From a progressive identity politics perspective, Streeting has to be the strongest contender. He would be the first openly gay leader of a G7 country, so Labour would be able to leapfrog the Tories without needing to deviate from their "no women or ethnic minorities" track record.
First? I'm on the other brother at 1000, can we get a groundswell behind him? Lammy out of the running?
Was Lammy ever in the running? Ditto Cooper. Reeves not being in the running is more understandable. Meanwhile all the noise is coming from people whose ego and ambition far outrun their ability.
As a lapsed Conservative, it makes me quite nostalgic for the old days.
i tipped Lammy at 100/1, he's now 59/1.
I think he was one of the if Sir Keir falls under a bus candidates.
One thing in his favour I was told after the bet is that nobody hates him, which isn't true of all the candidates.
invisible donkey
If Sir K literally falls under a bus and is no longer PM as dead then the Palace would expect the Cabinet to send someone straight away to be sworn in as PM.
Under Lab rules iirc this would be the deputy who is Lammy but he would be caretaker.
Edit: whoops - just remembered - he's DPM but someone else is deputy leader. Hmm...
This is the guy who criticised Buttigieg's paternity leave.
Sean Duffy: Film road trip for seven months. Work, occasionally. The Transportation Secretary said he did manage to do ‘some work,’ while filming a full Trump-approved reality show with his family titled ‘The Great American Road Trip.’ https://x.com/NYMag/status/2052841803301413043
Ed M becoming Prime Minister would be seen as Labour holding the electorate in contempt. He has already stood before the voters as a prospective prime minister and been decisively rejected. Labour would do well to remember that.
Big wave from Pitt, Gladstone, Churchill, Wilson and the rest. The electorate rejected them having seen their performance as PM, then re-elected them, but perhaps back then the electorate were prepared to reconsider previous decisions.
First? I'm on the other brother at 1000, can we get a groundswell behind him? Lammy out of the running?
Was Lammy ever in the running? Ditto Cooper. Reeves not being in the running is more understandable. Meanwhile all the noise is coming from people whose ego and ambition far outrun their ability.
As a lapsed Conservative, it makes me quite nostalgic for the old days.
i tipped Lammy at 100/1, he's now 59/1.
I think he was one of the if Sir Keir falls under a bus candidates.
One thing in his favour I was told after the bet is that nobody hates him, which isn't true of all the candidates.
invisible donkey
If Sir K literally falls under a bus and is no longer PM as dead then the Palace would expect the Cabinet to send someone straight away to be sworn in as PM.
Under Lab rules iirc this would be the deputy who is Lammy but he would be caretaker.
The deputy is Lucy Powell. Lammy is just Starmer's deputy so without Starmer, he's just another Labour MP.
First? I'm on the other brother at 1000, can we get a groundswell behind him? Lammy out of the running?
Was Lammy ever in the running? Ditto Cooper. Reeves not being in the running is more understandable. Meanwhile all the noise is coming from people whose ego and ambition far outrun their ability.
As a lapsed Conservative, it makes me quite nostalgic for the old days.
i tipped Lammy at 100/1, he's now 59/1.
I think he was one of the if Sir Keir falls under a bus candidates.
One thing in his favour I was told after the bet is that nobody hates him, which isn't true of all the candidates.
invisible donkey
If Sir K literally falls under a bus and is no longer PM as dead then the Palace would expect the Cabinet to send someone straight away to be sworn in as PM.
Under Lab rules iirc this would be the deputy who is Lammy but he would be caretaker.
Edit: whoops - just remembered - he's DPM but someone else is deputy leader. Hmm...
Betfair market rules are next leader elected by Labour party, rules out caretaker. Next PM rules are less clear. I'm on Lammy as next PM.
What on earth happened to make work pay? Its a complete fantasy and its making everyone who tried to play by the rules and pay their share feel like a mug. No wonder support for the traditional mainstream parties is collapsing. No one likes to feel they've been mugged.
It’s the cliff edges for moving from benefits to work.
The honest are terrified at being pauperised by having benefits docked for earning 50p too much or something.
I’ve sat across from people in tears, from the worry that they have worked *too many* hours.
Yes, I have come across that too. People who are being forced to work less than they want to because the disincentives to work are more than 100%. Friends of my daughter with young children and our horrific child care costs have it even worse.
This has been seriously aggravated by the recent increases in benefits which no doubt made many Labour MPs feel better about themselves even if it made Reeves even more lugubrious. These people simply do not live anywhere near the world of the people that they think they are trying to help. They don't understand. As Pulp so memorably put it many years ago now:
Sing along with the common people Sing along and it might just get you through Laugh along with the common people Laugh along even though they're really laughing at you And the stupid things that you do Because you think that poor is cool
We have a welfare-industrial complex in this country.
Those who work, those who better themselves, those who prosper, those who are net contributors, are all viewed as the enemy.
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
I can’t give you the long eloquent answer your prolix question probably deserves, mainly because I can’t be arsed
But I’ll give you the short brutal answer. Yes, I believe many of our problems (obvs not all) come from immigration legal and illegal. From the surging rape rates to new sectarian politics to the crippling benefits bill to the threat of terror to the pressure on housing and public services, and much much more (too much to go into)
Only one party seems to have the cullions to deal with this. Reform. The Tories have lost my trust after 14 years, especially after the Boriswave (for which Boris should go to jail)
That’s it
Fair enough, I appreciate you engaging at all with my verbiage.
To push you one stage further, though: do you think the problems with immigration are down to immigrants having an inherent tendency to create these problems or from lack of effort to provide adequate assimilation?
People have been fighting over land, resources and money since the dawn of time yet, in the last 25-50 years, western governments have deliberately created the conditions for land, resources and wages to be fought over in their own countries by encouraging never seen before levels of immigration from poor countries, and are now surprised that it has created huge tension.
So the poor are supposed to put up with sharing resources, lower wages, and less job security, while living cheek to jowl with the new competition and not complain else be called racist, while the rich get a massive increase in potential labour, and get richer by watching the warring factions undercut each other for work.
Pretty much 100% agree. But just as you are rightly arguing that isn't poor people's fault, nor is it immigrants' fault.
Well, no, it isn't immigrants 'fault'. I can see why they're here. They're responding rationally to incentives. But it's not good news for the rest of us.
Why not?
Because we're all capable of walking to Maccie D's rather than get an illegal on a bike to fetch it for us..😏
The facts are the facts . By doubling the salary requirements from 30,000 to 60,000 this means hundreds of thousands of people will lose their ILR and will be deported , this includes their children who will have to leave behind all their friends and could end up being deported to a country where they don’t even speak the language .
The flippant attitude some show in here at the human cost of this policy is really depressing . I have no problem with strict policies on overstayers and those who commit crimes . If you break your side of the bargain then fine deport these people.
I’m not some bleeding heart liberal who wants open borders and understand why people want much lower immigration.
What is totally unacceptable IMO is retrospective changes made to laws which mean many people who did everything asked of them will be deported.
And where does this end ? All we heard before from UKIP , then the Brexit Party and now Reform was the issue of net migration and now migrant boats . Now that net migration is falling dramatically in an effort to keep up their electoral chances Reform have decided to forment more anger and division by moving onto people who are legally here.
And when they’re done with that who is next .
Do people want to see their neighbours , friends at work deported , their children’s friends deported . Because this is what the Reform policy will do.
If you’re okay with this then really there’s nothing much else to say .
I'm unclear what you think is fair or unfair?
1) Is it fair to change the rules on gaining ILR so that people without ILR who might have expected to gain ILR no longer do so?
2) Is it fair to change the rules for ILR to effectively abolish it, so you're either on a temporary visa or gain citizenship?
3) Is it fair to remove citizenship from dual nationals?
All are quite different concepts, and I think you are intentionally conflating 1 and 3 to try and make 1 unacceptable, when I would ague it's very reasonable.
Personally I'd be OK with 1 and 2, and I'd be willing to insist on no dual nationality (so you can't be UK national and somewhere else, you've got to renounce one or we take UK citizenship off you) which I suppose is half way to three.
Immigration is by nature a risky business, one of the risks is that the rules are changed during the process. Would those people who might be effected by this rather we'd done what we should have done in the first place, and not let them in at-all?
The facts are the facts . By doubling the salary requirements from 30,000 to 60,000 this means hundreds of thousands of people will lose their ILR and will be deported , this includes their children who will have to leave behind all their friends and could end up being deported to a country where they don’t even speak the language .
The flippant attitude some show in here at the human cost of this policy is really depressing . I have no problem with strict policies on overstayers and those who commit crimes . If you break your side of the bargain then fine deport these people.
I’m not some bleeding heart liberal who wants open borders and understand why people want much lower immigration.
What is totally unacceptable IMO is retrospective changes made to laws which mean many people who did everything asked of them will be deported.
And where does this end ? All we heard before from UKIP , then the Brexit Party and now Reform was the issue of net migration and now migrant boats . Now that net migration is falling dramatically in an effort to keep up their electoral chances Reform have decided to forment more anger and division by moving onto people who are legally here.
And when they’re done with that who is next .
Do people want to see their neighbours , friends at work deported , their children’s friends deported . Because this is what the Reform policy will do.
If you’re okay with this then really there’s nothing much else to say .
And the fun little cherry on top.
The fraudsters who were selling visas for care home workers have moved to a new, rich vein.
Creating non-existent jobs that pay more than the minimum wage visa restrictions. Then sell visas for them.
So the immigrant pays £10k for a job offer that pays £50k. On paper. When they arrive, there’s no job. Or fake paperwork that they are being paid £50k, while working sub minimum wage
Not much enforcement. The penalties are minimal - far less than drugs. And the risks are far lower.
If Wes Streeting has what it takes to be PM then he’ll get it done this week. He’ll never have a better opportunity than now.
If you had one shot or one opportunity. To seize everything you ever wanted in one moment. Would you capture it or just let it slip? (Yo)
Give me one moment in time When I'm more than I thought I could be When all of my dreams are a heartbeat away And the answers are all up to me Give me one moment in time When I'm racing with destiny Then in that one moment of time I will feel I will feel eternity
I always hold in having it if you fancy it If you fancy it, that's understood And suppose it makes you fat? I don't worry over that A little of what you fancy does you good
'We are the only party that can bring our country together'
I think that's probably true. I just wish they'd have bloody well done it over the past couple of years.
It’s really really not true. Labour has lost its white working class vote in much of England and Wales, forever. Or for a very long time. The WWC have worked out that Reform will better represent their interests. And they will
It’s exactly what happened to Labour in Scotland with the SNP but much worse, because this is absolutely Labour’s core vote. Unless they get it back they will never again win a majority. But the kind of policies needed to win them back would be intolerable for Labour MPs and hugely alienating for their London and middle class vote
TL;DR: Labour are fucked
I was in Reformland yesterday. I took my daughter and some friends round to another friend's house. Small end-terrace on the edge of a large council estate, where Reform signs were very much in evidence (one of my daughters' friends* giggled nervously as she pointed it out - oddly, the youth seem to pronounce it REEForm). Small Victorian houses on the next street with adverts for 'the HMO guys - always on the lookout for more houses'. You could kind of feel the hopelessness of the area: it was the last in the queue and there only to be shat upon. You can see the attraction of a party which at least doesn't appear to actively despise you.
*These are girls my daughter knows through football: they're a mixed bunch, socially, but my daughter is very much in a minority in growing up in an owner-occupied house.
One of the good things Reform has done in Durham is putting the brakes on HMO’s. They really are a blight on communities.
You can see from PB that so many people despise not just the Reform voters but these communities as a whole.
At least Reform talk to and listen to them. They may fail, they may not.
Exactly. The WWC now have their own party. Labour was meant to be that but abandoned them decades ago; the penny has finally dropped, as it dropped in Scotland
Labour has never recovered in Scotland and, in fact, has declined further ever since. They are trending towards complete disappearance
Why should WWC in England and Wales go back to Labour? Labour are the party of London, and some BME voters. And parts of the public sector. That’s it
Labour will never offer policies that appeal to the WWC. So this means Labour are crippled forever
Labour's heartland is now comfortable suburbia - not too poor, not too Muslim, doing reasonably well from the status quo. The sort of areas.which used to be Conservative heartlands 40 years ago. There is much discussion on here of Con/Ref mergers and Grn/Lab mergers but to me the most obvious merger would be Con/Lab.
Mahmood would be an excellent conservative Home Secretary
What on earth happened to make work pay? Its a complete fantasy and its making everyone who tried to play by the rules and pay their share feel like a mug. No wonder support for the traditional mainstream parties is collapsing. No one likes to feel they've been mugged.
It’s the cliff edges for moving from benefits to work.
The honest are terrified at being pauperised by having benefits docked for earning 50p too much or something.
I’ve sat across from people in tears, from the worry that they have worked *too many* hours.
Yes, I have come across that too. People who are being forced to work less than they want to because the disincentives to work are more than 100%. Friends of my daughter with young children and our horrific child care costs have it even worse.
This has been seriously aggravated by the recent increases in benefits which no doubt made many Labour MPs feel better about themselves even if it made Reeves even more lugubrious. These people simply do not live anywhere near the world of the people that they think they are trying to help. They don't understand. As Pulp so memorably put it many years ago now:
Sing along with the common people Sing along and it might just get you through Laugh along with the common people Laugh along even though they're really laughing at you And the stupid things that you do Because you think that poor is cool
"UC claimants get Class 3 NI credits"
What is this bilge?
No they don't.
Class 3 is voluntary payments by people who have gaps in their NI record and involves coughing up £ to HMRC.
Maybe they mean the NI class 1 credits one gets if on UC?
Don't know, I didn't say it. But if the difference made for 35 years of contributions is £3 a week it maybe doesn't matter very much.
The facts are the facts . By doubling the salary requirements from 30,000 to 60,000 this means hundreds of thousands of people will lose their ILR and will be deported , this includes their children who will have to leave behind all their friends and could end up being deported to a country where they don’t even speak the language .
The flippant attitude some show in here at the human cost of this policy is really depressing . I have no problem with strict policies on overstayers and those who commit crimes . If you break your side of the bargain then fine deport these people.
I’m not some bleeding heart liberal who wants open borders and understand why people want much lower immigration.
What is totally unacceptable IMO is retrospective changes made to laws which mean many people who did everything asked of them will be deported.
And where does this end ? All we heard before from UKIP , then the Brexit Party and now Reform was the issue of net migration and now migrant boats . Now that net migration is falling dramatically in an effort to keep up their electoral chances Reform have decided to forment more anger and division by moving onto people who are legally here.
And when they’re done with that who is next .
Do people want to see their neighbours , friends at work deported , their children’s friends deported . Because this is what the Reform policy will do.
If you’re okay with this then really there’s nothing much else to say .
I'm unclear what you think is fair or unfair?
1) Is it fair to change the rules on gaining ILR so that people without ILR who might have expected to gain ILR no longer do so?
2) Is it fair to change the rules for ILR to effectively abolish it, so you're either on a temporary visa or gain citizenship?
3) Is it fair to remove citizenship from dual nationals?
All are quite different concepts, and I think you are intentionally conflating 1 and 3 to try and make 1 unacceptable, when I would ague it's very reasonable.
Personally I'd be OK with 1 and 2, and I'd be willing to insist on no dual nationality (so you can't be UK national and somewhere else, you've got to renounce one or we take UK citizenship off you) which I suppose is half way to three.
Immigration is by nature a risky business, one of the risks is that the rules are changed during the process. Would those people who might be effected by this rather we'd done what we should have done in the first place, and not let them in at-all?
I’m talking only about those who already have ILR . So they’re legally here already . If a government wants to abolish ILR for future arrivals at least people know what the situation is before they come .
The facts are the facts . By doubling the salary requirements from 30,000 to 60,000 this means hundreds of thousands of people will lose their ILR and will be deported , this includes their children who will have to leave behind all their friends and could end up being deported to a country where they don’t even speak the language .
The flippant attitude some show in here at the human cost of this policy is really depressing . I have no problem with strict policies on overstayers and those who commit crimes . If you break your side of the bargain then fine deport these people.
I’m not some bleeding heart liberal who wants open borders and understand why people want much lower immigration.
What is totally unacceptable IMO is retrospective changes made to laws which mean many people who did everything asked of them will be deported.
And where does this end ? All we heard before from UKIP , then the Brexit Party and now Reform was the issue of net migration and now migrant boats . Now that net migration is falling dramatically in an effort to keep up their electoral chances Reform have decided to forment more anger and division by moving onto people who are legally here.
And when they’re done with that who is next .
Do people want to see their neighbours , friends at work deported , their children’s friends deported . Because this is what the Reform policy will do.
If you’re okay with this then really there’s nothing much else to say .
And the fun little cherry on top.
The fraudsters who were selling visas for care home workers have moved to a new, rich vein.
Creating non-existent jobs that pay more than the minimum wage visa restrictions. Then sell visas for them.
So the immigrant pays £10k for a job offer that pays £50k. On paper. When they arrive, there’s no job. Or fake paperwork that they are being paid £50k, while working sub minimum wage
Not much enforcement. The penalties are minimal - far less than drugs. And the risks are far lower.
Sell a hundred such visas…
Detection, enforcement and punishment. Three more of the things that just aren't happening properly.
And whilst it's not just about money, an awful lot of it is. Partly cash totals, but also, no you can't spend the increase on blooming bobbies on the beat.
maxh - if people have been indoctrinated from birth to believe that ancient texts are the literal word of God and that such texts are not simply there to help you have a personal interior relationship with God but a practical guide to how you live your life, including politics, then such people are very unlikely to assimilate into life in the UK. Why is this so hard to understand?
There are about 30 Evangelicals who attend the church near to me. I get on with the vicar and one of the congregation is a good personal friend. I think they are fairly well assimilated. They run the local food bank.
My wife goes to such a church. Perhaps that's why I view the issue differently @FrankBooth.
People can exist within a world of contradictions. In fact many do.
We do need to be more assertive that you must accept the system of democracy in the UK if resident here, whatever your personal views as to how we should make political decisions, though.
The facts are the facts . By doubling the salary requirements from 30,000 to 60,000 this means hundreds of thousands of people will lose their ILR and will be deported , this includes their children who will have to leave behind all their friends and could end up being deported to a country where they don’t even speak the language .
The flippant attitude some show in here at the human cost of this policy is really depressing . I have no problem with strict policies on overstayers and those who commit crimes . If you break your side of the bargain then fine deport these people.
I’m not some bleeding heart liberal who wants open borders and understand why people want much lower immigration.
What is totally unacceptable IMO is retrospective changes made to laws which mean many people who did everything asked of them will be deported.
And where does this end ? All we heard before from UKIP , then the Brexit Party and now Reform was the issue of net migration and now migrant boats . Now that net migration is falling dramatically in an effort to keep up their electoral chances Reform have decided to forment more anger and division by moving onto people who are legally here.
And when they’re done with that who is next .
Do people want to see their neighbours , friends at work deported , their children’s friends deported . Because this is what the Reform policy will do.
If you’re okay with this then really there’s nothing much else to say .
I'm unclear what you think is fair or unfair?
1) Is it fair to change the rules on gaining ILR so that people without ILR who might have expected to gain ILR no longer do so?
2) Is it fair to change the rules for ILR to effectively abolish it, so you're either on a temporary visa or gain citizenship?
3) Is it fair to remove citizenship from dual nationals?
All are quite different concepts, and I think you are intentionally conflating 1 and 3 to try and make 1 unacceptable, when I would ague it's very reasonable.
Personally I'd be OK with 1 and 2, and I'd be willing to insist on no dual nationality (so you can't be UK national and somewhere else, you've got to renounce one or we take UK citizenship off you) which I suppose is half way to three.
Immigration is by nature a risky business, one of the risks is that the rules are changed during the process. Would those people who might be effected by this rather we'd done what we should have done in the first place, and not let them in at-all?
I’m talking only about those who already have ILR . So they’re legally here already . If a government wants to abolish ILR for future arrivals at least people know what the situation is before they come .
Note that the government just made another precedent - they removed citizenship *by birth* from an ex-policeman who moved to Russia and is involved with their intelligence services.
Imagine the fun that a Reform Home Sec. will have with that.
“Citizenship cancelled for all those wearing loud trainers in a built up area.”
My unscientific weekend poll of Labour MPs and government ministers is that Keir Starmer will be replaced as their leader and the country’s prime minister “by the end of the year”.
They also say that an immediate defenestration and snap leadership election should be avoided if possible, for two reasons.
First, the party needs to have a debate about its future direction and what could be a “big story of hope for Britain” they could coalesce around and sell to voters
Second, the leadership change should be orderly, respectful and likely to yield a stable outcome.
This means, they say, that the process needs to be long enough to allow Andy Burnham the opportunity to resign as mayor of Greater Manchester and contest a by-election.
Which is not to say they all want Burnham as Britain’s next prime minister. Some do. Some don’t.
What it means is they fear he and his supporters would never cease to lobby to be Labour leader, and therefore no new leader would be secure, unless Burnham was given the opportunity to win a leadership contest or crash and burn.
“If Andy feels he is blocked again, any new leader will be toast before the next election,” one senior MP said to me.
And to give Burnham the rope he wants, the leadership contest has to be delayed till the autumn, say his friends and foes.
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
I can’t give you the long eloquent answer your prolix question probably deserves, mainly because I can’t be arsed
But I’ll give you the short brutal answer. Yes, I believe many of our problems (obvs not all) come from immigration legal and illegal. From the surging rape rates to new sectarian politics to the crippling benefits bill to the threat of terror to the pressure on housing and public services, and much much more (too much to go into)
Only one party seems to have the cullions to deal with this. Reform. The Tories have lost my trust after 14 years, especially after the Boriswave (for which Boris should go to jail)
That’s it
Fair enough, I appreciate you engaging at all with my verbiage.
To push you one stage further, though: do you think the problems with immigration are down to immigrants having an inherent tendency to create these problems or from lack of effort to provide adequate assimilation?
People have been fighting over land, resources and money since the dawn of time yet, in the last 25-50 years, western governments have deliberately created the conditions for land, resources and wages to be fought over in their own countries by encouraging never seen before levels of immigration from poor countries, and are now surprised that it has created huge tension.
So the poor are supposed to put up with sharing resources, lower wages, and less job security, while living cheek to jowl with the new competition and not complain else be called racist, while the rich get a massive increase in potential labour, and get richer by watching the warring factions undercut each other for work.
Pretty much 100% agree. But just as you are rightly arguing that isn't poor people's fault, nor is it immigrants' fault.
Well, no, it isn't immigrants 'fault'. I can see why they're here. They're responding rationally to incentives. But it's not good news for the rest of us.
Why not?
Because we're all capable of walking to Maccie D's rather than get an illegal on a bike to fetch it for us..😏
I've never used Just Eat or the like, nonetheless for those who do, I suspect their lives are greatly enhanced.
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
I can’t give you the long eloquent answer your prolix question probably deserves, mainly because I can’t be arsed
But I’ll give you the short brutal answer. Yes, I believe many of our problems (obvs not all) come from immigration legal and illegal. From the surging rape rates to new sectarian politics to the crippling benefits bill to the threat of terror to the pressure on housing and public services, and much much more (too much to go into)
Only one party seems to have the cullions to deal with this. Reform. The Tories have lost my trust after 14 years, especially after the Boriswave (for which Boris should go to jail)
That’s it
Fair enough, I appreciate you engaging at all with my verbiage.
To push you one stage further, though: do you think the problems with immigration are down to immigrants having an inherent tendency to create these problems or from lack of effort to provide adequate assimilation?
People have been fighting over land, resources and money since the dawn of time yet, in the last 25-50 years, western governments have deliberately created the conditions for land, resources and wages to be fought over in their own countries by encouraging never seen before levels of immigration from poor countries, and are now surprised that it has created huge tension.
So the poor are supposed to put up with sharing resources, lower wages, and less job security, while living cheek to jowl with the new competition and not complain else be called racist, while the rich get a massive increase in potential labour, and get richer by watching the warring factions undercut each other for work.
Pretty much 100% agree. But just as you are rightly arguing that isn't poor people's fault, nor is it immigrants' fault.
Well, no, it isn't immigrants 'fault'. I can see why they're here. They're responding rationally to incentives. But it's not good news for the rest of us.
Why not?
Because we're all capable of walking to Maccie D's rather than get an illegal on a bike to fetch it for us..😏
I've never used Just Eat or the like, nonetheless for those who do, I suspect their lives are greatly enhanced.
First? I'm on the other brother at 1000, can we get a groundswell behind him? Lammy out of the running?
Was Lammy ever in the running? Ditto Cooper. Reeves not being in the running is more understandable. Meanwhile all the noise is coming from people whose ego and ambition far outrun their ability.
As a lapsed Conservative, it makes me quite nostalgic for the old days.
i tipped Lammy at 100/1, he's now 59/1.
I think he was one of the if Sir Keir falls under a bus candidates.
One thing in his favour I was told after the bet is that nobody hates him, which isn't true of all the candidates.
invisible donkey
If Sir K literally falls under a bus and is no longer PM as dead then the Palace would expect the Cabinet to send someone straight away to be sworn in as PM.
Under Lab rules iirc this would be the deputy who is Lammy but he would be caretaker.
Edit: whoops - just remembered - he's DPM but someone else is deputy leader. Hmm...
Betfair market rules are next leader elected by Labour party, rules out caretaker. Next PM rules are less clear. I'm on Lammy as next PM.
I’m green on them all, having been laying Farage, Johnson and Lowe for many months. So I just need Labour to sort itself out before the GE, to cash in so I can enjoy some better wine for a month or so.
First? I'm on the other brother at 1000, can we get a groundswell behind him? Lammy out of the running?
Was Lammy ever in the running? Ditto Cooper. Reeves not being in the running is more understandable. Meanwhile all the noise is coming from people whose ego and ambition far outrun their ability.
As a lapsed Conservative, it makes me quite nostalgic for the old days.
i tipped Lammy at 100/1, he's now 59/1.
I think he was one of the if Sir Keir falls under a bus candidates.
One thing in his favour I was told after the bet is that nobody hates him, which isn't true of all the candidates.
invisible donkey
If Sir K literally falls under a bus and is no longer PM as dead then the Palace would expect the Cabinet to send someone straight away to be sworn in as PM.
Under Lab rules iirc this would be the deputy who is Lammy but he would be caretaker.
Edit: whoops - just remembered - he's DPM but someone else is deputy leader. Hmm...
The UK has a Prime Minister. There is no official position of caretaker Prime Minister. He could tell everyone that he's just doing it for a short time, but he would still be Prime Minister.
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
I can’t give you the long eloquent answer your prolix question probably deserves, mainly because I can’t be arsed
But I’ll give you the short brutal answer. Yes, I believe many of our problems (obvs not all) come from immigration legal and illegal. From the surging rape rates to new sectarian politics to the crippling benefits bill to the threat of terror to the pressure on housing and public services, and much much more (too much to go into)
Only one party seems to have the cullions to deal with this. Reform. The Tories have lost my trust after 14 years, especially after the Boriswave (for which Boris should go to jail)
That’s it
Fair enough, I appreciate you engaging at all with my verbiage.
To push you one stage further, though: do you think the problems with immigration are down to immigrants having an inherent tendency to create these problems or from lack of effort to provide adequate assimilation?
People have been fighting over land, resources and money since the dawn of time yet, in the last 25-50 years, western governments have deliberately created the conditions for land, resources and wages to be fought over in their own countries by encouraging never seen before levels of immigration from poor countries, and are now surprised that it has created huge tension.
So the poor are supposed to put up with sharing resources, lower wages, and less job security, while living cheek to jowl with the new competition and not complain else be called racist, while the rich get a massive increase in potential labour, and get richer by watching the warring factions undercut each other for work.
Pretty much 100% agree. But just as you are rightly arguing that isn't poor people's fault, nor is it immigrants' fault.
Well, no, it isn't immigrants 'fault'. I can see why they're here. They're responding rationally to incentives. But it's not good news for the rest of us.
Why not?
Because we're all capable of walking to Maccie D's rather than get an illegal on a bike to fetch it for us..😏
I've never used Just Eat or the like, nonetheless for those who do, I suspect their lives are greatly enhanced.
Deliveroo and such like are so amazingly easy and flexible, if you’re somewhere in London or suchlike. Order up your food online, choose what you want from one restaurant or several, pay with your credit card, and within minutes someone is cycling towards you with your dinner. If you’re with a group some of whom want a curry and others want pizza, your cyclist will pick up pizza en route from the Indian. The app keeps you updated as the guy gets closer, and when he arrives, it’s usually one of Leon’s immigrant friends, who probably lives just along the street from his bedsit, who is almost always friendly and helpful, and you slip him a pound coin or two before going to enjoy your meal.
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
I can’t give you the long eloquent answer your prolix question probably deserves, mainly because I can’t be arsed
But I’ll give you the short brutal answer. Yes, I believe many of our problems (obvs not all) come from immigration legal and illegal. From the surging rape rates to new sectarian politics to the crippling benefits bill to the threat of terror to the pressure on housing and public services, and much much more (too much to go into)
Only one party seems to have the cullions to deal with this. Reform. The Tories have lost my trust after 14 years, especially after the Boriswave (for which Boris should go to jail)
That’s it
Fair enough, I appreciate you engaging at all with my verbiage.
To push you one stage further, though: do you think the problems with immigration are down to immigrants having an inherent tendency to create these problems or from lack of effort to provide adequate assimilation?
People have been fighting over land, resources and money since the dawn of time yet, in the last 25-50 years, western governments have deliberately created the conditions for land, resources and wages to be fought over in their own countries by encouraging never seen before levels of immigration from poor countries, and are now surprised that it has created huge tension.
So the poor are supposed to put up with sharing resources, lower wages, and less job security, while living cheek to jowl with the new competition and not complain else be called racist, while the rich get a massive increase in potential labour, and get richer by watching the warring factions undercut each other for work.
Pretty much 100% agree. But just as you are rightly arguing that isn't poor people's fault, nor is it immigrants' fault.
Well, no, it isn't immigrants 'fault'. I can see why they're here. They're responding rationally to incentives. But it's not good news for the rest of us.
Why not?
Because we're all capable of walking to Maccie D's rather than get an illegal on a bike to fetch it for us..😏
I've never used Just Eat or the like, nonetheless for those who do, I suspect their lives are greatly enhanced.
Deliveroo and such like are so amazingly easy and flexible, if you’re somewhere in London or suchlike. Order up your food online, choose what you want from one restaurant or several, pay with your credit card, and within minutes someone is cycling towards you with your dinner. If you’re with a group some of whom want a curry and others want pizza, your cyclist will pick up pizza en route from the Indian. The app keeps you updated as the guy gets closer, and when he arrives, it’s usually one of Leon’s immigrant friends, who probably lives just along the street from his bedsit, who is almost always friendly and helpful, and you slip him a pound coin or two before going to enjoy your meal.
This sort of incisive commentary is why I come to PB.
My unscientific weekend poll of Labour MPs and government ministers is that Keir Starmer will be replaced as their leader and the country’s prime minister “by the end of the year”.
They also say that an immediate defenestration and snap leadership election should be avoided if possible, for two reasons.
First, the party needs to have a debate about its future direction and what could be a “big story of hope for Britain” they could coalesce around and sell to voters
Second, the leadership change should be orderly, respectful and likely to yield a stable outcome.
This means, they say, that the process needs to be long enough to allow Andy Burnham the opportunity to resign as mayor of Greater Manchester and contest a by-election.
Which is not to say they all want Burnham as Britain’s next prime minister. Some do. Some don’t.
What it means is they fear he and his supporters would never cease to lobby to be Labour leader, and therefore no new leader would be secure, unless Burnham was given the opportunity to win a leadership contest or crash and burn.
“If Andy feels he is blocked again, any new leader will be toast before the next election,” one senior MP said to me.
And to give Burnham the rope he wants, the leadership contest has to be delayed till the autumn, say his friends and foes.
As the only certain thing about Peston is he is ALWAYS WRONG that is really quite useful as to what will happen. If they delay more than a month then the pressure to have a snap general election following the new selction will be unbeatable. I know what the opposition is expecting, or was expecting, next May GE but might well be much sooner now.
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
I can’t give you the long eloquent answer your prolix question probably deserves, mainly because I can’t be arsed
But I’ll give you the short brutal answer. Yes, I believe many of our problems (obvs not all) come from immigration legal and illegal. From the surging rape rates to new sectarian politics to the crippling benefits bill to the threat of terror to the pressure on housing and public services, and much much more (too much to go into)
Only one party seems to have the cullions to deal with this. Reform. The Tories have lost my trust after 14 years, especially after the Boriswave (for which Boris should go to jail)
That’s it
Thanks for the question Maxh.
I think what has been agreed across the board, including by Starmer, is that the 'Boriswave' has seen immigration on a scale where successful integration (let alone assimilation) is simply not possible. That isn't a judgement on people, it's just a fact. Neither our welfare system nor our society can cope with immigration at that speed, in those numbers, from those places. So regrettably, those people must return home.
With regard to the wider point about Reform's attitude to immigration, Reform are civic nationalists. They don't care about colour or religion (prominent figures are Muslim), but loyalty to the State. So religion is something for the private sphere, strict crackdown on Sharia, probably banning the Burqa and Niquab, and end to the 'community policing' approach that has let some communities police themselves, but if you choose to be 'one of us' you are welcome. I cannot disagree with this approach. There simply cannot be any long-term sense in giving bunk space to large numbers of people whose loyalty lies with either a different state, or a concept like a global caliphate. What happens when there's a war (God forbid) and everyone needs to sign up? A nation needs some sort of glue to hold it together.
I also don't take your point that 'Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity = unnalloyed racism'. It is not that we are more worthy of it, but we should certainly expect that our Government prioritises it over the wealth and prosperity of other peoples - that is what any Government must do, and it seems to be a uniquely British approach that the wellbeing of non-British subjects should be prioritised above those of British ones. It breaks the social contract.
This civic nationalism approach is different to Restore, which has very prominent supporters and figures (not their actual policies as yet) who are ethno-nationalists. They believe in a particular sense of belonging here for those with British descent, and that mass migration as a whole needs to be reversed, and the country of The Haywane and Miss Marple 'restored'.
This rhetoric around those "whose loyalty lies with either a different state, or a concept like a global caliphate" is the sort of nonsense we had in this country for centuries around Catholics. The same gumpf was still being said in the US when JFK stood.
Nigel Farage's loyalty lies either to the guy in Thailand who gave him £5 million, or to his idol Donald Trump. He's clearly happy to distort policy to satisfy both of them. Can we chuck Farage out of the country?
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
I can’t give you the long eloquent answer your prolix question probably deserves, mainly because I can’t be arsed
But I’ll give you the short brutal answer. Yes, I believe many of our problems (obvs not all) come from immigration legal and illegal. From the surging rape rates to new sectarian politics to the crippling benefits bill to the threat of terror to the pressure on housing and public services, and much much more (too much to go into)
Only one party seems to have the cullions to deal with this. Reform. The Tories have lost my trust after 14 years, especially after the Boriswave (for which Boris should go to jail)
That’s it
Thanks for the question Maxh.
I think what has been agreed across the board, including by Starmer, is that the 'Boriswave' has seen immigration on a scale where successful integration (let alone assimilation) is simply not possible. That isn't a judgement on people, it's just a fact. Neither our welfare system nor our society can cope with immigration at that speed, in those numbers, from those places. So regrettably, those people must return home.
With regard to the wider point about Reform's attitude to immigration, Reform are civic nationalists. They don't care about colour or religion (prominent figures are Muslim), but loyalty to the State. So religion is something for the private sphere, strict crackdown on Sharia, probably banning the Burqa and Niquab, and end to the 'community policing' approach that has let some communities police themselves, but if you choose to be 'one of us' you are welcome. I cannot disagree with this approach. There simply cannot be any long-term sense in giving bunk space to large numbers of people whose loyalty lies with either a different state, or a concept like a global caliphate. What happens when there's a war (God forbid) and everyone needs to sign up? A nation needs some sort of glue to hold it together.
I also don't take your point that 'Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity = unnalloyed racism'. It is not that we are more worthy of it, but we should certainly expect that our Government prioritises it over the wealth and prosperity of other peoples - that is what any Government must do, and it seems to be a uniquely British approach that the wellbeing of non-British subjects should be prioritised above those of British ones. It breaks the social contract.
This civic nationalism approach is different to Restore, which has very prominent supporters and figures (not their actual policies as yet) who are ethno-nationalists. They believe in a particular sense of belonging here for those with British descent, and that mass migration as a whole needs to be reversed, and the country of The Haywane and Miss Marple 'restored'.
This rhetoric around those "whose loyalty lies with either a different state, or a concept like a global caliphate" is the sort of nonsense we had in this country for centuries around Catholics. The same gumpf was still being said in the US when JFK stood.
Nigel Farage's loyalty lies either to the guy in Thailand who gave him £5 million, or to his idol Donald Trump. He's clearly happy to distort policy to satisfy both of them. Can we chuck Farage out of the country?
If the Thai chap wanted loyalty he should have created a fund to pay out £250k p.a instead of giving a lump sum. Rookie error.
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
I wrote a longer post, and my browser binned it, so here is a TLDR.
In essence, my big problem with immigration is population density. We can't afford to build the necessary infrastructure (effectively a huge 1 off cost to make the UK liveable with it's much enlarge population), and anyway I don't want to concrete over more of what is already one of the more densely populated countries on the planet to we can ram more and more people into it.
Whilst I think all humans are of equal worth, I don't think it's practical to be equally concerned about all of them, everywhere on the globe if you are a national government. National governments should govern for the best interests those within that nation, otherwise they will be taken advantage of by others who are less scruplous.
Thanks @theProle and sorry for slow reply - busy day.
On your first paragraph, I just disagree that it is immigration that has made the UK relatively unliveable compared to a generation ago. I think it is austerity, plus the costs associated with COVID and recent global price spikes.
I think your last paragraph has some force, and could accept there is a sliding scale of concern. It's the extremes of relative prosperity that I think are morally unjustifiable, and probably in the medium term practically unsustainable (i.e. whatever we do I think we will end up with ever-growing migrants whilst we are still so relatively wealthy).
Personally I don't think large scale immigration is the solution either. Instead I think leaning into a global economy that accepts some productive transfers of wealth from richer countries to poorer (such as has happened wrt China) is in all our long term interests as it will reduce the push of large scale migration.
A slightly convoluted but genuine question for the Reform and Reform-lite types on here, given that Reform seems to have well and truly 'arrived' (and putting aside a debate about whether they have peaked):
I can understand support for Reform if you are only looking at part of the picture. Specifically I understand, though I disagree with it, the argument that says our problems stem from immigration and if only we would get a grip on immigration we'd be better off. I can entirely understand why many of the country would only look at part of the picture, and be convinced by the sentence above given that the alternatives offered by Labour and the Tories seem to have achieved nothing. I have a great deal of sympathy for the kinds of places Cookie mentioned in his visit to 'Reformland'.
However, to me this argument relies on a fundamental dehumanising view of immigrants. I don't in any way buy the 'all immigrants are basically 25 year old terrorists in waiting posing as 16 year old kids'. I start from the position that all humans have equal worth, and people do things for good reasons. So in my view, morally, immigrants are to be celebrated for their bravery in often defying horrendous odds to try to escape persecution, poverty etc and to better their lives and that of their families. This, to me, is the other part of the picture that I refer to above.
In my view the counterargument to this can only be an acceptance of failure. The argument would go: we should be strong, wealthy and generous enough to be able to accommodate significant immigration. However, because our political and economic system tends to make the least advantaged members of society deal with the brunt of immigration, and because we aren't willing to invest in the public services required to assimilate immigrants properly, the least worst option is to prevent them arriving. The argument 'they're safe in France' is a variant of this, in my view.
The only alternatives is can see to this is: 1. Unalloyed racism: Brits are more worthy of wealth and prosperity. 2. A (in my view up unjustifiable) commitment to nationalism: just because I was born on this side of the border I should get prosperity and those unfortunate enough to be on the other side shouldn't.
Is all of the above right? Or am I missing something? To be clear, I'm not asking the average voter to engage in this convoluted argument, but I am interested in those on who would seek to intellectually justify a Reform position.
@Leon given you seem to be up and about I'm particularly interested in your take. @Luckyguy1983 yours too. @taz I don't think you're a Reform supporter but I think I'm right that you have some sympathy for the immigration arguments.
I can’t give you the long eloquent answer your prolix question probably deserves, mainly because I can’t be arsed
But I’ll give you the short brutal answer. Yes, I believe many of our problems (obvs not all) come from immigration legal and illegal. From the surging rape rates to new sectarian politics to the crippling benefits bill to the threat of terror to the pressure on housing and public services, and much much more (too much to go into)
Only one party seems to have the cullions to deal with this. Reform. The Tories have lost my trust after 14 years, especially after the Boriswave (for which Boris should go to jail)
That’s it
Thanks for the question Maxh. ... With regard to the wider point about Reform's attitude to immigration, Reform are civic nationalists. They don't care about colour or religion (prominent figures are Muslim), but loyalty to the State. So religion is something for the private sphere, strict crackdown on Sharia, probably banning the Burqa and Niquab, and end to the 'community policing' approach that has let some communities police themselves, but if you choose to be 'one of us' you are welcome. I cannot disagree with this approach. There simply cannot be any long-term sense in giving bunk space to large numbers of people whose loyalty lies with either a different state, or a concept like a global caliphate. What happens when there's a war (God forbid) and everyone needs to sign up? A nation needs some sort of glue to hold it together. ... This civic nationalism approach is different to Restore, which has very prominent supporters and figures (not their actual policies as yet) who are ethno-nationalists. They believe in a particular sense of belonging here for those with British descent, and that mass migration as a whole needs to be reversed, and the country of The Haywane and Miss Marple 'restored'.
I don't see Reform as civic nationalists, with religion privatised.
Their most prominent commentator is Danny Kruger, who is explicit that the public square be defined by religion, which is part of his National Conservative philosophy. As far as I can see he is the lead Reform commentator on this question - although Matt Goodwin has also described Reform as a National Conservative party. I have not heard a view from Farage.
Kruger addressed this in his prominent Commons speech on 25 July 2025:
Throughout the long years from the time of Alfred to the time of Victoria, it was assumed that a nation was a community of common worship and that our community —this country—worshipped the Christian God. Then, in the 20th century, another idea arose: that it was possible for a country to be neutral about God; that the public square was empty of any metaphysics; and that the route to freedom lay through the desert of materialism and individual reason—“no hell below us, above us only sky”. That idea was wrong. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2025-07-17a.520.0&s=speaker:25913+-section:wrans+speaker:25913#g520.2
I find Kruger's version of English history quite romantic, almost like Arthur Mee, and a firmer assertion of the public square as based on religion than we have seen since Queen Victoria. I'd agree with you on Restore UK being a very different kettle of fish.
Comments
Under Lab rules iirc this would be the deputy who is Lammy but he would be caretaker.
Edit: whoops - just remembered - he's DPM but someone else is deputy leader. Hmm...
Sean Duffy: Film road trip for seven months. Work, occasionally. The Transportation Secretary said he did manage to do ‘some work,’ while filming a full Trump-approved reality show with his family titled ‘The Great American Road Trip.’
https://x.com/NYMag/status/2052841803301413043
I'm on Lammy as next PM.
Those who work, those who better themselves, those who prosper, those who are net contributors, are all viewed as the enemy.
1) Is it fair to change the rules on gaining ILR so that people without ILR who might have expected to gain ILR no longer do so?
2) Is it fair to change the rules for ILR to effectively abolish it, so you're either on a temporary visa or gain citizenship?
3) Is it fair to remove citizenship from dual nationals?
All are quite different concepts, and I think you are intentionally conflating 1 and 3 to try and make 1 unacceptable, when I would ague it's very reasonable.
Personally I'd be OK with 1 and 2, and I'd be willing to insist on no dual nationality (so you can't be UK national and somewhere else, you've got to renounce one or we take UK citizenship off you) which I suppose is half way to three.
Immigration is by nature a risky business, one of the risks is that the rules are changed during the process. Would those people who might be effected by this rather we'd done what we should have done in the first place, and not let them in at-all?
The fraudsters who were selling visas for care home workers have moved to a new, rich vein.
Creating non-existent jobs that pay more than the minimum wage visa restrictions. Then sell visas for them.
So the immigrant pays £10k for a job offer that pays £50k. On paper. When they arrive, there’s no job. Or fake paperwork that they are being paid £50k, while working sub minimum wage
Not much enforcement. The penalties are minimal - far less than drugs. And the risks are far lower.
Sell a hundred such visas…
If you fancy it, that's understood
And suppose it makes you fat?
I don't worry over that
A little of what you fancy does you good
And whilst it's not just about money, an awful lot of it is. Partly cash totals, but also, no you can't spend the increase on blooming bobbies on the beat.
People can exist within a world of contradictions. In fact many do.
We do need to be more assertive that you must accept the system of democracy in the UK if resident here, whatever your personal views as to how we should make political decisions, though.
Imagine the fun that a Reform Home Sec. will have with that.
“Citizenship cancelled for all those wearing loud trainers in a built up area.”
My unscientific weekend poll of Labour MPs and government ministers is that Keir Starmer will be replaced as their leader and the country’s prime minister “by the end of the year”.
They also say that an immediate defenestration and snap leadership election should be avoided if possible, for two reasons.
First, the party needs to have a debate about its future direction and what could be a “big story of hope for Britain” they could coalesce around and sell to voters
Second, the leadership change should be orderly, respectful and likely to yield a stable outcome.
This means, they say, that the process needs to be long enough to allow Andy Burnham the opportunity to resign as mayor of Greater Manchester and contest a by-election.
Which is not to say they all want Burnham as Britain’s next prime minister. Some do. Some don’t.
What it means is they fear he and his supporters would never cease to lobby to be Labour leader, and therefore no new leader would be secure, unless Burnham was given the opportunity to win a leadership contest or crash and burn.
“If Andy feels he is blocked again, any new leader will be toast before the next election,” one senior MP said to me.
And to give Burnham the rope he wants, the leadership contest has to be delayed till the autumn, say his friends and foes.
NEW THREAD
Undefined discussion subject.
Operation timed out after 3002 milliseconds with 0 bytes received
Nigel Farage's loyalty lies either to the guy in Thailand who gave him £5 million, or to his idol Donald Trump. He's clearly happy to distort policy to satisfy both of them. Can we chuck Farage out of the country?
On your first paragraph, I just disagree that it is immigration that has made the UK relatively unliveable compared to a generation ago. I think it is austerity, plus the costs associated with COVID and recent global price spikes.
I think your last paragraph has some force, and could accept there is a sliding scale of concern. It's the extremes of relative prosperity that I think are morally unjustifiable, and probably in the medium term practically unsustainable (i.e. whatever we do I think we will end up with ever-growing migrants whilst we are still so relatively wealthy).
Personally I don't think large scale immigration is the solution either. Instead I think leaning into a global economy that accepts some productive transfers of wealth from richer countries to poorer (such as has happened wrt China) is in all our long term interests as it will reduce the push of large scale migration.
I don't see Reform as civic nationalists, with religion privatised.
Their most prominent commentator is Danny Kruger, who is explicit that the public square be defined by religion, which is part of his National Conservative philosophy. As far as I can see he is the lead Reform commentator on this question - although Matt Goodwin has also described Reform as a National Conservative party. I have not heard a view from Farage.
Kruger addressed this in his prominent Commons speech on 25 July 2025:
Throughout the long years from the time of Alfred to the time of Victoria, it was assumed that a nation was a community of common worship and that our community —this country—worshipped the Christian God. Then, in the 20th century, another idea arose: that it was possible for a country to be neutral about God; that the public square was empty of any metaphysics; and that the route to freedom lay through the desert of materialism and individual reason—“no hell below us, above us only sky”. That idea was wrong.
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2025-07-17a.520.0&s=speaker:25913+-section:wrans+speaker:25913#g520.2
I find Kruger's version of English history quite romantic, almost like Arthur Mee, and a firmer assertion of the public square as based on religion than we have seen since Queen Victoria. I'd agree with you on Restore UK being a very different kettle of fish.