration makes it more affordable, at least in the near term. And we don't have uncontrolled immigration. As a result of Brexit we can control who comes in. For some reason the previous government decided to let in lots of people. But they had control and made a conscious decision to let in lots of people under their Australian points based system.
What Farrage is proposing seems like pragmatic steps that address two of the greatest problems facing this country: uncontrolled mass immigration and a welfare system that is bankrupting the country.
Khan and other bleeding heart liberals clutching their pearls and telling him "you can't say that" will only add to the appeal this policy has to an increasingly NOTA electorate.
The establishment has done nothing to sort either issue, despite Labour and the Conservatives having large majorities respectively and the time to do so.
Like Thatcher, Farrage is being bold and doubling down in a way that is easily understood and relatable as him "sticking to his guns".
He will be rewarded, like she was, because of dear old TINA in the end. The absence of any solution other than continued fingers in ears and 'let's pretend ' everything is lovely.
Farage can certainly feel more right (correct) than Khan and co. However neither is really of much note. They are simply responding to the frothing cauldrons that they have chosen to sit atop. Neither cauldron has any merit at all of course.
It's just a symptom of failing democracy that we have these people and the tribes below them. There's no shortage of opportunity in the UK to express your democratic wish. There is a shortage of factors at work that enable you to form and want to back that wish.
You can tell why he’s annoyed 8 of the social houses opposite the one he has bought have families that don’t work with motobility cars that are better than the 11 year old polo they have to share
Worse the poster can’t afford children but that isn’t a problem in the social housing
This, going around recently, has radicalised a fair number of people:
(It works by checking Dartford crossing free ticket eligibility IIRC).
Did the story about 20% of new car sales being via Motability ever get stood up, or is there something else going on?
Surely the government could start by limiting the scheme to cars made in the UK, so as not to be sending subsidy money abroad?
Wasn't it over 30%?
Motability was set up to replace the Invacar three wheeled scooter.
Why does anyone need a choice? If a user needs a small car, a basic Corsa should suffice. If a larger car is required a Citroen Berlingo should do the trick. If one can afford to upgrade to a BMW M5 they don't need a Motability car.
PIP is not means tested.
Because of the VAT exemption, the lease is less than half the price (46% per Motability themselves) so they can only afford the M5 by using motability's VAT exemption.
The VAT is 20%, the purported 45% saving Motability claim is if you bundle in maintenance, insurance and breakdown cover and note 5 on hteir press release "Percentage savings shown are the difference between the Motability Scheme lease cost and the highest priced alternative option, expressed as a percentage."
everything is included though, insurance , service, tyres , road tax , etc
Tyres are always premium. An ex Motability car we own came with a new set of Continental tyres supplied via a central contract from Kwik Fit. Stick a set of mid range tyres like Kuhmo on every wheel on every Motability car when the tyres need replacing and the tyre bill is halved. The guy who had our car before us wouldn't be spending his own money on Continental tyres when there are cheap Chinese brands available.
I didn't know much about it until we acquired an ex Motability car but I have learned a great deal since. An absolute abuse of tax payer money.
I know I shouldn't take these things personally but there have been a number of people on here today who would support stripping my husband of his ILR and sending him back to Canada as well as taking the car that my aunt relies on away from her. Oh and also robbing my disabled uncle of his means of transport as my aunt also drives him around. I don't have that many more relations left to lose.
You can tell why he’s annoyed 8 of the social houses opposite the one he has bought have families that don’t work with motobility cars that are better than the 11 year old polo they have to share
Worse the poster can’t afford children but that isn’t a problem in the social housing
This, going around recently, has radicalised a fair number of people:
(It works by checking Dartford crossing free ticket eligibility IIRC).
Did the story about 20% of new car sales being via Motability ever get stood up, or is there something else going on?
Surely the government could start by limiting the scheme to cars made in the UK, so as not to be sending subsidy money abroad?
Wasn't it over 30%?
Motability was set up to replace the Invacar three wheeled scooter.
Why does anyone need a choice? If a user needs a small car, a basic Corsa should suffice. If a larger car is required a Citroen Berlingo should do the trick. If one can afford to upgrade to a BMW M5 they don't need a Motability car.
PIP is not means tested.
Because of the VAT exemption, the lease is less than half the price (46% per Motability themselves) so they can only afford the M5 by using motability's VAT exemption.
The VAT is 20%, the purported 45% saving Motability claim is if you bundle in maintenance, insurance and breakdown cover and note 5 on hteir press release "Percentage savings shown are the difference between the Motability Scheme lease cost and the highest priced alternative option, expressed as a percentage."
everything is included though, insurance , service, tyres , road tax , etc
Tyres are always premium. An ex Motability car we own came with a new set of Continental tyres supplied via a central contract from Kwik Fit. Stick a set of mid range tyres like Kuhmo on every wheel on every Motability car when the tyres need replacing and the tyre bill is halved. The guy who had our car before us wouldn't be spending his own money on Continental tyres when there are cheap Chinese brands available.
I didn't know much about it until we acquired an ex Motability car but I have learned a great deal since. An absolute abuse of tax payer money.
I know I shouldn't take these things personally but there have been a number of people on here today who would support stripping my husband of his ILR and sending him back to Canada as well as taking the car that my aunt relies on away from her. Oh and also robbing my disabled uncle of his means of transport as my aunt also drives him around. I don't have that many more relations left to lose.
If your hubby has ILR that should be honoured..
Motability needs reform.
I agree, well sometimes However it appears that Reform doesn't. I'm sure that there are aspects of Motability which could be reformed to work better. I just wish people wouldn't throw around words like abuse and scam quite so much as many people find the service crucial to living independently.
Where Nigel has been massively successful is pinning the influx of foreigners purely on Boris - the term BorisWave is now firmly part of the lexicon. Astonishing to think that the BorisWave - a Brexit measure - has cemented Boris's political doom. How did the Tories get this all so wrong?
Didn't Patel design the points system as Home Sec.?
Such air defences are complex systems, requiring a number of vehicles all talking to each other. What I suspect is the case is that the missiles themselves are plentiful in russia, but complete systems less so. Ukraine has been focussing on taking out the radars rather than the missiles themselves, AIUI the S-series radars are full of Ukranian components from the Soviet era, and are pretty much irreplaceable by russia.
It’s been noted that the fabled Russian air defence network doesn’t seem to be there anymore.
During the Cold War a vast network of radars covered the Soviet Union. Thousands of missile sites and thousands of interceptor aircraft were ready to attack inbound targets. Which is why the US built Stealth aircraft.
It seems, however that Ukraine can carry out strikes using light aircraft modified into missiles. Trundling along at 150mph in a straight line at a few thousand feet. True, Ukraine is moving to faster, custom designed systems. But again, from what we know of “Flamingo”, it is neither stealthy, nor terrain following. It should be easy meat for an effective air defence network.
During the fabled “Speer miracle” of armaments in Nazi Germany, heroic increases in production were claimed. Yet the German army continued to regress - less and less artillery, less air support, fewer lorries and armoured vehicles. The reason - a combination of fake stats, unusable production (quality) and missing pieces that prevented use.
Something is missing for Russia in air defence. I suspect that it is, as you say, search radars. It is worth noting, however, the extreme vulnerability of Russian systems when used against the Israelis - who destroyed them, blinded them and even hacked them to the point of their being of little use.
My fear is that once again, no matter how ridiculous and delusional Farage's proposals are, people are going to be genuinely astonished to learn that you can apply for ILR having been here for 5 years. A lot of people who would have been quite relaxed about foreigners coming here to do unpleasant and low paid jobs for a time will not have appreciated the rights that are given as a matter of course to those who do them.
The response of the government rather gives the game away on this, stating that they are in the process (honest) of extending the period to 10 years. Whether Farage's solutions have any credibility he has succeeded once again in demonstrating that the established parties are universally seeking to pull the wool over the eyes of the British public and many will be a lot more annoyed about that than any alleged imperfections in his solution.
If you want people to integrate then you need to give them some certainty over their status. Farage's proposals are a recipe from precisely the kind of immigration - working age single men, sending all their money home, failing to integrate - that he claims not to want. He's also based the whole plan on some bogus numbers that the think-tank who came up with them are now disowning. The UK's fiscal hole is not down to immigrants, and Farage's proposals, apart from being divisive and unfair, will only make the fiscal outlook worse.
I agree with all of that. But the perception that the established parties simply cannot be trusted to reflect or respect the wishes of the British people has received another boost.
Do the British people really want to round up families who have been given the right to live here and throw them out of the country? I don't think that is the majority view. If I'm wrong then I'll be going too.
You can tell why he’s annoyed 8 of the social houses opposite the one he has bought have families that don’t work with motobility cars that are better than the 11 year old polo they have to share
Worse the poster can’t afford children but that isn’t a problem in the social housing
This, going around recently, has radicalised a fair number of people:
(It works by checking Dartford crossing free ticket eligibility IIRC).
Did the story about 20% of new car sales being via Motability ever get stood up, or is there something else going on?
Surely the government could start by limiting the scheme to cars made in the UK, so as not to be sending subsidy money abroad?
Wasn't it over 30%?
Motability was set up to replace the Invacar three wheeled scooter.
Why does anyone need a choice? If a user needs a small car, a basic Corsa should suffice. If a larger car is required a Citroen Berlingo should do the trick. If one can afford to upgrade to a BMW M5 they don't need a Motability car.
PIP is not means tested.
Because of the VAT exemption, the lease is less than half the price (46% per Motability themselves) so they can only afford the M5 by using motability's VAT exemption.
The VAT is 20%, the purported 45% saving Motability claim is if you bundle in maintenance, insurance and breakdown cover and note 5 on hteir press release "Percentage savings shown are the difference between the Motability Scheme lease cost and the highest priced alternative option, expressed as a percentage."
everything is included though, insurance , service, tyres , road tax , etc
Tyres are always premium. An ex Motability car we own came with a new set of Continental tyres supplied via a central contract from Kwik Fit. Stick a set of mid range tyres like Kuhmo on every wheel on every Motability car when the tyres need replacing and the tyre bill is halved. The guy who had our car before us wouldn't be spending his own money on Continental tyres when there are cheap Chinese brands available.
I didn't know much about it until we acquired an ex Motability car but I have learned a great deal since. An absolute abuse of tax payer money.
I know I shouldn't take these things personally but there have been a number of people on here today who would support stripping my husband of his ILR and sending him back to Canada as well as taking the car that my aunt relies on away from her. Oh and also robbing my disabled uncle of his means of transport as my aunt also drives him around. I don't have that many more relations left to lose.
I have not demanded the removal of Motability. I have questioned the need for such a wide vehicle choice (including upgrades to prestige marques) and the procurement policy for maintenance. I am not sure Motability is managed as efficiently as it could be.
I'm somewhat puzzled about how Motability works. I'm over 65 (well over!) with Attendance Allowance and I've been allocated a wheelchair, Zimmer frame and sundry other disabled aids. I'm no longer allowed to drive, so my wife has to do all the driving, but I'm told I'm not eligible for Motability. I'm not envious (well, not very!) of people who do get it, but I wonder...... It's a bit of a pig getting in and out of cars, too.
Seems rather unfair on you. I would be eligible but am medically disqualified from driving and dont have a partner so it's of no use to me!
Where Nigel has been massively successful is pinning the influx of foreigners purely on Boris - the term BorisWave is now firmly part of the lexicon. Astonishing to think that the BorisWave - a Brexit measure - has cemented Boris's political doom. How did the Tories get this all so wrong?
I've been wondering about that.
I don't remember hearing about a policy to increase immigration. What policy change brought about the big increase, why was it implemented, what debate was there beforehand?
It seems to have taken us all by surprise when the official numbers showed net migration of a million per year. It's bizarre that should have happened when May as PM was so clear that the referendum has been won on the basis of ending free movement, and the Tories had been promising net migration in the tens of thousands for so long.
What Farrage is proposing seems like pragmatic steps that address two of the greatest problems facing this country: uncontrolled mass immigration and a welfare system that is bankrupting the country.
Khan and other bleeding heart liberals clutching their pearls and telling him "you can't say that" will only add to the appeal this policy has to an increasingly NOTA electorate.
The establishment has done nothing to sort either issue, despite Labour and the Conservatives having large majorities respectively and the time to do so.
Like Thatcher, Farrage is being bold and doubling down in a way that is easily understood and relatable as him "sticking to his guns".
He will be rewarded, like she was, because of dear old TINA in the end. The absence of any solution other than continued fingers in ears and 'let's pretend ' everything is lovely.
We don't have "uncontrolled mass immigration". The Boriswave was largely controlled. The Government issued all those visas.
Also, the Boriswave is in the past. Net immigration in 2024 was about half the Boriswave peak. I think that's the biggest ever drop in immigration since the numbers were recorded. It is expected to be lower again in 2025. Why do you need Farage's proposals when immigration is already dropping so much? Johnson was a terrible Prime Minister, but he's gone now. Sunak and now Starmer have responded to public concerns and net immigration is falling.
British-born citizens are more likely to be on benefits than immigrants. It isn't immigrants who are "bankrupting the country".
42% of the welfare bill is spent on pensions. If you want to reform the welfare system, start with pensions. You could abolish the triple lock. You could increase the pension age. You could introduce more means testing.
My fear is that once again, no matter how ridiculous and delusional Farage's proposals are, people are going to be genuinely astonished to learn that you can apply for ILR having been here for 5 years. A lot of people who would have been quite relaxed about foreigners coming here to do unpleasant and low paid jobs for a time will not have appreciated the rights that are given as a matter of course to those who do them.
The response of the government rather gives the game away on this, stating that they are in the process (honest) of extending the period to 10 years. Whether Farage's solutions have any credibility he has succeeded once again in demonstrating that the established parties are universally seeking to pull the wool over the eyes of the British public and many will be a lot more annoyed about that than any alleged imperfections in his solution.
It always comes down to a sense of control - it really does feel like we have essentially open borders and provide housing, NHS, benefits to all who come, no questions asked. Boriswave + boats.
I dislike the notion that you have to earn a certain amount to live and work here though - low paid agricultural workers allow British people to sit in an office earning money; carers looks after our parents. Those people should have access to the NHS and other public services on a temporary basis. If they commit to the UK and demonstrate they can live within our laws, then ILR should be offered under reasonably strict criteria, not automatically.
I disagree entirely with the idea of deporting those who already have ILR. That seems like a grotesque betrayal of many good people who have built their lives here.
I think that we need to look at this from the perspective of UK plc. If we need skills we should buy in those skills but not to the extent that it becomes unattractive to train the domestic labour force. If we need labour for certain categories of work, whether that is bringing in crops, providing social care or support work in the NHS we should again be able to do so. These things are in our interests. When we no longer need that labour we will probably want those that provided it to go home but I am not adverse to the idea that for at least some of them "home" will now be here. If they have had children or relationships here, for example, and have shown a real commitment to this country I have no problem with that.
What I do have a problem with, as you say, is such valuable rights being handed out en masse without any consideration as to what is in it for us. I have a problem with politicians claiming to be "tough" on immigration whilst operating a system with more holes than the average colander. Who waste time and money on hearings, appeals and further appeals and then don't actually enforce the decision because it just seems too much effort. Who claim that offenders will be extradited at the end of their sentence and then fail to implement that. Who take me and indeed most people for mugs. If they persist in this obfuscation and lying we are going to end up with the likes of Farage. It is a deeply unpleasant thought.
Was there a great deal of comment about the Boris wave as it happened? Or did folk only really notice retrospectively?
All the Brexiteers on here said that it wasn't the numbers, it was all about control. With our points based system we could let in the best from around the world, just like Australia does. Brexit would makes us more open and outwards looking ready to welcome the world. Lol.
Was there a great deal of comment about the Boris wave as it happened? Or did folk only really notice retrospectively?
I remember reading the Guardian comments, and many of us on the Remainer side predicting that the huge wave on non-eu immigration after Brexit would just make Britain even more angry, divided, disillusioned and xenophobic.
Where Nigel has been massively successful is pinning the influx of foreigners purely on Boris - the term BorisWave is now firmly part of the lexicon. Astonishing to think that the BorisWave - a Brexit measure - has cemented Boris's political doom. How did the Tories get this all so wrong?
I've been wondering about that.
I don't remember hearing about a policy to increase immigration. What policy change brought about the big increase, why was it implemented, what debate was there beforehand?
It seems to have taken us all by surprise when the official numbers showed net migration of a million per year. It's bizarre that should have happened when May as PM was so clear that the referendum has been won on the basis of ending free movement, and the Tories had been promising net migration in the tens of thousands for so long.
You can tell why he’s annoyed 8 of the social houses opposite the one he has bought have families that don’t work with motobility cars that are better than the 11 year old polo they have to share
Worse the poster can’t afford children but that isn’t a problem in the social housing
This, going around recently, has radicalised a fair number of people:
(It works by checking Dartford crossing free ticket eligibility IIRC).
Did the story about 20% of new car sales being via Motability ever get stood up, or is there something else going on?
Surely the government could start by limiting the scheme to cars made in the UK, so as not to be sending subsidy money abroad?
Wasn't it over 30%?
Motability was set up to replace the Invacar three wheeled scooter.
Why does anyone need a choice? If a user needs a small car, a basic Corsa should suffice. If a larger car is required a Citroen Berlingo should do the trick. If one can afford to upgrade to a BMW M5 they don't need a Motability car.
PIP is not means tested.
Because of the VAT exemption, the lease is less than half the price (46% per Motability themselves) so they can only afford the M5 by using motability's VAT exemption.
The VAT is 20%, the purported 45% saving Motability claim is if you bundle in maintenance, insurance and breakdown cover and note 5 on hteir press release "Percentage savings shown are the difference between the Motability Scheme lease cost and the highest priced alternative option, expressed as a percentage."
everything is included though, insurance , service, tyres , road tax , etc
Tyres are always premium. An ex Motability car we own came with a new set of Continental tyres supplied via a central contract from Kwik Fit. Stick a set of mid range tyres like Kuhmo on every wheel on every Motability car when the tyres need replacing and the tyre bill is halved. The guy who had our car before us wouldn't be spending his own money on Continental tyres when there are cheap Chinese brands available.
I didn't know much about it until we acquired an ex Motability car but I have learned a great deal since. An absolute abuse of tax payer money.
I know I shouldn't take these things personally but there have been a number of people on here today who would support stripping my husband of his ILR and sending him back to Canada as well as taking the car that my aunt relies on away from her. Oh and also robbing my disabled uncle of his means of transport as my aunt also drives him around. I don't have that many more relations left to lose.
I have not demanded the removal of Motability. I have questioned the need for such a wide vehicle choice (including upgrades to prestige marques) and the procurement policy for maintenance. I am not sure Motability is managed as efficiently as it could be.
I'm somewhat puzzled about how Motability works. I'm over 65 (well over!) with Attendance Allowance and I've been allocated a wheelchair, Zimmer frame and sundry other disabled aids. I'm no longer allowed to drive, so my wife has to do all the driving, but I'm told I'm not eligible for Motability. I'm not envious (well, not very!) of people who do get it, but I wonder...... It's a bit of a pig getting in and out of cars, too.
It seems that if you haven’t qualified for Motability before pension age, it’s not possible to become eligible after you have reached pension age. In order to qualify for Motability you have to be in receipt of benefits that are no longer available after retirement.
Where Nigel has been massively successful is pinning the influx of foreigners purely on Boris - the term BorisWave is now firmly part of the lexicon. Astonishing to think that the BorisWave - a Brexit measure - has cemented Boris's political doom. How did the Tories get this all so wrong?
I've been wondering about that.
I don't remember hearing about a policy to increase immigration. What policy change brought about the big increase, why was it implemented, what debate was there beforehand?
It seems to have taken us all by surprise when the official numbers showed net migration of a million per year. It's bizarre that should have happened when May as PM was so clear that the referendum has been won on the basis of ending free movement, and the Tories had been promising net migration in the tens of thousands for so long.
That's a good question.
I think it's probably a combination of many factors:
*) Increased demand, both economic and because of 'near' wars (e.g. Syria) *) Increased ability to make your way around the world. *) Increased knowledge of where a better life can be got, and how (e.g. comms) *) A desire to help people less fortunate *) Lawyers and other groups making money out of trying to keep even poor cases in the country. *) Organised gangs (*) making money from people trafficking. *) Governments encouraging migration to western countries for political reasons. *) Lack of international agreements to deal with people no-one wants. *) International law that was written in simpler times, and is no longer fit for purpose. *) + many more
(*) Not, of course, including the lawyers. They're not an organised gang. Oh no.
Was there a great deal of comment about the Boris wave as it happened? Or did folk only really notice retrospectively?
I remember the Guardian comments, and many of us on the Remainer side predictinghow the huge wave on non-eu immigration after Brexit, would just make Britain even more angry, divided, disillusioned and xenophobic.
And so indeed, has it happened.
This requires a counterfactual: what would have happened if the rules were set so non-EU immigration was, say, 200k per year not 1m per year. Boris made decisions. They were not inevitable.
Was there a great deal of comment about the Boris wave as it happened? Or did folk only really notice retrospectively?
I very vaguely recall some Brexiteers celebrating non-EU immigration, and suggesting that Remainers who expressed doubt about Boris's enthusiasm for it at the time were being racist.
But memory is fallible, and I can't be bothered to spend time searching for that, so don't put too much reliance on it.
Where Nigel has been massively successful is pinning the influx of foreigners purely on Boris - the term BorisWave is now firmly part of the lexicon. Astonishing to think that the BorisWave - a Brexit measure - has cemented Boris's political doom. How did the Tories get this all so wrong?
I remember in Brexit days it being stated that the biggest benefit of all, a thing of great efficacy which once liberated we would be able to implement instead of the horrors of Free Movement, was an 'Australian style points system'.
Where Nigel has been massively successful is pinning the influx of foreigners purely on Boris - the term BorisWave is now firmly part of the lexicon. Astonishing to think that the BorisWave - a Brexit measure - has cemented Boris's political doom. How did the Tories get this all so wrong?
I've been wondering about that.
I don't remember hearing about a policy to increase immigration. What policy change brought about the big increase, why was it implemented, what debate was there beforehand?
It seems to have taken us all by surprise when the official numbers showed net migration of a million per year. It's bizarre that should have happened when May as PM was so clear that the referendum has been won on the basis of ending free movement, and the Tories had been promising net migration in the tens of thousands for so long.
That's a good question.
I think it's probably a combination of many factors:
*) Increased demand, both economic and because of 'near' wars (e.g. Syria) *) Increased ability to make your way around the world. *) Increased knowledge of where a better life can be got, and how (e.g. comms) *) A desire to help people less fortunate *) Lawyers and other groups making money out of trying to keep even poor cases in the country. *) Organised gangs (*) making money from people trafficking. *) Governments encouraging migration to western countries for political reasons. *) Lack of international agreements to deal with people no-one wants. *) International law that was written in simpler times, and is no longer fit for purpose. *) + many more
(*) Not, of course, including the lawyers. They're not an organised gang. Oh no.
Where Nigel has been massively successful is pinning the influx of foreigners purely on Boris - the term BorisWave is now firmly part of the lexicon. Astonishing to think that the BorisWave - a Brexit measure - has cemented Boris's political doom. How did the Tories get this all so wrong?
I've been wondering about that.
I don't remember hearing about a policy to increase immigration. What policy change brought about the big increase, why was it implemented, what debate was there beforehand?
It seems to have taken us all by surprise when the official numbers showed net migration of a million per year. It's bizarre that should have happened when May as PM was so clear that the referendum has been won on the basis of ending free movement, and the Tories had been promising net migration in the tens of thousands for so long.
That's a good question.
I think it's probably a combination of many factors:
*) Increased demand, both economic and because of 'near' wars (e.g. Syria) *) Increased ability to make your way around the world. *) Increased knowledge of where a better life can be got, and how (e.g. comms) *) A desire to help people less fortunate *) Lawyers and other groups making money out of trying to keep even poor cases in the country. *) Organised gangs (*) making money from people trafficking. *) Governments encouraging migration to western countries for political reasons. *) Lack of international agreements to deal with people no-one wants. *) International law that was written in simpler times, and is no longer fit for purpose. *) + many more
(*) Not, of course, including the lawyers. They're not an organised gang. Oh no.
None of those seem to relate to people who came through the issuing of work visas. The Boriswave didn't really have much to do with asylum in general, albeit there was a contribution from Ukrainians and Hongkongers.
My fear is that once again, no matter how ridiculous and delusional Farage's proposals are, people are going to be genuinely astonished to learn that you can apply for ILR having been here for 5 years. A lot of people who would have been quite relaxed about foreigners coming here to do unpleasant and low paid jobs for a time will not have appreciated the rights that are given as a matter of course to those who do them.
The response of the government rather gives the game away on this, stating that they are in the process (honest) of extending the period to 10 years. Whether Farage's solutions have any credibility he has succeeded once again in demonstrating that the established parties are universally seeking to pull the wool over the eyes of the British public and many will be a lot more annoyed about that than any alleged imperfections in his solution.
It always comes down to a sense of control - it really does feel like we have essentially open borders and provide housing, NHS, benefits to all who come, no questions asked. Boriswave + boats.
I dislike the notion that you have to earn a certain amount to live and work here though - low paid agricultural workers allow British people to sit in an office earning money; carers looks after our parents. Those people should have access to the NHS and other public services on a temporary basis. If they commit to the UK and demonstrate they can live within our laws, then ILR should be offered under reasonably strict criteria, not automatically.
I disagree entirely with the idea of deporting those who already have ILR. That seems like a grotesque betrayal of many good people who have built their lives here.
I think that we need to look at this from the perspective of UK plc. If we need skills we should buy in those skills but not to the extent that it becomes unattractive to train the domestic labour force. If we need labour for certain categories of work, whether that is bringing in crops, providing social care or support work in the NHS we should again be able to do so. These things are in our interests. When we no longer need that labour we will probably want those that provided it to go home but I am not adverse to the idea that for at least some of them "home" will now be here. If they have had children or relationships here, for example, and have shown a real commitment to this country I have no problem with that.
What I do have a problem with, as you say, is such valuable rights being handed out en masse without any consideration as to what is in it for us. I have a problem with politicians claiming to be "tough" on immigration whilst operating a system with more holes than the average colander. Who waste time and money on hearings, appeals and further appeals and then don't actually enforce the decision because it just seems too much effort. Who claim that offenders will be extradited at the end of their sentence and then fail to implement that. Who take me and indeed most people for mugs. If they persist in this obfuscation and lying we are going to end up with the likes of Farage. It is a deeply unpleasant thought.
If it’s not possible to fill jobs at the offered pay rate, then either the rate needs to be increased or the job needs to be mechanised. If it can’t be mechanised, we need to pay the increased rate and accept it will make some things, like care costs, dearer.
Was there a great deal of comment about the Boris wave as it happened? Or did folk only really notice retrospectively?
I remember the Guardian comments, and many of us on the Remainer side predictinghow the huge wave on non-eu immigration after Brexit, would just make Britain even more angry, divided, disillusioned and xenophobic.
And so indeed, has it happened.
This requires a counterfactual: what would have happened if the rules were set so non-EU immigration was, say, 200k per year not 1m per year. Boris made decisions. They were not inevitable.
With the loss of so many workers in such a short space of time , his advice was very likely that there was no other option in order to stave off recession.
The much -vaunted domestic training simply can't be done in time to fill that many job vacancies.
You can tell why he’s annoyed 8 of the social houses opposite the one he has bought have families that don’t work with motobility cars that are better than the 11 year old polo they have to share
Worse the poster can’t afford children but that isn’t a problem in the social housing
This, going around recently, has radicalised a fair number of people:
(It works by checking Dartford crossing free ticket eligibility IIRC).
Did the story about 20% of new car sales being via Motability ever get stood up, or is there something else going on?
Surely the government could start by limiting the scheme to cars made in the UK, so as not to be sending subsidy money abroad?
Wasn't it over 30%?
Motability was set up to replace the Invacar three wheeled scooter.
Why does anyone need a choice? If a user needs a small car, a basic Corsa should suffice. If a larger car is required a Citroen Berlingo should do the trick. If one can afford to upgrade to a BMW M5 they don't need a Motability car.
PIP is not means tested.
Because of the VAT exemption, the lease is less than half the price (46% per Motability themselves) so they can only afford the M5 by using motability's VAT exemption.
The VAT is 20%, the purported 45% saving Motability claim is if you bundle in maintenance, insurance and breakdown cover and note 5 on hteir press release "Percentage savings shown are the difference between the Motability Scheme lease cost and the highest priced alternative option, expressed as a percentage."
everything is included though, insurance , service, tyres , road tax , etc
Tyres are always premium. An ex Motability car we own came with a new set of Continental tyres supplied via a central contract from Kwik Fit. Stick a set of mid range tyres like Kuhmo on every wheel on every Motability car when the tyres need replacing and the tyre bill is halved. The guy who had our car before us wouldn't be spending his own money on Continental tyres when there are cheap Chinese brands available.
I didn't know much about it until we acquired an ex Motability car but I have learned a great deal since. An absolute abuse of tax payer money.
I know I shouldn't take these things personally but there have been a number of people on here today who would support stripping my husband of his ILR and sending him back to Canada as well as taking the car that my aunt relies on away from her. Oh and also robbing my disabled uncle of his means of transport as my aunt also drives him around. I don't have that many more relations left to lose.
I have not demanded the removal of Motability. I have questioned the need for such a wide vehicle choice (including upgrades to prestige marques) and the procurement policy for maintenance. I am not sure Motability is managed as efficiently as it could be.
I'm somewhat puzzled about how Motability works. I'm over 65 (well over!) with Attendance Allowance and I've been allocated a wheelchair, Zimmer frame and sundry other disabled aids. I'm no longer allowed to drive, so my wife has to do all the driving, but I'm told I'm not eligible for Motability. I'm not envious (well, not very!) of people who do get it, but I wonder...... It's a bit of a pig getting in and out of cars, too.
Seems rather unfair on you. I would be eligible but am medically disqualified from driving and dont have a partner so it's of no use to me!
You are only eligible for Motability if you get higher rate of the mobility segment of PIP (or old legagcy DLA).
Attendance Allowance doesn't cut it apparently.
iirc you can't get PIP if you are over State Triple Lock Bonanza age.
An anecdatum: just had a conversation with a colleague, who is quite stressed about LTR changes. She’s Malaysian, but has lived in the UK all her adult life – i.e. ten years or so. She has been asked in the past why she doesn’t just get British citizenship – she never has done yet because she would need to forfeit her Malaysian citizenship in order to do so. She hasn’t done this in the past because she’s had no need, but she’d be nervous about doing so in the future in the case of a Reform government because if Reform are capable of cancelling ILR she reasons they’d be capable of rejecting the citizenship of those who had moved here – which would, because she’d have had to turn down her Malaysian citizenship, render her stateless. Quite aside from the sympathy I feel for her as a person, I can’t imagine this is the sort of outcome Reform are trying to achieve. (Aside from a slight accent and her Chinese features, you wouldn’t think she was anything but British – culturally she is clearly entirely non-alien. In fact, the most culturally incongruous thing about her is she has a quote from a psalm slotted into her phone.)
You can tell why he’s annoyed 8 of the social houses opposite the one he has bought have families that don’t work with motobility cars that are better than the 11 year old polo they have to share
Worse the poster can’t afford children but that isn’t a problem in the social housing
This, going around recently, has radicalised a fair number of people:
(It works by checking Dartford crossing free ticket eligibility IIRC).
Did the story about 20% of new car sales being via Motability ever get stood up, or is there something else going on?
Surely the government could start by limiting the scheme to cars made in the UK, so as not to be sending subsidy money abroad?
Wasn't it over 30%?
Motability was set up to replace the Invacar three wheeled scooter.
Why does anyone need a choice? If a user needs a small car, a basic Corsa should suffice. If a larger car is required a Citroen Berlingo should do the trick. If one can afford to upgrade to a BMW M5 they don't need a Motability car.
PIP is not means tested.
Because of the VAT exemption, the lease is less than half the price (46% per Motability themselves) so they can only afford the M5 by using motability's VAT exemption.
The VAT is 20%, the purported 45% saving Motability claim is if you bundle in maintenance, insurance and breakdown cover and note 5 on hteir press release "Percentage savings shown are the difference between the Motability Scheme lease cost and the highest priced alternative option, expressed as a percentage."
everything is included though, insurance , service, tyres , road tax , etc
Tyres are always premium. An ex Motability car we own came with a new set of Continental tyres supplied via a central contract from Kwik Fit. Stick a set of mid range tyres like Kuhmo on every wheel on every Motability car when the tyres need replacing and the tyre bill is halved. The guy who had our car before us wouldn't be spending his own money on Continental tyres when there are cheap Chinese brands available.
I didn't know much about it until we acquired an ex Motability car but I have learned a great deal since. An absolute abuse of tax payer money.
I know I shouldn't take these things personally but there have been a number of people on here today who would support stripping my husband of his ILR and sending him back to Canada as well as taking the car that my aunt relies on away from her. Oh and also robbing my disabled uncle of his means of transport as my aunt also drives him around. I don't have that many more relations left to lose.
I have not demanded the removal of Motability. I have questioned the need for such a wide vehicle choice (including upgrades to prestige marques) and the procurement policy for maintenance. I am not sure Motability is managed as efficiently as it could be.
I'm somewhat puzzled about how Motability works. I'm over 65 (well over!) with Attendance Allowance and I've been allocated a wheelchair, Zimmer frame and sundry other disabled aids. I'm no longer allowed to drive, so my wife has to do all the driving, but I'm told I'm not eligible for Motability. I'm not envious (well, not very!) of people who do get it, but I wonder...... It's a bit of a pig getting in and out of cars, too.
It seems that if you haven’t qualified for Motability before pension age, it’s not possible to become eligible after you have reached pension age. In order to qualify for Motability you have to be in receipt of benefits that are no longer available after retirement.
That seems to be the case. I was fine, mobility-wise, until I was about 80. Now I can't drive at all, struggle ..... admittedly usually successfully ..... to get in an out of cars, and need to take a Zimmer frame or similar with me for when I reach my destination.
Where Nigel has been massively successful is pinning the influx of foreigners purely on Boris - the term BorisWave is now firmly part of the lexicon. Astonishing to think that the BorisWave - a Brexit measure - has cemented Boris's political doom. How did the Tories get this all so wrong?
I've been wondering about that.
I don't remember hearing about a policy to increase immigration. What policy change brought about the big increase, why was it implemented, what debate was there beforehand?
It seems to have taken us all by surprise when the official numbers showed net migration of a million per year. It's bizarre that should have happened when May as PM was so clear that the referendum has been won on the basis of ending free movement, and the Tories had been promising net migration in the tens of thousands for so long.
That's a good question.
I think it's probably a combination of many factors:
*) Increased demand, both economic and because of 'near' wars (e.g. Syria) *) Increased ability to make your way around the world. *) Increased knowledge of where a better life can be got, and how (e.g. comms) *) A desire to help people less fortunate *) Lawyers and other groups making money out of trying to keep even poor cases in the country. *) Organised gangs (*) making money from people trafficking. *) Governments encouraging migration to western countries for political reasons. *) Lack of international agreements to deal with people no-one wants. *) International law that was written in simpler times, and is no longer fit for purpose. *) + many more
(*) Not, of course, including the lawyers. They're not an organised gang. Oh no.
Government effectively outsourced granting visas to companies. Who then started selling them. See the scheme to recruit care workers directly abroad.
Where Nigel has been massively successful is pinning the influx of foreigners purely on Boris - the term BorisWave is now firmly part of the lexicon. Astonishing to think that the BorisWave - a Brexit measure - has cemented Boris's political doom. How did the Tories get this all so wrong?
I've been wondering about that.
I don't remember hearing about a policy to increase immigration. What policy change brought about the big increase, why was it implemented, what debate was there beforehand?
It seems to have taken us all by surprise when the official numbers showed net migration of a million per year. It's bizarre that should have happened when May as PM was so clear that the referendum has been won on the basis of ending free movement, and the Tories had been promising net migration in the tens of thousands for so long.
That's a good question.
I think it's probably a combination of many factors:
*) Increased demand, both economic and because of 'near' wars (e.g. Syria) *) Increased ability to make your way around the world. *) Increased knowledge of where a better life can be got, and how (e.g. comms) *) A desire to help people less fortunate *) Lawyers and other groups making money out of trying to keep even poor cases in the country. *) Organised gangs (*) making money from people trafficking. *) Governments encouraging migration to western countries for political reasons. *) Lack of international agreements to deal with people no-one wants. *) International law that was written in simpler times, and is no longer fit for purpose. *) + many more
(*) Not, of course, including the lawyers. They're not an organised gang. Oh no.
Most of those are issues pertaining to asylum seekers. Most immigration and most of the Boriswave are not asylum seekers. Asylum seekers made up 13% of immigration in 2024, and the figure has been lower in 2025, I believe.
Such air defences are complex systems, requiring a number of vehicles all talking to each other. What I suspect is the case is that the missiles themselves are plentiful in russia, but complete systems less so. Ukraine has been focussing on taking out the radars rather than the missiles themselves, AIUI the S-series radars are full of Ukranian components from the Soviet era, and are pretty much irreplaceable by russia.
It’s been noted that the fabled Russian air defence network doesn’t seem to be there anymore.
During the Cold War a vast network of radars covered the Soviet Union. Thousands of missile sites and thousands of interceptor aircraft were ready to attack inbound targets. Which is why the US built Stealth aircraft.
It seems, however that Ukraine can carry out strikes using light aircraft modified into missiles. Trundling along at 150mph in a straight line at a few thousand feet. True, Ukraine is moving to faster, custom designed systems. But again, from what we know of “Flamingo”, it is neither stealthy, nor terrain following. It should be easy meat for an effective air defence network.
During the fabled “Speer miracle” of armaments in Nazi Germany, heroic increases in production were claimed. Yet the German army continued to regress - less and less artillery, less air support, fewer lorries and armoured vehicles. The reason - a combination of fake stats, unusable production (quality) and missing pieces that prevented use.
Something is missing for Russia in air defence. I suspect that it is, as you say, search radars. It is worth noting, however, the extreme vulnerability of Russian systems when used against the Israelis - who destroyed them, blinded them and even hacked them to the point of their being of little use.
It’s quite possible that the famous russian air defences exist mostly on paper at the moment, with many of them obsolete and unserviceable. The S200/300/400 systems are also aimed at taking out enemy aircraft and ICBMs, and cost millions every time they’re used. So with a few cheap drones and unmanned light aircraft they can be quickly exhausted.
The remote-controlled light aircraft are to my mind hilarious, the Ukranians are taking a basic trainer and replacing the two humans who’d normally be in it with a hundred kilos of explosives and a hundred of fuel, giving it 1,000km range on target.
The russian defensive systems in Iran were worse then useless, easily taken out and totally failing to even notice the B-2 bombers flying half way across the country.
Where Nigel has been massively successful is pinning the influx of foreigners purely on Boris - the term BorisWave is now firmly part of the lexicon. Astonishing to think that the BorisWave - a Brexit measure - has cemented Boris's political doom. How did the Tories get this all so wrong?
I remember in Brexit days it being stated that the biggest benefit of all, a thing of great efficacy which once liberated we would be able to implement instead of the horrors of Free Movement, was an 'Australian style points system'.
I still believe in treating all foreigners equally, rather than having one rule for europeans. Boris fucking up and letting in 1m a year instead of 200k a year has no bearing on that principle.
Interesting that anti-immigrant sentiment is ok in polite society, now that it can be used to bash the Tories.
Where Nigel has been massively successful is pinning the influx of foreigners purely on Boris - the term BorisWave is now firmly part of the lexicon. Astonishing to think that the BorisWave - a Brexit measure - has cemented Boris's political doom. How did the Tories get this all so wrong?
I've been wondering about that.
I don't remember hearing about a policy to increase immigration. What policy change brought about the big increase, why was it implemented, what debate was there beforehand?
It seems to have taken us all by surprise when the official numbers showed net migration of a million per year. It's bizarre that should have happened when May as PM was so clear that the referendum has been won on the basis of ending free movement, and the Tories had been promising net migration in the tens of thousands for so long.
That's a good question.
I think it's probably a combination of many factors:
*) Increased demand, both economic and because of 'near' wars (e.g. Syria) *) Increased ability to make your way around the world. *) Increased knowledge of where a better life can be got, and how (e.g. comms) *) A desire to help people less fortunate *) Lawyers and other groups making money out of trying to keep even poor cases in the country. *) Organised gangs (*) making money from people trafficking. *) Governments encouraging migration to western countries for political reasons. *) Lack of international agreements to deal with people no-one wants. *) International law that was written in simpler times, and is no longer fit for purpose. *) + many more
(*) Not, of course, including the lawyers. They're not an organised gang. Oh no.
I think the Conservatives gradually got themselves into the position of having to maintain upward pressure on property prices, to please their core voters. Mega immigration was one way of achieving this.
At some point, they gave up trying to recruit fresh generations of Conservative voters, in favour of being a trade union for older voters.
You can tell why he’s annoyed 8 of the social houses opposite the one he has bought have families that don’t work with motobility cars that are better than the 11 year old polo they have to share
Worse the poster can’t afford children but that isn’t a problem in the social housing
This, going around recently, has radicalised a fair number of people:
(It works by checking Dartford crossing free ticket eligibility IIRC).
Did the story about 20% of new car sales being via Motability ever get stood up, or is there something else going on?
Surely the government could start by limiting the scheme to cars made in the UK, so as not to be sending subsidy money abroad?
Wasn't it over 30%?
Motability was set up to replace the Invacar three wheeled scooter.
Why does anyone need a choice? If a user needs a small car, a basic Corsa should suffice. If a larger car is required a Citroen Berlingo should do the trick. If one can afford to upgrade to a BMW M5 they don't need a Motability car.
PIP is not means tested.
Because of the VAT exemption, the lease is less than half the price (46% per Motability themselves) so they can only afford the M5 by using motability's VAT exemption.
The VAT is 20%, the purported 45% saving Motability claim is if you bundle in maintenance, insurance and breakdown cover and note 5 on hteir press release "Percentage savings shown are the difference between the Motability Scheme lease cost and the highest priced alternative option, expressed as a percentage."
everything is included though, insurance , service, tyres , road tax , etc
Tyres are always premium. An ex Motability car we own came with a new set of Continental tyres supplied via a central contract from Kwik Fit. Stick a set of mid range tyres like Kuhmo on every wheel on every Motability car when the tyres need replacing and the tyre bill is halved. The guy who had our car before us wouldn't be spending his own money on Continental tyres when there are cheap Chinese brands available.
I didn't know much about it until we acquired an ex Motability car but I have learned a great deal since. An absolute abuse of tax payer money.
I know I shouldn't take these things personally but there have been a number of people on here today who would support stripping my husband of his ILR and sending him back to Canada as well as taking the car that my aunt relies on away from her. Oh and also robbing my disabled uncle of his means of transport as my aunt also drives him around. I don't have that many more relations left to lose.
I have not demanded the removal of Motability. I have questioned the need for such a wide vehicle choice (including upgrades to prestige marques) and the procurement policy for maintenance. I am not sure Motability is managed as efficiently as it could be.
I'm somewhat puzzled about how Motability works. I'm over 65 (well over!) with Attendance Allowance and I've been allocated a wheelchair, Zimmer frame and sundry other disabled aids. I'm no longer allowed to drive, so my wife has to do all the driving, but I'm told I'm not eligible for Motability. I'm not envious (well, not very!) of people who do get it, but I wonder...... It's a bit of a pig getting in and out of cars, too.
Seems rather unfair on you. I would be eligible but am medically disqualified from driving and dont have a partner so it's of no use to me!
You are only eligible for Motability if you get higher rate of the mobility segment of PIP (or old legagcy DLA).
Attendance Allowance doesn't cut it apparently.
iirc you can't get PIP if you are over State Triple Lock Bonanza age.
So, yes, it is a bit of an odd one.
Do Motability people give their cars up at 66?
AIUI if you qualified for Motability before you retired you remain qualified. Unlike immigration, it’s not taken away after 5 years.
Is it just my imagination or is the subset of the population that thinks Nigel is the cure-all identical with the subset of the population that thought Boris was the cure-all, which in turn is identical with the subset of the population that now thinks Boris is a twat?
Wouldn't that mean those who didn't think Boris was a cure-all now don't think he is a twat?
https://electrek.co/2025/09/22/byd-unveils-tesla-megapack-competitor-twice-capacity/ ..Earlier this month, Tesla unveiled its next-generation Megapack, a dominant player in large-scale energy storage for some time. The new Megapack 3 increases the energy capacity of the container-side system from 3.9 MWh to 5 MWh. At the same time, Tesla unveiled the Megablock, which consists of 4 Megapacks combined with a megavolt transformer and switchgear. Now, BYD has launched a new competing product called ‘HaoHan’. In its regular configuration, the system has a capacity of 14.5 MWh, almost 3 times Tesla’s Megapack, and in a 20-ft container configuration, it has a 10 MWh capacity. The system has a Vcts (Volume Ratio of Cell to System) of 52.1%, which BYD claims is the world’s highest. BYD also claims to have greatly simplified its system while increasing reliability with a “70% reduction in system failure” and “70% reduction in maintenance cost.” HaoHan is using BYD’s proprietary 2,710 Ah Blade Battery cell – the largest used in stationary storage. It enables a much higher volumetric energy density, which the company claims results in deploying GWh projects with about half the number of battery systems. Overall, BYD claims that energy project costs will be reduced by 21.7% thanks to the new HaoHan. Not unlike Tesla with the Megablock, BYD also unveiled new large-scale power electronics to go along with the new battery system. GC Flux is BYD’s new grid-forming inverter solution, which can scale from 2.5 to 10 MW. According to BYD, the inverter delivers about 38% more performance than the industry average and achieves a maximum power density of 1,474 kW/㎡—roughly 130% higher than typical market values. It also offers an overload capacity of up to three times its rated output for 10 seconds, with peak efficiency reaching 99.35%. The GC Flux PCS is equipped with advanced grid-forming features tailored for today’s energy systems. It can regulate voltage and frequency in real-time, enabling more invert-based power to a grid while reducing the risk of blackouts. The system provides active inertia response for up to 25 seconds, wide-band damping across the 1–1500 Hz range, and ultra-fast voltage and frequency regulation in under 100 milliseconds. These capabilities are essential for maintaining stability, particularly in hybrid or renewable-heavy grids that demand seamless transitions between grid-connected and islanded operation...
I can never fathom why anyone who has committed themselves to one political party, even if only for career reasons, would change straight over to another party. In that situation, I would be spending at least 6 months as an independent.
I think we underestimate the extent to which politicians are people and their relationships matter to them. A defection may be as much about a relationship someone has developed with a politician in another party that they find is surprisingly like-minded, then it is about ideology or career ambitions.
I suppose it's always worth considering that politicians only support part of their party's platform, just like the rest of us. I usually vote Tory in general elections but it's unlikely I support 50% of their manifesto, just I agree with less of the other parties'. If I support 40% of the LibDems' manifesto then I am close to switching (and in fact I normally vote Lib Dem in local elections)
You'd expect a MP to support a bit more of their party's platform, but platforms change and other parties may become better at representing their views
My apolitical Russian mother's family left Russia in 1927 not because they passionately disagreed with the Revolution but because it was increasingly mandatory to support the current government line *which frequently changed*. They moved to Danzig/Gdansk, and found it was in some ways worse, with the future Gauleiter living next door and flying the Nazi flag (they put up a Soviet flag as a way of avoiding guilt by association). My grandfather, very talented in languages, started a second legal career in Berlin. They sheltered Jewish families in Gdansk and muddled on until 1937, when the trend was clear, and then used banking connections to move to Britain, except my grandfather, who started a third civil legal career in Argentina. The idea was that the family would join him once he was established, but WW2 intervened and stopped all civilian traffic; by the time it resumed the amicable separation was permanent. Fed up with Continental fanaticism, my mother loved the apolitical British and enthusiastically adopted British nationality, speakig English without an accent very quickly. She refused to teach me Russian, on the basis that bilingual kids didn't have a solld allegiance, and we were British, full stop. She voted Tory throughout her adult life on the basis that they were blessedly free of dogma - she revised her opinion on the arrival of Thatcher, and joined Chelsea Labour Party so as to support me, though she'd turn up to branch meetings wearing her fur coat and looking distinctly out of place. She bonded with the one genuinely working-class member, who recognised her genuine friendliness, but regarded the various earnest middle-class leftists with suspicion.
Strange background! I've never disowned it, any more than I've disowned my teenage communist sympathies that reacted against my apolitical parents. We are all creatures of our environment.
Lots of people with real-world experience of Communism become staunch Conservatives.
Such air defences are complex systems, requiring a number of vehicles all talking to each other. What I suspect is the case is that the missiles themselves are plentiful in russia, but complete systems less so. Ukraine has been focussing on taking out the radars rather than the missiles themselves, AIUI the S-series radars are full of Ukranian components from the Soviet era, and are pretty much irreplaceable by russia.
It’s been noted that the fabled Russian air defence network doesn’t seem to be there anymore.
During the Cold War a vast network of radars covered the Soviet Union. Thousands of missile sites and thousands of interceptor aircraft were ready to attack inbound targets. Which is why the US built Stealth aircraft.
It seems, however that Ukraine can carry out strikes using light aircraft modified into missiles. Trundling along at 150mph in a straight line at a few thousand feet. True, Ukraine is moving to faster, custom designed systems. But again, from what we know of “Flamingo”, it is neither stealthy, nor terrain following. It should be easy meat for an effective air defence network.
During the fabled “Speer miracle” of armaments in Nazi Germany, heroic increases in production were claimed. Yet the German army continued to regress - less and less artillery, less air support, fewer lorries and armoured vehicles. The reason - a combination of fake stats, unusable production (quality) and missing pieces that prevented use.
Something is missing for Russia in air defence. I suspect that it is, as you say, search radars. It is worth noting, however, the extreme vulnerability of Russian systems when used against the Israelis - who destroyed them, blinded them and even hacked them to the point of their being of little use.
It’s quite possible that the famous russian air defences exist mostly on paper at the moment, with many of them obsolete and unserviceable. The S200/300/400 systems are also aimed at taking out enemy aircraft and ICBMs, and cost millions every time they’re used. So with a few cheap drones and unmanned light aircraft they can be quickly exhausted.
The remote-controlled light aircraft are to my mind hilarious, the Ukranians are taking a basic trainer and replacing the two humans who’d normally be in it with a hundred kilos of explosives and a hundred of fuel, giving it 1,000km range on target.
The russian defensive systems in Iran were worse then useless, easily taken out and totally failing to even notice the B-2 bombers flying half way across the country.
If the Ukrainians know where the radar equipment they supplied was located, they know where to target to destroy it.
Where Nigel has been massively successful is pinning the influx of foreigners purely on Boris - the term BorisWave is now firmly part of the lexicon. Astonishing to think that the BorisWave - a Brexit measure - has cemented Boris's political doom. How did the Tories get this all so wrong?
I remember in Brexit days it being stated that the biggest benefit of all, a thing of great efficacy which once liberated we would be able to implement instead of the horrors of Free Movement, was an 'Australian style points system'.
I still believe in treating all foreigners equally, rather than having one rule for europeans. Boris fucking up and letting in 1m a year instead of 200k a year has no bearing on that principle.
Interesting that anti-immigrant sentiment is ok in polite society, now that it can be used to bash the Tories.
Dare I suggest that the discussion on legal immigration, as opposed to asylum, would be a lot less febrile if housebuilding and infrastructure development had kept up with population over the past quarter century.
The issue is seen through the lens of housing being unaffordable, and public services that appear to be in many places broken as far as the British population is concerned.
Such air defences are complex systems, requiring a number of vehicles all talking to each other. What I suspect is the case is that the missiles themselves are plentiful in russia, but complete systems less so. Ukraine has been focussing on taking out the radars rather than the missiles themselves, AIUI the S-series radars are full of Ukranian components from the Soviet era, and are pretty much irreplaceable by russia.
It’s been noted that the fabled Russian air defence network doesn’t seem to be there anymore.
During the Cold War a vast network of radars covered the Soviet Union. Thousands of missile sites and thousands of interceptor aircraft were ready to attack inbound targets. Which is why the US built Stealth aircraft.
It seems, however that Ukraine can carry out strikes using light aircraft modified into missiles. Trundling along at 150mph in a straight line at a few thousand feet. True, Ukraine is moving to faster, custom designed systems. But again, from what we know of “Flamingo”, it is neither stealthy, nor terrain following. It should be easy meat for an effective air defence network.
During the fabled “Speer miracle” of armaments in Nazi Germany, heroic increases in production were claimed. Yet the German army continued to regress - less and less artillery, less air support, fewer lorries and armoured vehicles. The reason - a combination of fake stats, unusable production (quality) and missing pieces that prevented use.
Something is missing for Russia in air defence. I suspect that it is, as you say, search radars. It is worth noting, however, the extreme vulnerability of Russian systems when used against the Israelis - who destroyed them, blinded them and even hacked them to the point of their being of little use.
It’s quite possible that the famous russian air defences exist mostly on paper at the moment, with many of them obsolete and unserviceable. The S200/300/400 systems are also aimed at taking out enemy aircraft and ICBMs, and cost millions every time they’re used. So with a few cheap drones and unmanned light aircraft they can be quickly exhausted.
The remote-controlled light aircraft are to my mind hilarious, the Ukranians are taking a basic trainer and replacing the two humans who’d normally be in it with a hundred kilos of explosives and a hundred of fuel, giving it 1,000km range on target.
The russian defensive systems in Iran were worse then useless, easily taken out and totally failing to even notice the B-2 bombers flying half way across the country.
As ever, it is not just about the tools you have: it is about the serviceability of the tools and the training of the crews. You could give (say) Venezuela F35s with loads of spares, and they would have trouble fighting with them due to training and doctrinal issues. If they spend enough money, they will be able to overcome those issues with time. But only if they want the planes to be a useful fighting force, and not a shiny dick extension.
Russia has a history of producing very good, if not excellent, weapons platforms. Their use of them is more debatable - before the war, their pilots had nowhere near enough flying hours.
And when it comes to air defence, remember how Mathias Rust got through them when they were supposed to be at their height.
Where Nigel has been massively successful is pinning the influx of foreigners purely on Boris - the term BorisWave is now firmly part of the lexicon. Astonishing to think that the BorisWave - a Brexit measure - has cemented Boris's political doom. How did the Tories get this all so wrong?
I remember in Brexit days it being stated that the biggest benefit of all, a thing of great efficacy which once liberated we would be able to implement instead of the horrors of Free Movement, was an 'Australian style points system'.
I still believe in treating all foreigners equally, rather than having one rule for europeans. Boris fucking up and letting in 1m a year instead of 200k a year has no bearing on that principle.
Interesting that anti-immigrant sentiment is ok in polite society, now that it can be used to bash the Tories.
Dare I suggest that the discussion on legal immigration, as opposed to asylum, would be a lot less febrile if housebuilding and infrastructure development had kept up with population over the past quarter century.
The issue is seen through the lens of housing being unaffordable, and public services that appear to be in many places broken as far as the British population is concerned.
We should definitely build more houses. I think nearly everyone on PB thinks that.
Such air defences are complex systems, requiring a number of vehicles all talking to each other. What I suspect is the case is that the missiles themselves are plentiful in russia, but complete systems less so. Ukraine has been focussing on taking out the radars rather than the missiles themselves, AIUI the S-series radars are full of Ukranian components from the Soviet era, and are pretty much irreplaceable by russia.
It’s been noted that the fabled Russian air defence network doesn’t seem to be there anymore.
During the Cold War a vast network of radars covered the Soviet Union. Thousands of missile sites and thousands of interceptor aircraft were ready to attack inbound targets. Which is why the US built Stealth aircraft.
It seems, however that Ukraine can carry out strikes using light aircraft modified into missiles. Trundling along at 150mph in a straight line at a few thousand feet. True, Ukraine is moving to faster, custom designed systems. But again, from what we know of “Flamingo”, it is neither stealthy, nor terrain following. It should be easy meat for an effective air defence network.
During the fabled “Speer miracle” of armaments in Nazi Germany, heroic increases in production were claimed. Yet the German army continued to regress - less and less artillery, less air support, fewer lorries and armoured vehicles. The reason - a combination of fake stats, unusable production (quality) and missing pieces that prevented use.
Something is missing for Russia in air defence. I suspect that it is, as you say, search radars. It is worth noting, however, the extreme vulnerability of Russian systems when used against the Israelis - who destroyed them, blinded them and even hacked them to the point of their being of little use.
It’s quite possible that the famous russian air defences exist mostly on paper at the moment, with many of them obsolete and unserviceable. The S200/300/400 systems are also aimed at taking out enemy aircraft and ICBMs, and cost millions every time they’re used. So with a few cheap drones and unmanned light aircraft they can be quickly exhausted.
The remote-controlled light aircraft are to my mind hilarious, the Ukranians are taking a basic trainer and replacing the two humans who’d normally be in it with a hundred kilos of explosives and a hundred of fuel, giving it 1,000km range on target.
The russian defensive systems in Iran were worse then useless, easily taken out and totally failing to even notice the B-2 bombers flying half way across the country.
The B2 was specifically designed to evade the radars that Iran bought from Russia.
A 300 mile range radar (against a moderate RCS) target will be able to detect at B2 at about 10-20 miles.
Given the B2 is flying 10 miles up, it would only be detectable in a brief “ring” around the radar - nearly every search radar has an elevation limit of 40 degrees.
https://electrek.co/2025/09/22/byd-unveils-tesla-megapack-competitor-twice-capacity/ ..Earlier this month, Tesla unveiled its next-generation Megapack, a dominant player in large-scale energy storage for some time. The new Megapack 3 increases the energy capacity of the container-side system from 3.9 MWh to 5 MWh. At the same time, Tesla unveiled the Megablock, which consists of 4 Megapacks combined with a megavolt transformer and switchgear. Now, BYD has launched a new competing product called ‘HaoHan’. In its regular configuration, the system has a capacity of 14.5 MWh, almost 3 times Tesla’s Megapack, and in a 20-ft container configuration, it has a 10 MWh capacity. The system has a Vcts (Volume Ratio of Cell to System) of 52.1%, which BYD claims is the world’s highest. BYD also claims to have greatly simplified its system while increasing reliability with a “70% reduction in system failure” and “70% reduction in maintenance cost.” HaoHan is using BYD’s proprietary 2,710 Ah Blade Battery cell – the largest used in stationary storage. It enables a much higher volumetric energy density, which the company claims results in deploying GWh projects with about half the number of battery systems. Overall, BYD claims that energy project costs will be reduced by 21.7% thanks to the new HaoHan. Not unlike Tesla with the Megablock, BYD also unveiled new large-scale power electronics to go along with the new battery system. GC Flux is BYD’s new grid-forming inverter solution, which can scale from 2.5 to 10 MW. According to BYD, the inverter delivers about 38% more performance than the industry average and achieves a maximum power density of 1,474 kW/㎡—roughly 130% higher than typical market values. It also offers an overload capacity of up to three times its rated output for 10 seconds, with peak efficiency reaching 99.35%. The GC Flux PCS is equipped with advanced grid-forming features tailored for today’s energy systems. It can regulate voltage and frequency in real-time, enabling more invert-based power to a grid while reducing the risk of blackouts. The system provides active inertia response for up to 25 seconds, wide-band damping across the 1–1500 Hz range, and ultra-fast voltage and frequency regulation in under 100 milliseconds. These capabilities are essential for maintaining stability, particularly in hybrid or renewable-heavy grids that demand seamless transitions between grid-connected and islanded operation...
Last bit highlighted for LuckyGuy.
Musical chair type lottery it seems. I have a small investment in one of the minor players. And the whole show could come crashing down if the fusion guys ever get it sorted.
Was there a great deal of comment about the Boris wave as it happened? Or did folk only really notice retrospectively?
I remember the Guardian comments, and many of us on the Remainer side predictinghow the huge wave on non-eu immigration after Brexit, would just make Britain even more angry, divided, disillusioned and xenophobic.
And so indeed, has it happened.
This requires a counterfactual: what would have happened if the rules were set so non-EU immigration was, say, 200k per year not 1m per year. Boris made decisions. They were not inevitable.
With the loss of so many workers in such a short space of time , his advice was very likely that there was no other option in order to stave off recession.
The much -vaunted domestic training simply can't be done in time to fill that many job vacancies.
But the number of EU citizens in the UK barely fell, according to the ONS. It's hard to get a handle on whether the so-called Brexodus happened, because Covid confuses the issue massively. But on balance it seems to have been a damp squib.
Besides which, I don't believe for a second he was advised 1m per year were needed. If the fresh blood of 200k europeans each year wanted replacing with 200k non-EU foreigners fine, but 1m? I think it ran away from him.
https://electrek.co/2025/09/22/byd-unveils-tesla-megapack-competitor-twice-capacity/ ..Earlier this month, Tesla unveiled its next-generation Megapack, a dominant player in large-scale energy storage for some time. The new Megapack 3 increases the energy capacity of the container-side system from 3.9 MWh to 5 MWh. At the same time, Tesla unveiled the Megablock, which consists of 4 Megapacks combined with a megavolt transformer and switchgear. Now, BYD has launched a new competing product called ‘HaoHan’. In its regular configuration, the system has a capacity of 14.5 MWh, almost 3 times Tesla’s Megapack, and in a 20-ft container configuration, it has a 10 MWh capacity. The system has a Vcts (Volume Ratio of Cell to System) of 52.1%, which BYD claims is the world’s highest. BYD also claims to have greatly simplified its system while increasing reliability with a “70% reduction in system failure” and “70% reduction in maintenance cost.” HaoHan is using BYD’s proprietary 2,710 Ah Blade Battery cell – the largest used in stationary storage. It enables a much higher volumetric energy density, which the company claims results in deploying GWh projects with about half the number of battery systems. Overall, BYD claims that energy project costs will be reduced by 21.7% thanks to the new HaoHan. Not unlike Tesla with the Megablock, BYD also unveiled new large-scale power electronics to go along with the new battery system. GC Flux is BYD’s new grid-forming inverter solution, which can scale from 2.5 to 10 MW. According to BYD, the inverter delivers about 38% more performance than the industry average and achieves a maximum power density of 1,474 kW/㎡—roughly 130% higher than typical market values. It also offers an overload capacity of up to three times its rated output for 10 seconds, with peak efficiency reaching 99.35%. The GC Flux PCS is equipped with advanced grid-forming features tailored for today’s energy systems. It can regulate voltage and frequency in real-time, enabling more invert-based power to a grid while reducing the risk of blackouts. The system provides active inertia response for up to 25 seconds, wide-band damping across the 1–1500 Hz range, and ultra-fast voltage and frequency regulation in under 100 milliseconds. These capabilities are essential for maintaining stability, particularly in hybrid or renewable-heavy grids that demand seamless transitions between grid-connected and islanded operation...
Last bit highlighted for LuckyGuy.
Musical chair type lottery it seems. I have a small investment in one of the minor players. And the whole show could come crashing down if the fusion guys ever get it sorted.
Somebody will crack fusion some day.
As an aside, one of the new building site compounds near me has a small container with a triangular elevation. The angled side is covered with solar panels, and inside there are apparently batteries to provide the portakabins with power.
Seemed quite a good idea to me, and easy to move around.
Such air defences are complex systems, requiring a number of vehicles all talking to each other. What I suspect is the case is that the missiles themselves are plentiful in russia, but complete systems less so. Ukraine has been focussing on taking out the radars rather than the missiles themselves, AIUI the S-series radars are full of Ukranian components from the Soviet era, and are pretty much irreplaceable by russia.
It’s been noted that the fabled Russian air defence network doesn’t seem to be there anymore.
During the Cold War a vast network of radars covered the Soviet Union. Thousands of missile sites and thousands of interceptor aircraft were ready to attack inbound targets. Which is why the US built Stealth aircraft.
It seems, however that Ukraine can carry out strikes using light aircraft modified into missiles. Trundling along at 150mph in a straight line at a few thousand feet. True, Ukraine is moving to faster, custom designed systems. But again, from what we know of “Flamingo”, it is neither stealthy, nor terrain following. It should be easy meat for an effective air defence network.
During the fabled “Speer miracle” of armaments in Nazi Germany, heroic increases in production were claimed. Yet the German army continued to regress - less and less artillery, less air support, fewer lorries and armoured vehicles. The reason - a combination of fake stats, unusable production (quality) and missing pieces that prevented use.
Something is missing for Russia in air defence. I suspect that it is, as you say, search radars. It is worth noting, however, the extreme vulnerability of Russian systems when used against the Israelis - who destroyed them, blinded them and even hacked them to the point of their being of little use.
It’s quite possible that the famous russian air defences exist mostly on paper at the moment, with many of them obsolete and unserviceable. The S200/300/400 systems are also aimed at taking out enemy aircraft and ICBMs, and cost millions every time they’re used. So with a few cheap drones and unmanned light aircraft they can be quickly exhausted.
The remote-controlled light aircraft are to my mind hilarious, the Ukranians are taking a basic trainer and replacing the two humans who’d normally be in it with a hundred kilos of explosives and a hundred of fuel, giving it 1,000km range on target.
The russian defensive systems in Iran were worse then useless, easily taken out and totally failing to even notice the B-2 bombers flying half way across the country.
The B2 was specifically designed to evade the radars that Iran bought from Russia.
A 300 mile range radar (against a moderate RCS) target will be able to detect at B2 at about 10-20 miles.
Given the B2 is flying 10 miles up, it would only be detectable in a brief “ring” around the radar - nearly every search radar has an elevation limit of 40 degrees.
TSR2 - nipped in and nipped out. World leading capability, even now... ok so I don't quite believe all that's said, but Labour have more to answer for than their current shambles.
Was there a great deal of comment about the Boris wave as it happened? Or did folk only really notice retrospectively?
I remember the Guardian comments, and many of us on the Remainer side predictinghow the huge wave on non-eu immigration after Brexit, would just make Britain even more angry, divided, disillusioned and xenophobic.
And so indeed, has it happened.
This requires a counterfactual: what would have happened if the rules were set so non-EU immigration was, say, 200k per year not 1m per year. Boris made decisions. They were not inevitable.
With the loss of so many workers in such a short space of time , his advice was very likely that there was no other option in order to stave off recession.
The much -vaunted domestic training simply can't be done in time to fill that many job vacancies.
But the number of EU citizens in the UK barely fell, according to the ONS. It's hard to get a handle on whether the so-called Brexodus happened, because Covid confuses the issue massively. But on balance it seems to have been a damp squib.
Besides which, I don't believe for a second he was advised 1m per year were needed. If the fresh blood of 200k europeans each year wanted replacing with 200k non-EU foreigners fine, but 1m? I think it ran away from him.
You can tell why he’s annoyed 8 of the social houses opposite the one he has bought have families that don’t work with motobility cars that are better than the 11 year old polo they have to share
Worse the poster can’t afford children but that isn’t a problem in the social housing
This, going around recently, has radicalised a fair number of people:
(It works by checking Dartford crossing free ticket eligibility IIRC).
Did the story about 20% of new car sales being via Motability ever get stood up, or is there something else going on?
Surely the government could start by limiting the scheme to cars made in the UK, so as not to be sending subsidy money abroad?
Wasn't it over 30%?
Motability was set up to replace the Invacar three wheeled scooter.
Why does anyone need a choice? If a user needs a small car, a basic Corsa should suffice. If a larger car is required a Citroen Berlingo should do the trick. If one can afford to upgrade to a BMW M5 they don't need a Motability car.
PIP is not means tested.
Because of the VAT exemption, the lease is less than half the price (46% per Motability themselves) so they can only afford the M5 by using motability's VAT exemption.
The VAT is 20%, the purported 45% saving Motability claim is if you bundle in maintenance, insurance and breakdown cover and note 5 on hteir press release "Percentage savings shown are the difference between the Motability Scheme lease cost and the highest priced alternative option, expressed as a percentage."
everything is included though, insurance , service, tyres , road tax , etc
Tyres are always premium. An ex Motability car we own came with a new set of Continental tyres supplied via a central contract from Kwik Fit. Stick a set of mid range tyres like Kuhmo on every wheel on every Motability car when the tyres need replacing and the tyre bill is halved. The guy who had our car before us wouldn't be spending his own money on Continental tyres when there are cheap Chinese brands available.
I didn't know much about it until we acquired an ex Motability car but I have learned a great deal since. An absolute abuse of tax payer money.
I know I shouldn't take these things personally but there have been a number of people on here today who would support stripping my husband of his ILR and sending him back to Canada as well as taking the car that my aunt relies on away from her. Oh and also robbing my disabled uncle of his means of transport as my aunt also drives him around. I don't have that many more relations left to lose.
I have not demanded the removal of Motability. I have questioned the need for such a wide vehicle choice (including upgrades to prestige marques) and the procurement policy for maintenance. I am not sure Motability is managed as efficiently as it could be.
I'm somewhat puzzled about how Motability works. I'm over 65 (well over!) with Attendance Allowance and I've been allocated a wheelchair, Zimmer frame and sundry other disabled aids. I'm no longer allowed to drive, so my wife has to do all the driving, but I'm told I'm not eligible for Motability. I'm not envious (well, not very!) of people who do get it, but I wonder...... It's a bit of a pig getting in and out of cars, too.
PIP is working age. There is some cross over when you get to State Retirement Age but normally it is paid to allow you to continue your (working?) life as others do. Lloyds have just added bells and whistles to get it within the PIP payment levels.
Where Nigel has been massively successful is pinning the influx of foreigners purely on Boris - the term BorisWave is now firmly part of the lexicon. Astonishing to think that the BorisWave - a Brexit measure - has cemented Boris's political doom. How did the Tories get this all so wrong?
I've been wondering about that.
I don't remember hearing about a policy to increase immigration. What policy change brought about the big increase, why was it implemented, what debate was there beforehand?
It seems to have taken us all by surprise when the official numbers showed net migration of a million per year. It's bizarre that should have happened when May as PM was so clear that the referendum has been won on the basis of ending free movement, and the Tories had been promising net migration in the tens of thousands for so long.
That's a good question.
I think it's probably a combination of many factors:
*) Increased demand, both economic and because of 'near' wars (e.g. Syria) *) Increased ability to make your way around the world. *) Increased knowledge of where a better life can be got, and how (e.g. comms) *) A desire to help people less fortunate *) Lawyers and other groups making money out of trying to keep even poor cases in the country. *) Organised gangs (*) making money from people trafficking. *) Governments encouraging migration to western countries for political reasons. *) Lack of international agreements to deal with people no-one wants. *) International law that was written in simpler times, and is no longer fit for purpose. *) + many more
(*) Not, of course, including the lawyers. They're not an organised gang. Oh no.
I think the Conservatives gradually got themselves into the position of having to maintain upward pressure on property prices, to please their core voters. Mega immigration was one way of achieving this.
At some point, they gave up trying to recruit fresh generations of Conservative voters, in favour of being a trade union for older voters.
I think it's even simpler than that (which implies the competence to execute a conspiracy and a strategy): they simply became more interested in pissing contests over anything else, and doing whatever was the most politically expedient thing in the short-term.
That led them to consistently prioritise the needs of retired voters, until they became completely boxed in.
Was there a great deal of comment about the Boris wave as it happened? Or did folk only really notice retrospectively?
I remember the Guardian comments, and many of us on the Remainer side predictinghow the huge wave on non-eu immigration after Brexit, would just make Britain even more angry, divided, disillusioned and xenophobic.
And so indeed, has it happened.
This requires a counterfactual: what would have happened if the rules were set so non-EU immigration was, say, 200k per year not 1m per year. Boris made decisions. They were not inevitable.
With the loss of so many workers in such a short space of time , his advice was very likely that there was no other option in order to stave off recession.
The much -vaunted domestic training simply can't be done in time to fill that many job vacancies.
But the number of EU citizens in the UK barely fell, according to the ONS. It's hard to get a handle on whether the so-called Brexodus happened, because Covid confuses the issue massively. But on balance it seems to have been a damp squib.
Besides which, I don't believe for a second he was advised 1m per year were needed. If the fresh blood of 200k europeans each year wanted replacing with 200k non-EU foreigners fine, but 1m? I think it ran away from him.
Was there a great deal of comment about the Boris wave as it happened? Or did folk only really notice retrospectively?
I remember the Guardian comments, and many of us on the Remainer side predictinghow the huge wave on non-eu immigration after Brexit, would just make Britain even more angry, divided, disillusioned and xenophobic.
And so indeed, has it happened.
This requires a counterfactual: what would have happened if the rules were set so non-EU immigration was, say, 200k per year not 1m per year. Boris made decisions. They were not inevitable.
With the loss of so many workers in such a short space of time , his advice was very likely that there was no other option in order to stave off recession.
The much -vaunted domestic training simply can't be done in time to fill that many job vacancies.
But the number of EU citizens in the UK barely fell, according to the ONS. It's hard to get a handle on whether the so-called Brexodus happened, because Covid confuses the issue massively. But on balance it seems to have been a damp squib.
Besides which, I don't believe for a second he was advised 1m per year were needed. If the fresh blood of 200k europeans each year wanted replacing with 200k non-EU foreigners fine, but 1m? I think it ran away from him.
Imagine you’ve been trying as a low skilled non European to try and escape your homeland.
Suddenly a European country opens up their borders and offers work, you would be doing everything you can to get there asap which is why we went from 0 to 1 million so quickly
Was there a great deal of comment about the Boris wave as it happened? Or did folk only really notice retrospectively?
I remember the Guardian comments, and many of us on the Remainer side predictinghow the huge wave on non-eu immigration after Brexit, would just make Britain even more angry, divided, disillusioned and xenophobic.
And so indeed, has it happened.
This requires a counterfactual: what would have happened if the rules were set so non-EU immigration was, say, 200k per year not 1m per year. Boris made decisions. They were not inevitable.
With the loss of so many workers in such a short space of time , his advice was very likely that there was no other option in order to stave off recession.
The much -vaunted domestic training simply can't be done in time to fill that many job vacancies.
But the number of EU citizens in the UK barely fell, according to the ONS. It's hard to get a handle on whether the so-called Brexodus happened, because Covid confuses the issue massively. But on balance it seems to have been a damp squib.
Besides which, I don't believe for a second he was advised 1m per year were needed. If the fresh blood of 200k europeans each year wanted replacing with 200k non-EU foreigners fine, but 1m? I think it ran away from him.
Imagine you’ve been trying as a low skilled non European to try and escape your homeland.
Suddenly a European country opens up their borders and offers work, you would be doing everything you can to get there asap which is why we went from 0 to 1 million so quickly
Which is why you monitor the applications. And introduce quotas mid-year if need be. Or adjust the requirements mid-year. Or both.
Did the civil service tell the government it was getting out of hand? Did the government ignore them? Who decided? It would be fascinating to find out.
What Farrage is proposing seems like pragmatic steps that address two of the greatest problems facing this country: uncontrolled mass immigration and a welfare system that is bankrupting the country.
Khan and other bleeding heart liberals clutching their pearls and telling him "you can't say that" will only add to the appeal this policy has to an increasingly NOTA electorate.
The establishment has done nothing to sort either issue, despite Labour and the Conservatives having large majorities respectively and the time to do so.
Like Thatcher, Farrage is being bold and doubling down in a way that is easily understood and relatable as him "sticking to his guns".
He will be rewarded, like she was, because of dear old TINA in the end. The absence of any solution other than continued fingers in ears and 'let's pretend ' everything is lovely.
The welfare system is being bankrupted by population ageing, not immigration. Immigration makes it more affordable, at least in the near term. And we don't have uncontrolled immigration. As a result of Brexit we can control who comes in. For some reason the previous government decided to let in lots of people. But they had control and made a conscious decision to let in lots of people under their Australian points based system.
Not much control over the 1,000+ who rocked up on not-so-small boats the other day.
I am disappointed not one of you has acknowledged my brilliance with the headline on this.
Clearly the Dunning-Kruger test pun is too subtle for you all.
I think I'm likely to speak for the many in saying that the pun was so thin as to be non-existent. A vague echo of a pun that might have been isn't the real thing.
Returning from town, switch on TV, and Farage is front, centre, and everywhere dominating the media over his unacceptable proposals over immigration
He not only receives media coverage almost daily and answers every question put to him
He may be speaking to millions but it is all so divisive
And Ed Davey, is he having a conference as he hardly appears in the media ?
Ed Davey coming onto the conference stage to the clown music was quite remarkable.
Nigel is box office, particularly in the Trump era. The BBC and Sky love him. If Nigel becomes PM it will be in no small part due to ramping by the mainstream media. One can hope that Trump brings him down over the next three years.
The UK electorate need to bring Farage down
This is probably the start of them doing so. There will be stories of people who have been here years, friends, neighbours etc who might get deported,or families separated over the policy and a number of current Reformites will say 'hang on.......' and those not wedded to hardline immigration policy will likewise react to stop them. Remigration is not popular enough as a concept to win an election but its unpopular enough to stop someone winning one
My wife has just said this is terrible and many will be scared by such a shocking policy and should not be
I would add - this is not the British way of treating people
I want the boats stopped, sensible immigration, and to make sure everyone living and working in our communities do not feel threatened by a right wing mob copying Trump
You'll find no disagreement from me to any of that
Would you give Indefinite Leave to Remain to the entire Boriswave? That seems to be your position. Farcical
I wouldn't be revisiting ILR already granted. Im open to a review of future ILR and who gets it etc
So you agree with the idea that some of the Boriswave must be deported. They won’t all get ILR. In which case your only dispute is the exact level of deportations, or the income level for new visas
Anyone who doesnt have ILR should leave once their visa expires if its not renewed or ILR when granted. We need a sensible policy around that. Im vehemently opposed to kicking out people told they can stay.
He’s not saying they are all going to be expelled. He’s saying that they will tighten the rules on the ILR status, so yes some will be deported
It’s not nice. But then to my mind what mass migration has done to Britain is not nice. We’ve gone beyond nice, tragically - due to both main parties calamitously lying about and mishandling immigration
Any solution to the problem is going to be unpleasant for some people, just as open borders have been very very unpleasant for a lot of Brits
I know what hes saying and I know the situation. We disagree (in part) on what is a reasonable solution to the issues. Just because Nigel is wading across the Rubicon i dont have to get fish in my keks
Judging by the Daily Mail comments section this is wildly popular. But that’s the Daily Mail of course
I am surprised myself at how forthright this policy is. He’s certainly put the snake on the table. I’m not quite sure it’s a rubicon
However on examination I see why he’s done it. As @Luckyguy1983 says - a lot of the Boriswave will get ILR in the coming 4 years unless Labour does something (which they claim to be doing but never do). So he’s making it retrospective
It may or may nif end up wildly popular, that's up to the electorate. It wont be wildly popular (the bits ive mentioned anyway) with me. I think but cant be certain that its popularity will be commensurate with how much heat is in the immigration issue
The next set of polls will be interesting, indeed
I remember when Nigel first announced his “we will deport 600,000” policy. I said on here that this would possibly damage his polling, “it sounds too extreme”. It did nothing of the kind. Reform’s polling is either unchanged or it has risen - as others have fallen further
We consistently underestimate how far to the right the electorate is, now, on these migration/asylum issues. Something has changed
But maybe this WILL be “too extreme”? Let’s see
PB is extremely pro immigration compared to the general population; this is a site for people who like to tell others what they think, and how good does it feel to say repeatedly how much you welcome everyone and don't want to be nasty, while sneering at those who disagree?
I think I have more access to the usually politically unengaged than most on here, as none of my friends would be able to tell you who the LotO is, and most of them don't know how the voting system works; my soon to be ex-missus said yesterday "Why doesn't King Charles just call an election?", in short, they are uninformed, and uninterested... usually.
But now the whatsapp groups are full of politics, I am the one who keeps schtum. They are all very energised to vote Sir Keir out, some have gone on the marches.. it really is happening. And these are not thugs who go out looking for trouble, just generally slightly un- PC, a little bit racist tradesmen/tradesman's daughters, who didn't spend a day at Uni between them. No one hated Cameron or Miliband like they hate Starmer
My mates that went on the Tommy Robinson march said they went for an hour or two, walked over the bridge, then went to the pub, and that it was all friendly, with old mates cuddling each other. None of them hung around for the speeches.
Was there a great deal of comment about the Boris wave as it happened? Or did folk only really notice retrospectively?
I remember the Guardian comments, and many of us on the Remainer side predictinghow the huge wave on non-eu immigration after Brexit, would just make Britain even more angry, divided, disillusioned and xenophobic.
And so indeed, has it happened.
This requires a counterfactual: what would have happened if the rules were set so non-EU immigration was, say, 200k per year not 1m per year. Boris made decisions. They were not inevitable.
With the loss of so many workers in such a short space of time , his advice was very likely that there was no other option in order to stave off recession.
The much -vaunted domestic training simply can't be done in time to fill that many job vacancies.
But the number of EU citizens in the UK barely fell, according to the ONS. It's hard to get a handle on whether the so-called Brexodus happened, because Covid confuses the issue massively. But on balance it seems to have been a damp squib.
Besides which, I don't believe for a second he was advised 1m per year were needed. If the fresh blood of 200k europeans each year wanted replacing with 200k non-EU foreigners fine, but 1m? I think it ran away from him.
Maybe let's not elect Prime Ministers from whom things so often run away...
Ok, but 96000 is a lot less than one million.
(There are still more EU citizens in Britain than in June 2016 per your reference.)
96,000 is a lot less than one million, yes. Johnson sold the voters Brexit and a points-based system with a wink and a nod that these would decrease immigration. His Government then oversaw record high immigration. Maybe he's a liar, maybe he's incompetent, maybe it's both.
Do you know what I think? Let's not elect Johnson or anyone like Johnson again. For example, which party leader is most like Boris Johnson today? Puts forward a jovial image, as if he'd be fun to have a pint with, says he's straight talking? Let's not vote for him.
I am disappointed not one of you has acknowledged my brilliance with the headline on this.
Clearly the Dunning-Kruger test pun is too subtle for you all.
Nah, I saw it, but I was worried there was a deeper meaning I had missed, and I didn't want to appear overconfident on the basis of a small amount of knowledge.
Such air defences are complex systems, requiring a number of vehicles all talking to each other. What I suspect is the case is that the missiles themselves are plentiful in russia, but complete systems less so. Ukraine has been focussing on taking out the radars rather than the missiles themselves, AIUI the S-series radars are full of Ukranian components from the Soviet era, and are pretty much irreplaceable by russia.
It’s been noted that the fabled Russian air defence network doesn’t seem to be there anymore.
During the Cold War a vast network of radars covered the Soviet Union. Thousands of missile sites and thousands of interceptor aircraft were ready to attack inbound targets. Which is why the US built Stealth aircraft.
It seems, however that Ukraine can carry out strikes using light aircraft modified into missiles. Trundling along at 150mph in a straight line at a few thousand feet. True, Ukraine is moving to faster, custom designed systems. But again, from what we know of “Flamingo”, it is neither stealthy, nor terrain following. It should be easy meat for an effective air defence network.
During the fabled “Speer miracle” of armaments in Nazi Germany, heroic increases in production were claimed. Yet the German army continued to regress - less and less artillery, less air support, fewer lorries and armoured vehicles. The reason - a combination of fake stats, unusable production (quality) and missing pieces that prevented use.
Something is missing for Russia in air defence. I suspect that it is, as you say, search radars. It is worth noting, however, the extreme vulnerability of Russian systems when used against the Israelis - who destroyed them, blinded them and even hacked them to the point of their being of little use.
It’s quite possible that the famous russian air defences exist mostly on paper at the moment, with many of them obsolete and unserviceable. The S200/300/400 systems are also aimed at taking out enemy aircraft and ICBMs, and cost millions every time they’re used. So with a few cheap drones and unmanned light aircraft they can be quickly exhausted.
The remote-controlled light aircraft are to my mind hilarious, the Ukranians are taking a basic trainer and replacing the two humans who’d normally be in it with a hundred kilos of explosives and a hundred of fuel, giving it 1,000km range on target.
The russian defensive systems in Iran were worse then useless, easily taken out and totally failing to even notice the B-2 bombers flying half way across the country.
As ever, it is not just about the tools you have: it is about the serviceability of the tools and the training of the crews. You could give (say) Venezuela F35s with loads of spares, and they would have trouble fighting with them due to training and doctrinal issues. If they spend enough money, they will be able to overcome those issues with time. But only if they want the planes to be a useful fighting force, and not a shiny dick extension.
Russia has a history of producing very good, if not excellent, weapons platforms. Their use of them is more debatable - before the war, their pilots had nowhere near enough flying hours.
And when it comes to air defence, remember how Mathias Rust got through them when they were supposed to be at their height.
IIRC the Russian fighter and bomber pilots were restricted to something crazy like 100 hours a year, because of the cost of keeping their old fleet serviceable.
The Americans average around 250 hours/year, and the British will be in that ballpark too. That’s still only one hour per work day in the air.
Commercial pilots, on the other hand, are limited by law to 900 hours and many of them come damn close to that every year.
I am disappointed not one of you has acknowledged my brilliance with the headline on this.
Clearly the Dunning-Kruger test pun is too subtle for you all.
Actually, that's quite good. (Not that your headlines aren't normally good, but I usually spot them, unless they're bloody Steps lyrics). It did sort of strike a resonance in my brain which I didn't follow up. The best puns are the ones you don't spot. Which is an unfortunate paradox.
You ought to put a couple of posts up inviting us to like them if a) we recognised the pun, and b) liked it.
Was there a great deal of comment about the Boris wave as it happened? Or did folk only really notice retrospectively?
I remember the Guardian comments, and many of us on the Remainer side predictinghow the huge wave on non-eu immigration after Brexit, would just make Britain even more angry, divided, disillusioned and xenophobic.
And so indeed, has it happened.
This requires a counterfactual: what would have happened if the rules were set so non-EU immigration was, say, 200k per year not 1m per year. Boris made decisions. They were not inevitable.
With the loss of so many workers in such a short space of time , his advice was very likely that there was no other option in order to stave off recession.
The much -vaunted domestic training simply can't be done in time to fill that many job vacancies.
But the number of EU citizens in the UK barely fell, according to the ONS. It's hard to get a handle on whether the so-called Brexodus happened, because Covid confuses the issue massively. But on balance it seems to have been a damp squib.
Besides which, I don't believe for a second he was advised 1m per year were needed. If the fresh blood of 200k europeans each year wanted replacing with 200k non-EU foreigners fine, but 1m? I think it ran away from him.
Imagine you’ve been trying as a low skilled non European to try and escape your homeland.
Suddenly a European country opens up their borders and offers work, you would be doing everything you can to get there asap which is why we went from 0 to 1 million so quickly
Which is why you monitor the applications. And introduce quotas mid-year if need be. Or adjust the requirements mid-year. Or both.
Did the civil service tell the government it was getting out of hand? Did the government ignore them? Who decided? It would be fascinating to find out.
Was there a great deal of comment about the Boris wave as it happened? Or did folk only really notice retrospectively?
I remember the Guardian comments, and many of us on the Remainer side predictinghow the huge wave on non-eu immigration after Brexit, would just make Britain even more angry, divided, disillusioned and xenophobic.
And so indeed, has it happened.
This requires a counterfactual: what would have happened if the rules were set so non-EU immigration was, say, 200k per year not 1m per year. Boris made decisions. They were not inevitable.
With the loss of so many workers in such a short space of time , his advice was very likely that there was no other option in order to stave off recession.
The much -vaunted domestic training simply can't be done in time to fill that many job vacancies.
But the number of EU citizens in the UK barely fell, according to the ONS. It's hard to get a handle on whether the so-called Brexodus happened, because Covid confuses the issue massively. But on balance it seems to have been a damp squib.
Besides which, I don't believe for a second he was advised 1m per year were needed. If the fresh blood of 200k europeans each year wanted replacing with 200k non-EU foreigners fine, but 1m? I think it ran away from him.
Was there a great deal of comment about the Boris wave as it happened? Or did folk only really notice retrospectively?
I remember the Guardian comments, and many of us on the Remainer side predictinghow the huge wave on non-eu immigration after Brexit, would just make Britain even more angry, divided, disillusioned and xenophobic.
And so indeed, has it happened.
This requires a counterfactual: what would have happened if the rules were set so non-EU immigration was, say, 200k per year not 1m per year. Boris made decisions. They were not inevitable.
With the loss of so many workers in such a short space of time , his advice was very likely that there was no other option in order to stave off recession.
The much -vaunted domestic training simply can't be done in time to fill that many job vacancies.
But the number of EU citizens in the UK barely fell, according to the ONS. It's hard to get a handle on whether the so-called Brexodus happened, because Covid confuses the issue massively. But on balance it seems to have been a damp squib.
Besides which, I don't believe for a second he was advised 1m per year were needed. If the fresh blood of 200k europeans each year wanted replacing with 200k non-EU foreigners fine, but 1m? I think it ran away from him.
Maybe let's not elect Prime Ministers from whom things so often run away...
Ok, but 96000 is a lot less than one million.
(There are still more EU citizens in Britain than in June 2016 per your reference.)
96,000 is a lot less than one million, yes. Johnson sold the voters Brexit and a points-based system with a wink and a nod that these would decrease immigration. His Government then oversaw record high immigration. Maybe he's a liar, maybe he's incompetent, maybe it's both.
Do you know what I think? Let's not elect Johnson or anyone like Johnson again. For example, which party leader is most like Boris Johnson today? Puts forward a jovial image, as if he'd be fun to have a pint with, says he's straight talking? Let's not vote for him.
Let's not. But can we also not have Corbyn as the alternative?
Was there a great deal of comment about the Boris wave as it happened? Or did folk only really notice retrospectively?
I remember the Guardian comments, and many of us on the Remainer side predictinghow the huge wave on non-eu immigration after Brexit, would just make Britain even more angry, divided, disillusioned and xenophobic.
And so indeed, has it happened.
This requires a counterfactual: what would have happened if the rules were set so non-EU immigration was, say, 200k per year not 1m per year. Boris made decisions. They were not inevitable.
With the loss of so many workers in such a short space of time , his advice was very likely that there was no other option in order to stave off recession.
The much -vaunted domestic training simply can't be done in time to fill that many job vacancies.
But the number of EU citizens in the UK barely fell, according to the ONS. It's hard to get a handle on whether the so-called Brexodus happened, because Covid confuses the issue massively. But on balance it seems to have been a damp squib.
Besides which, I don't believe for a second he was advised 1m per year were needed. If the fresh blood of 200k europeans each year wanted replacing with 200k non-EU foreigners fine, but 1m? I think it ran away from him.
Maybe let's not elect Prime Ministers from whom things so often run away...
Ok, but 96000 is a lot less than one million.
(There are still more EU citizens in Britain than in June 2016 per your reference.)
96,000 is a lot less than one million, yes. Johnson sold the voters Brexit and a points-based system with a wink and a nod that these would decrease immigration. His Government then oversaw record high immigration. Maybe he's a liar, maybe he's incompetent, maybe it's both.
Do you know what I think? Let's not elect Johnson or anyone like Johnson again. For example, which party leader is most like Boris Johnson today? Puts forward a jovial image, as if he'd be fun to have a pint with, says he's straight talking? Let's not vote for him.
Let's not. But can we also not have Corbyn as the alternative?
I don't think the last 7 days suggests there is any chance of Corbyn becoming Prime Minister.
Worth pointing out that Labour already crossed the restrospectiveness Rubicon, in a sense:
"On Monday the government announced immigrants would now typically have to live in the UK for 10 years before applying for the right to stay here indefinitely - double the current five-year period.
It was previously unclear whether this would apply to the approximately 1.5 million foreign workers who have moved to the UK since 2020.
The BBC understands a document published in the coming weeks will make clear the government is preparing to apply the 10-year qualifying period to those who are already in the UK as well as to new visa applicants."
Isn’t the difference that they won’t be asked to re-apply for their visas so won’t face the threat of deportation. Regardless I don’t agree with retrospective changes .
If you extend ILR to 10 years retrospectively, people will need to reapply for their work visas after five years but before ten years. Which they would otherwise not have to do. They thought they were on a pathway to ILR. Pathway got longer and weedier. Retrospectively.
That’s not retrospectively. Governments change the rules all the time and if you haven’t qualified for something then tough luck.
Comments
There are indeed cases where what is seen as "abuse" actually helps maintain unique habitats, though.
We have quarries or sand pits that would scrub over if people didn't keep razzing motorbikes and quadbikes on them and the special species that like bare ground would die out.
The wildlife trust was offered one such site but declined as they couldn't deal with the liabilities.
Motability needs reform.
Shall I get you a G&T on your veranda, Sahib? Then kick the cookies for you?
Khan and other bleeding heart liberals clutching their pearls and telling him "you can't say that" will only add to the appeal this policy has to an increasingly NOTA electorate.
The establishment has done nothing to sort either issue, despite Labour and the Conservatives having large majorities respectively and the time to do so.
Like Thatcher, Farrage is being bold and doubling down in a way that is easily understood and relatable as him "sticking to his guns".
He will be rewarded, like she was, because of dear old TINA in the end. The absence of any solution other than continued fingers in ears and 'let's pretend ' everything is lovely.
"On Monday the government announced immigrants would now typically have to live in the UK for 10 years before applying for the right to stay here indefinitely - double the current five-year period.
It was previously unclear whether this would apply to the approximately 1.5 million foreign workers who have moved to the UK since 2020.
The BBC understands a document published in the coming weeks will make clear the government is preparing to apply the 10-year qualifying period to those who are already in the UK as well as to new visa applicants."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c249ndrrd7vo
https://www.rte.ie/news/post/104768877
I'm not envious (well, not very!) of people who do get it, but I wonder......
It's a bit of a pig getting in and out of cars, too.
I take it that you have none of those?
Unless all Palestinians are Hamas of course.
Also, we are not the only country in the world to do this. New Zealand, Chile, Uruguay etc. let those with permanent residence of various sorts vote. UK citizens can vote in Ireland.
https://en.defence-ua.com/analysis/russians_want_to_buy_back_their_own_s_400s_sam_systems_from_turkey_this_is_negative_scenario_for_ukraine-15807.html
Such air defences are complex systems, requiring a number of vehicles all talking to each other. What I suspect is the case is that the missiles themselves are plentiful in russia, but complete systems less so. Ukraine has been focussing on taking out the radars rather than the missiles themselves, AIUI the S-series radars are full of Ukranian components from the Soviet era, and are pretty much irreplaceable by russia.
For example, during my lifetime, the pension age has moved. I think that's acceptable. I don't think it would be acceptable to take a state pension away from someone who had already started to receive one. Likewise, I think it's acceptable to change the requirements for ILR before someone has earned it, but once they've been awarded ILR, you shouldn't retroactively change the rules and make them do more.
Or did folk only really notice retrospectively?
It's just a symptom of failing democracy that we have these people and the tribes below them. There's no shortage of opportunity in the UK to express your democratic wish. There is a shortage of factors at work that enable you to form and want to back that wish.
During the Cold War a vast network of radars covered the Soviet Union. Thousands of missile sites and thousands of interceptor aircraft were ready to attack inbound targets. Which is why the US built Stealth aircraft.
It seems, however that Ukraine can carry out strikes using light aircraft modified into missiles.
Trundling along at 150mph in a straight line at a few thousand feet. True, Ukraine is moving to faster, custom designed systems. But again, from what we know of “Flamingo”, it is neither stealthy, nor terrain following. It should be easy meat for an effective air defence network.
During the fabled “Speer miracle” of armaments in Nazi Germany, heroic increases in production were claimed. Yet the German army continued to regress - less and less artillery, less air support, fewer lorries and armoured vehicles. The reason - a combination of fake stats, unusable production (quality) and missing pieces that prevented use.
Something is missing for Russia in air defence. I suspect that it is, as you say, search radars. It is worth noting, however, the extreme vulnerability of Russian systems when used against the Israelis - who destroyed them, blinded them and even hacked them to the point of their being of little use.
I would be eligible but am medically disqualified from driving and dont have a partner so it's of no use to me!
I don't remember hearing about a policy to increase immigration. What policy change brought about the big increase, why was it implemented, what debate was there beforehand?
It seems to have taken us all by surprise when the official numbers showed net migration of a million per year. It's bizarre that should have happened when May as PM was so clear that the referendum has been won on the basis of ending free movement, and the Tories had been promising net migration in the tens of thousands for so long.
Also, the Boriswave is in the past. Net immigration in 2024 was about half the Boriswave peak. I think that's the biggest ever drop in immigration since the numbers were recorded. It is expected to be lower again in 2025. Why do you need Farage's proposals when immigration is already dropping so much? Johnson was a terrible Prime Minister, but he's gone now. Sunak and now Starmer have responded to public concerns and net immigration is falling.
British-born citizens are more likely to be on benefits than immigrants. It isn't immigrants who are "bankrupting the country".
42% of the welfare bill is spent on pensions. If you want to reform the welfare system, start with pensions. You could abolish the triple lock. You could increase the pension age. You could introduce more means testing.
What I do have a problem with, as you say, is such valuable rights being handed out en masse without any consideration as to what is in it for us. I have a problem with politicians claiming to be "tough" on immigration whilst operating a system with more holes than the average colander. Who waste time and money on hearings, appeals and further appeals and then don't actually enforce the decision because it just seems too much effort. Who claim that offenders will be extradited at the end of their sentence and then fail to implement that. Who take me and indeed most people for mugs. If they persist in this obfuscation and lying we are going to end up with the likes of Farage. It is a deeply unpleasant thought.
Lol.
And so indeed, has it happened.
https://x.com/QuetzalPhoenix/status/1969948957695422707
It does explain the reaction shots.
Not heard any of that for a while though.
I think it's probably a combination of many factors:
*) Increased demand, both economic and because of 'near' wars (e.g. Syria)
*) Increased ability to make your way around the world.
*) Increased knowledge of where a better life can be got, and how (e.g. comms)
*) A desire to help people less fortunate
*) Lawyers and other groups making money out of trying to keep even poor cases in the country.
*) Organised gangs (*) making money from people trafficking.
*) Governments encouraging migration to western countries for political reasons.
*) Lack of international agreements to deal with people no-one wants.
*) International law that was written in simpler times, and is no longer fit for purpose.
*) + many more
(*) Not, of course, including the lawyers. They're not an organised gang. Oh no.
But memory is fallible, and I can't be bothered to spend time searching for that, so don't put too much reliance on it.
The much -vaunted domestic training simply can't be done in time to fill that many job vacancies.
Attendance Allowance doesn't cut it apparently.
iirc you can't get PIP if you are over State Triple Lock Bonanza age.
So, yes, it is a bit of an odd one.
Do Motability people give their cars up at 66?
Quite aside from the sympathy I feel for her as a person, I can’t imagine this is the sort of outcome Reform are trying to achieve. (Aside from a slight accent and her Chinese features, you wouldn’t think she was anything but British – culturally she is clearly entirely non-alien. In fact, the most culturally incongruous thing about her is she has a quote from a psalm slotted into her phone.)
The Boriswave was largely driven by work visas.
The remote-controlled light aircraft are to my mind hilarious, the Ukranians are taking a basic trainer and replacing the two humans who’d normally be in it with a hundred kilos of explosives and a hundred of fuel, giving it 1,000km range on target.
Oh, and have one “Nebo” area radar taken out in Crimea yesterday as well. Fewer eyes now on the Black Sea. https://x.com/gerashchenko_en/status/1970081225525075993
The russian defensive systems in Iran were worse then useless, easily taken out and totally failing to even notice the B-2 bombers flying half way across the country.
Interesting that anti-immigrant sentiment is ok in polite society, now that it can be used to bash the Tories.
At some point, they gave up trying to recruit fresh generations of Conservative voters, in favour of being a trade union for older voters.
https://electrek.co/2025/09/22/byd-unveils-tesla-megapack-competitor-twice-capacity/
..Earlier this month, Tesla unveiled its next-generation Megapack, a dominant player in large-scale energy storage for some time.
The new Megapack 3 increases the energy capacity of the container-side system from 3.9 MWh to 5 MWh. At the same time, Tesla unveiled the Megablock, which consists of 4 Megapacks combined with a megavolt transformer and switchgear.
Now, BYD has launched a new competing product called ‘HaoHan’.
In its regular configuration, the system has a capacity of 14.5 MWh, almost 3 times Tesla’s Megapack, and in a 20-ft container configuration, it has a 10 MWh capacity.
The system has a Vcts (Volume Ratio of Cell to System) of 52.1%, which BYD claims is the world’s highest.
BYD also claims to have greatly simplified its system while increasing reliability with a “70% reduction in system failure” and “70% reduction in maintenance cost.”
HaoHan is using BYD’s proprietary 2,710 Ah Blade Battery cell – the largest used in stationary storage.
It enables a much higher volumetric energy density, which the company claims results in deploying GWh projects with about half the number of battery systems.
Overall, BYD claims that energy project costs will be reduced by 21.7% thanks to the new HaoHan.
Not unlike Tesla with the Megablock, BYD also unveiled new large-scale power electronics to go along with the new battery system.
GC Flux is BYD’s new grid-forming inverter solution, which can scale from 2.5 to 10 MW.
According to BYD, the inverter delivers about 38% more performance than the industry average and achieves a maximum power density of 1,474 kW/㎡—roughly 130% higher than typical market values. It also offers an overload capacity of up to three times its rated output for 10 seconds, with peak efficiency reaching 99.35%.
The GC Flux PCS is equipped with advanced grid-forming features tailored for today’s energy systems. It can regulate voltage and frequency in real-time, enabling more invert-based power to a grid while reducing the risk of blackouts.
The system provides active inertia response for up to 25 seconds, wide-band damping across the 1–1500 Hz range, and ultra-fast voltage and frequency regulation in under 100 milliseconds. These capabilities are essential for maintaining stability, particularly in hybrid or renewable-heavy grids that demand seamless transitions between grid-connected and islanded operation...
Last bit highlighted for LuckyGuy.
The issue is seen through the lens of housing being unaffordable, and public services that appear to be in many places broken as far as the British population is concerned.
Russia has a history of producing very good, if not excellent, weapons platforms. Their use of them is more debatable - before the war, their pilots had nowhere near enough flying hours.
And when it comes to air defence, remember how Mathias Rust got through them when they were supposed to be at their height.
A 300 mile range radar (against a moderate RCS) target will be able to detect at B2 at about 10-20 miles.
Given the B2 is flying 10 miles up, it would only be detectable in a brief “ring” around the radar - nearly every search radar has an elevation limit of 40 degrees.
Somebody will crack fusion some day.
Besides which, I don't believe for a second he was advised 1m per year were needed. If the fresh blood of 200k europeans each year wanted replacing with 200k non-EU foreigners fine, but 1m? I think it ran away from him.
Seemed quite a good idea to me, and easy to move around.
Maybe let's not elect Prime Ministers from whom things so often run away...
That led them to consistently prioritise the needs of retired voters, until they became completely boxed in.
(There are still more EU citizens in Britain than in June 2016 per your reference.)
Suddenly a European country opens up their borders and offers work, you would be doing everything you can to get there asap which is why we went from 0 to 1 million so quickly
Clearly the Dunning-Kruger test pun is too subtle for you all.
Did the civil service tell the government it was getting out of hand? Did the government ignore them? Who decided? It would be fascinating to find out.
I think I have more access to the usually politically unengaged than most on here, as none of my friends would be able to tell you who the LotO is, and most of them don't know how the voting system works; my soon to be ex-missus said yesterday "Why doesn't King Charles just call an election?", in short, they are uninformed, and uninterested... usually.
But now the whatsapp groups are full of politics, I am the one who keeps schtum. They are all very energised to vote Sir Keir out, some have gone on the marches.. it really is happening. And these are not thugs who go out looking for trouble, just generally slightly un- PC, a little bit racist tradesmen/tradesman's daughters, who didn't spend a day at Uni between them. No one hated Cameron or Miliband like they hate Starmer
My mates that went on the Tommy Robinson march said they went for an hour or two, walked over the bridge, then went to the pub, and that it was all friendly, with old mates cuddling each other. None of them hung around for the speeches.
Do you know what I think? Let's not elect Johnson or anyone like Johnson again. For example, which party leader is most like Boris Johnson today? Puts forward a jovial image, as if he'd be fun to have a pint with, says he's straight talking? Let's not vote for him.
The Americans average around 250 hours/year, and the British will be in that ballpark too. That’s still only one hour per work day in the air.
Commercial pilots, on the other hand, are limited by law to 900 hours and many of them come damn close to that every year.
It did sort of strike a resonance in my brain which I didn't follow up. The best puns are the ones you don't spot. Which is an unfortunate paradox.
You ought to put a couple of posts up inviting us to like them if a) we recognised the pun, and b) liked it.
https://x.com/miketapptweets/status/1970125729783316911?s=46&t=d8CnRhyZJ-m4vy0k55W8XQ