Andy Burnham has successfully changed the mood music of our politics to inject a soupçon of confidence and even optimism, but there are various potential stumbling-blocks which could dent if not destroy his and our hopes.
Top of the list in my view is:
North Sea Oil
Rumour has it that he is “minded” to authorise more drilling in the North Sea Oil Field. Anything which provides jobs (and the elusive “growth) is always a temptation for Labour politicians (the clue is in the name) but he should resist it - even the device of attaching new drilling to an existing licence.
If sinking islands in the Pacific and melting ice in the Arctic are too far away to convince us that climate change is real and highly dangerous, surely wildfires in our favourite holiday spots in France and Spain, not to mention on our own doorstep, should be sufficient to convince him not to give way to the profit-greedy lobbying of the oil giants.
Devolution to Mayors.
Enhancing the powers (including tax-raising?) of local government is a Liberal principle greatly to be encouraged, but to concentrate those powers to an individual, powerful and possibly charismatic personality is hugely undemocratic. Powerful personalities with the “guts, grit and determination” to sort things out has been the mantra of authoritarian regimes throughout history.. We need our local leaders to be responsible and answerable to locally elected representatives, responsive to local opinion.
That means local councils and councillors - boring I know, but likely to be more effective.
Trident
Mr Burnham has expressed more enthusiasm for Trident than I think is healthy. It is hugely expensive, detracts from military expenditure which would be more useful (boots on the ground for peace-keeping and rescue purposes after natural disasters.) If we must have a nuclear deterrent than something more modest, jointly with the France (or pooled with the EU) and deliverable without US permission would be preferable.
Migrants in Small Boats
Mr Burnham had a ”photo-opportunity” in Dover over the weekend to highlight this issue, so he has already made this mistake. He wishes to show that he takes this “problem” very very seriously. But it isn’t a problem and it isn’t serious. Irregular migration via small boats is a small fraction of an immigration total that is falling rapidly and would almost disappear if there were legal viable routs for the people who want to come here.
Mr Burnham’s visit merely draws attention to what the Right Wing love to use to divide us. They must be delighted. Sir Keir Starmer's gaffe with “island of strangers" should have alerted Burnham to the futility of a “me too” in this delicate area.
Early prisoner Release.
Clearly Mr Burnham has not read my previous post in which it is suggested that Prime Ministers should not try to appear to have a finger in every pie. Early prisoner release is a “lose- lose” situation, the result of years and years of sending too many people to prison, and well before the misguided fourteen years of austerity (to which Labour’s Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling subscribed) failing to provide the buildings to house them.
The current crisis should have been left to the Home Secretary to sort out as best she could and receive the deserved opprobrium.
We need our local leaders to be responsible and answerable to locally elected representatives, responsive to local opinion.
ReplyDeleteCould you explain why an elected councillor would be ‘responsive to local opinion’ but an elected mayor would not be? Surely both have to pay just as much attention to their electorate in order to get re-elected?
(In fact you could argue that a mayor needs to be more responsive to local opinion as he or she will have a higher profile and therefore voters will actually vote for or against him or her based on his or her record … whereas sensible people who pay no attention to local politics will have no idea who their local councillors are or what they have done, so they will get elected or not based on the popularity of their national party, whereas mayors quite often have personal votes that buck the national trend, whether that’s Mr Burnham in Manchester when the Labour Party was hugely unpopular, or Mr Houchen whose voters stuck with him even as the national Conservative vote collapsed to its lowest level ever.)
Any executive power needs to be subject to scrutiny. The London Mayor is scrutinised by the separately elected London Assembly members, though it is argued that their powers are far to limited. Other directly elected mayors are scrutinises by what I think are called Combined Authorities, consisting of appointees of the various local authorities covered.. Very few people know who they are or what they do. True democracy needs to be open and by discussion.
DeleteAny executive power needs to be subject to scrutiny.
DeleteYes, and are elected mayors not scrutinised by their electorate? In a democracy, isn’t the only scrutiny that ultimately counts the scrutiny of the voters, and don’t elected mayors face that openly and directly?
Yes, but if powerful executives are held to account only once every four or five years, there's plenty of room of poor decisions, cronyism , and even corruption in between. Scrutiny needs to be continuous.
DeleteScrutiny needs to be continuous.
DeleteIs that not what the press is for? Including, these days, citizens publishing on the inter-net? To continuously scrutinise the executive and feed back the truth to the voters so that they can make an informed decision at the next election?
Why is an intermediate level needed, with all the cost and extra bureaucracy that entails?
Because "if powerful executives are held to account only once every four or five years, there's plenty of room of poor decisions, cronyism , and even corruption in between." True a vigilant local press could help to limit this, though it could be in the hands if the executive and these days tends to be very sparse.
Deleteif powerful executives are held to account only once every four or five years, there's plenty of room of poor decisions, cronyism , and even corruption in between
DeleteBut not if the executive in question wants to be reelected. And if they don’t care about being reelected, why would they take more notice of a bunch of councillors than the electorate?
"interesting" that we tend to see democracy as being able to vote for a representative every 4/5 years and nothing more. Personally I don't trust the national media to hold anyone to account properly. They have their own paymasters and agendas
DeleteLook at how Arday was hounded
"interesting" that we tend to see democracy as being able to vote for a representative every 4/5 years and nothing more
DeleteWhat more would you like it to be?
The point of democracy is to give a way to change the government without having to take up arms. You can see the situation when there isn’t such an option in places like Iran, North Korea and China. I would much rather live somewhere where, if I don’t like the government, I can cast a vote every four or five years and have a good chance of turfing them out, than somewhere where the only way to try to change the government is to go out on the streets and probably get shot, or disappeared into an unmarked grave as happened to tens of thousands of Iranians earlier this year.
I happen to think that’s something to be very grateful for and not something to look down my nose at; but do tell what exactly you mean by ‘nothing more’.
Personally I don't trust the national media to hold anyone to account properly. They have their own paymasters and agendas
Most of them do like to uncover wrongdoing and expose it, though, which is what we mainly need from them. Look, indeed, at the courageous uncovering of the scandal at Cambridge University which media outlets and journalists kept pursuing even in the face of legal threats and police harassment. Look, indeed, at the media’s exposing of Mr Farage’s incomplete register of interests entries. These are all good examples of the media doing what we need it to: exposing truths that institutions (like Cambridge University) or people (like Mr Farage) would rather keep hidden.
And as long as the public knows about these things, they can make an informed decision when it comes time to vote.
as a matter of courtesy please show your initials in your reply not "anonymous"
DeleteYou adopt a very basic and simplistic definition of democracy
You offer no place for active engagement or involvement of people in decision making other than putting a X on ballot paper every once in a while.
The media
"Most of them do like to uncover wrongdoing and expose it". Most? Really?
Look at the daily headlines of the tabloids.
Yes, some do investigate "wrongdoing" (although their financial owners may have a different view as to what this means than you or I)
Investigate Farage et al is all very well and good
Cambridge - yes although the victim here was Arday.
You offer no place for active engagement or involvement of people in decision making other than putting a X on ballot paper every once in a while.
DeleteWho has time for ‘ active engagement or involvement of people in decision making’? We all have full-time jobs. The only people with time for ‘ active engagement or involvement of people in decision making’ are students, retirees, layabouts and crazy activist types — and obviously I don’t want any of those groups getting any say over anything!
So indeed, the point of democracy is that I can change the government without having to fight, and better times I can get on with the stuff that is really important in life — which is not politics.
Look at the daily headlines of the tabloids.
DeleteI had a look at today’s.
The Sun, The Express and The Mirror: Queen Camilla’s statement on the King’s cancer
The Metro: updates on the war in Ukraine
The Daily Mail: a fatal accident off the coast
The Daily Star: Jeremy Clarkson using groundwater to irrigate his farm in the drought
The I: A government statement on rough sleeping
None are scoops or exposés, but you can’t expect those every day. None seem particularly objectionable, though.
If we must have a nuclear deterrent than something more modest, jointly with the France (or pooled with the EU) and deliverable without US permission would be preferable.
ReplyDeleteTrident is deliverable without the permission of the USA (though it is not maintainable without American involvement, so while the USA could not stop us launching nuclear missiles tomrrow, they could certainly put us on the road to being unable to launch them in a year or so).
But a deterrent operated jointly with France would not be deliverable without the permission of the French, and wouldn't that be worse? After all, historically, the French have been our enemy far more often than the United States has (indeed, had the French not aided the rebel colonists at Yorktown, the United States would not exist as an independent country today).
my understanding is that Trident is made available to the UK as part of a lease agreement. Presumably Trump could arbitrarily decide to end the lease!
Deletemy understanding is that Trident is made available to the UK as part of a lease agreement. Presumably Trump could arbitrarily decide to end the lease!
DeleteThe missiles are leased, yes. Periodically they are returned to a ‘pool’ in the USA for maintenance and new ones are loaded instead.
So indeed, the USA could stop issuing new missiles and then we would be stuck with then ones we have, which would gradually go unmaintained.
But while we have the missiles they are entirely under control of the Royal Navy, and do not need permission from the United States to launch.
Yes, periodically the missiles are retuned to a pool in the US. And if Trump decides to end the lease arrangement we end up with none
DeleteYes, periodically the missiles are retuned to a pool in the US. And if Trump decides to end the lease arrangement we end up with none
DeleteNo; if Mr Trump ended the agreement we would just stop bringing the missiles back for maintenance. So we would still have the missiles (it’s not like the US Navy is going to physically remove them from our submarines), but they would be unmaintained and gradually degrade.
So it wouldn’t be a sudden thing where we had no missiles. We would still have missiles, just not ones that we could be sure were in good order.
Not ideal, of course, but that’s the situation.
under any lease arrangement ownership remains with the lessor (US) not the lessee (UK)
Deleteunder any lease arrangement ownership remains with the lessor (US) not the lessee (UK)
DeleteYes, but what are they going to do? Board our submarines at sea and remove the missiles? Forcibly occupy Faslane and seize them when they dock? Whoever nominally owns them, for practical purposes can keep them until they degrade into inability.
so we'll be using missiles past their sell by date!
DeleteVery reassuring
so we'll be using missiles past their sell by date!
DeleteNo, we won’t, because the USA won’t cancel the lease.
If they did we would need to develop our own delivery system (not relying on the French!), and we would presumably keep the Tridents to tide us over until it was operational.
"the USA won’t cancel the lease"
DeleteThis is Trump remember!
Totally unpredictable
This is Trump remember!
DeleteTotally unpredictable
Well, not totally . He changes his mind a lot, but he rarely does things totally out of the blue (he takes a lot about tariffs before imposing them; he’d talked about military action against Venezuela and Iran before he actually did it; and so on and so forth).
So while you can’t predict exactly what he might do tomorrow, you can get a sense of the broad parameters within which he will act.
Peter
ReplyDeleteThe issue of further North Sea oil/gas projects facing Burnham is an “interesting” one.
You’re correct that Labour (and most governments) will often take the “easy” way out where UK jobs are concerned even though the impact of climate change is ever-increasing as we’ve seen recently.
However, there is a real dilemma.
First, to put my cards on the table, I’m of the view that it’s already too late for the world to sort out the climate change mess and the major global consequences are largely unavoidable by this time.
Then I have to admit puzzlement over the “net zero by 2050” target that no one seems to question.
Achieving net zero by 2025 (assuming it happens) means we have another 25 years of net+ greenhouse gases – ie on balance we and the rest of the world keep adding to the problem UNTIL we get to net zero in 2050 meaning we have another 25 years of the climate continuing to get worse.
Third, my understanding is that the UK’s contribution to global greenhouse gases is running around 1.5% of the total so our contribution is quite tiny (although I accept there’s a moral case for trying). If we didn't bother would it make any real difference?
Lastly, given that the US, China and India are by far the major contributors to global warming (accounting for about 40% of the total) and that all 3 are far from committed to net zero then we’re facing the equivalent of a zero sum game.
If the UK goes ahead with net zero (at considerable short term cost to consumers and producers) and the other’s don’t then the UK’s competitive position gets eroded with predictable economic consequences
That makes for very difficult decision making for Burnham
As I said, we’re all doomed!
Peter,
ReplyDeleteyou comment about Migrants:
"He wishes to show that he takes this “problem” very very seriously. But it isn’t a problem and it isn’t serious."
I used to teach (amongst other things) about problem-solving and used to say "focus first on defining te problem before trying to find a solution"
The problem Burnham has is that migration and small boats in particular are seen as a "problem" by large chunks of the electorate, fuelled by most of the national media and Farage. That's the problem Burnham somehow how has to sort out
The problem Burnham has is that migration and small boats in particular are seen as a "problem" by large chunks of the electorate
DeleteYou don’t think that the actual problem is that there are lots of people in the country, both legally and illegally, that the British people didn’t ask for, didn’t want, and have, when given the chance, consistently voted against?
You sound like someone saying, ‘the problem is that hosepipe bans are seen as a “problem” by large chunks of the electorate’. No, the problem is that there isn’t enough stored water!
as a matter of courtesy please show your initials in your reply not anonymous"
Delete"You don’t think that the actual problem is that there are lots of people in the country, both legally and illegally, that the British people didn’t ask for, didn’t want, and have, when given the chance, consistently voted against?"
"the British people didn’t ask for" ... but successive British Govts have asked for many of these migrants
"didn’t want" ... the great British public may or may not want such immigration however economic and demographic analysis indicates that Britain does require migrants to sustain its economy, public services, and public finances. UK businesses and political leaders have been aware of this for decades.
"consistently voted against" ... I don't remember a referendum of this
So what's your definition of the problem that needs sorting?
Too many migrants?
The wrong mix of migrants?
Too many coming in the small boats route?
Conflation between economic migrants and refugees/asylum seekers/ boat crossings?
Racist attitudes by UK whites?
Confused public opinion?
Inadequate publicity of the economic need for migrants and the benefits they bring?
Over-hype by the populist media?
Poor political leadership?
As I said, before looking for a solution define the problem you're trying to solve.
Burnham, like all previous PMs before him, hasn't done this
Too many migrants?
DeleteYes.
The wrong mix of migrants?
Yes.
Too many coming in the small boats route?
How they get here is irrelevant; the problem is they’re here.
Conflation between economic migrants and refugees/asylum seekers/ boat crossings?
That’s not a problem.
Racist attitudes by UK whites?
That’s not a big problem; studies consistently show Britain is the least racist country in Europe.
Confused public opinion?
No, public opinion is clear.
Inadequate publicity of the economic need for migrants and the benefits they bring?
The problem is inadequate separation between the migrants who bring benefits (that we want) and the ones who don’t (who we need to get rid of).
Over-hype by the populist media?
The media merely reacts to its readership.
Poor political leadership?
No, not poor leadership, just general political incompetence in delivering what the British people actually want.
(It doesn’t help, of course, when instead of trying to deliver what the people want, politicians decide their job is to try to persuade the people to want something other than what they do want.)
"the British people didn’t ask for" ... but successive British Govts have asked for many of these migrants
DeleteYes, acting against the will of the people — and it’s a big reason why, for example, the electorate turned so savagely against the Conservatives in 2024. The Conservatives had been elected in 2019 on a pledge to control immigration and had instead invited in many migrants.
"didn’t want" ... the great British public may or may not want such immigration however economic and demographic analysis indicates that Britain does require migrants to sustain its economy, public services, and public finances. UK businesses and political leaders have been aware of this for decades.
There are other ways to sustain such things; none of them have been tried.
"consistently voted against" ... I don't remember a referendum of this
The electorate voted for the most anti-immigration party in 2010, 2015, 2017 and 2019. The referendum in 2016 is complicated because there were some who vote Leave who wanted to replace migration from the EU with migration from other parts of the world, so it wasn’t a straight anti-immigration vote, but it certainly wasn’t an endorsement of mass immigration.
So still no courtesy? “Anonymous”
DeleteAs usual you miss the point. Defining different problems leads you to different solutions.
Conflating problems leads you to ineffective solutions.
Like so many you make no effort to define the specific problem so you can't provide a sensible solution
"The Conservatives had been elected in 2019 on a pledge to control immigration and had instead invited in many migrants."
DeleteBoris Johnson's Guarantee
We will get Brexit done in January and unleash the potential of our whole country.
I guarantee:
Extra funding for the NHS, with 50,000 more nurses and 50 million more GP surgery appointments a year.
20,000 more police and tougher sentencing for criminals.
An Australian-style points-based system to control immigration.
Millions more invested every week in science, schools, apprenticeships and infrastructure while controlling debt.
Reaching Net Zero by 2050 with investment in clean energy solutions and green infrastructure to reduce carbon emissions and pollution.
We will not raise the rate of income tax, VAT or National Insurance.
That's what people voted for and look what they got!
"There are other ways to sustain such things; none of them have been tried."
Oh really? And what are they?
And if they've not been tried we don't know they'll work do we?
"The electorate voted for the most anti-immigration party in 2010, 2015, 2017 and 2019"
You mean the Tories? Well, that worked out well didn't it?
Like so many you make no effort to define the specific problem
DeleteWhat do you mean? I have defined the specific problem. The specific problem is that there are too many immigrants of the wrong kind (specifically, the kind who are either economically unproductive or who do not culturally assimilate).
That’s the specific problem. The solution is how to get rid of them.
That's what people voted for and look what they got!
DeleteIndeed. They voted for the party which promised to control immigration. Immigration was not controlled.
Oh really? And what are they?
Increasing productivity would be one.
And if they've not been tried we don't know they'll work do we?
Well, we know what we have been trying definitely doesn’t work, don’t we?
You mean the Tories? Well, that worked out well didn't it?
Right. That’s what I keep saying. The problem is that the British people have voted again and again for lower immigration, and again and again immigration has not got lowered.
That is the problem. The problem is not that the British people don’t want migrants. It is perfectly reasonable to not want migrants. The problem is that the migrants have kept coming!
Still no manners Anonymous
DeleteThe 2019 election was under the banner Lets get Brexit done. It wasn't about immigration per se
Increasing productivity?
Good luck in a service economy. So how would you do that precisely?
The problem is that the British people have voted again and again for lower immigration
No they haven't. People vote for a particular party for multiple reasons not just one
And a reminder that "the British people" are all descended from immigrants!
The 2019 election was under the banner Lets get Brexit done. It wasn't about immigration per se
DeleteNo, it wasn’t, but as you point out the ‘pledge’ included ‘ An Australian-style points-based system to control immigration.’
In contrast the Labour manifesto in 2019 pledged to end the ‘hostile environment’ and establish a ‘humane immigration system’, which everybody knows is code for ‘let more immigrants in’.
And the people voted for the party which promised to control immigration.
And then when that party failed to control immigration, the people voted them out.
Increasing productivity?
Good luck in a service economy. So how would you do that precisely?
Are you saying you think it’s impossible to increase productivity in Britain?
And a reminder that "the British people" are all descended from immigrants!
There’s a big difference been being descended from immigrants who came here in, say, the eighth century, and being descended from immigrants who came here twenty years ago.
Gentlemen, (or Lady and Gentleman), I have been away on holiday (hiking around Haworth) for the past week, and had been unaware of this latest and prolonged and varied discussion. (I don't have a laptop and use my mobile phone only for essential telephoning and (sadly fruitless) Duolingo exercises. I have only a brief interval before I go on holiday again(one or the perks of retirement and a comfortable pension) but will try to respond to some of the questions raised with me before the end of the weekend.
DeleteNot sure where you were in 2019 but
Deletehere's the headline from the 2019 Tory Manifesto
"Our Plan | Conservative Manifesto 2019
Boris Johnson's Guarantee
We will get Brexit done in January"
https://cchq2019.webflow.io/our-plan
Productivity
DeleteAre you saying you think it’s impossible to increase productivity in Britain?
I'm not saying it - but lots of others are
Productivity growth - that is an increase in output per hour worked - in the UK has been virtually non-existent since the financial crisis of 2008. The productivity growth rate lags significantly behind countries like Germany and France, and even further behind the US.
There's not been a clear strategy to tackle this for the last two decades at least
And your solution is .... what exactly?
https://cchq2019.webflow.io/our-plan
DeleteYep, and point three on that page: ‘An Australian-style points-based system to control immigration.’
Meanwhile Labour were promising a more ‘humane’ (ie, more permissive) immigration system.
People don’t vote on just one thing — they take everything into account. And, taking everything into account, the British people voted overwhelmingly for the party promising less immigration.
Instead of which they got more immigration.
That is the fundamental problem that needs to be solved. Too much immigration — so we need to get rid of a lot of immigrants.
The productivity growth rate lags significantly behind countries like Germany and France, and even further behind the US. […] And your solution is .... what exactly?
DeleteIsn’t it obvious? Work out whatever it is that the USA is doing, and do that.
"Isn’t it obvious? Work out whatever it is that the USA is doing, and do that."
DeleteOh dear, that the best you can do? How naive
"There’s a big difference been being descended from immigrants who came here in, say, the eighth century, and being descended from immigrants who came here twenty years ago."
DeleteReally?
so how long does an immigrant need to be here until they're no longer an immigrant?
Oh dear, that the best you can do? How naive
DeleteWell, I could give a list of obvious problems that were should try solving before using immigration:
* wage compression
* excessive taxes on employment
* employment regulations discouraging hiring
* planning regulations making it hard to expand successful businesses
* stock exchange regulations encouraging companies to list in New York instead of London
… and more. We could try getting rid of all those, and only then if that still doesn’t work we could look at immigration.
Really?
DeleteYes. To most people that is obvious.
so how long does an immigrant need to be here until they're no longer an immigrant?
Somewhere between fifty and five hundred years.
(Obviously some families assimilate faster than others; there’s no single answer, it depends how quickly they adopt our customs and leave their origins behind)
Deletewell, we're talking about the UKs low productivity and your solution is
Delete"Well, I could give a list of obvious problems that were should try solving before using immigration:
* wage compression
* excessive taxes on employment
* employment regulations discouraging hiring
* planning regulations making it hard to expand successful businesses
* stock exchange regulations encouraging companies to list in New York instead of London"
so how will any of that boost worker productivity?
"Somewhere between fifty and five hundred years."
DeleteWell I'm just about OK then
(Obviously some families assimilate faster than others; there’s no single answer, it depends how quickly they adopt our customs and leave their origins behind)
"It depends" - a great basis for an immigration policy!
so how will any of that boost worker productivity?
DeleteThose are all factors which degrade productivity, so we should try removing them and quite possibly productivity will go up because it’s no longer being held back.
Like if you are unfit, you first should stop smoking.
"It depends" - a great basis for an immigration policy!
DeleteSorry, you asked about how long until people became British. That’s a totally different question to immigration policy. Immigration policy is about who you let into the country. Many immigrants never become British; they come here and work for a while and then go home.
(And we need, as part of immigration policy, to make it stricter that certain classes of immigrant are not eligible for indefinite or permanent residency, nor to extend or try to change their visa into one which does allow indefinite residency, but that they must go home at the end of their allotted time here, and enforcing that by heavily punishing overstayers).
Delete"Like so many you make no effort to define the specific problem
DeleteWhat do you mean? I have defined the specific problem. The specific problem is that there are too many immigrants of the wrong kind (specifically, the kind who are either economically unproductive or who do not culturally assimilate)."
That's a F then for 'Fraid not
As usual you conflate details - and it's the details that lead to sensible solutions rather than a blunderbuss approach beloved by politicians and the tabloids
"Too many immigrants of the wrong kind"
so who specifically do you mean (define the problem)
- those here to study (counted as migrants) who bankroll many universities
- those with a work visa (which means they have a job waiting and where most will contribute more to the public purse than they take out)
- refugees/asylum seekers
- white migrants or those of colour?
Unless you're specific you can't begin suggest workable solutions
so who specifically do you mean (define the problem)
Delete* dependants of those on work visas who are not themselves contributors
* those on work visas who, over the length of their stay (including any costs they incur in old age in they are allowed to stay) will cost more than they contribute
* any migrants who are not working for any reason
* refugees /asylum seekers
There. Is that not specific enough?
Migrants we want:
* Migrants on work visas who, over the length of their entire stay, including time after they retire in they are still here, make a net positive contribution
* Migrants on student visas provided they cover their own costs, leave when their visas are up, and are prohibited from claiming asylum/refugee status as the end of their visa nears
* That’s all.
Oh, and obviously any migrant who commits any crime, or who is on a terrorist watchlist, should be deported, regardless of any other circumstances.
DeleteAnd equally obviously ‘entering the country illegally’ counts as a crime for this purpose.
Delete"so how will any of that boost worker productivity?
DeleteThose are all factors which degrade productivity, so we should try removing them and quite possibly productivity will go up because it’s no longer being held back."
You clearly don't understand the UK's "productivity puzzle" if you think any of the things you mentioned will help
For info, productivity is defined as the ratio of outputs to inputs. So if you serve fries at McDonalds your productivity is measured in terms of how many standard servings you do on your shift.
The question then for McDonalds is how do they get you to increase the numbers of standard servings.
Technology can help; so can training but there comes a point where all that's been done so how do they then get more output from you?
That's the puzzle and there's been a lot of head scratching over it
Simply importing ideas from elsewhere generally doesn't work.
BTW research suggest that economies that actively encourage work migration tend to have better productivity - migrants are often better educated/qualified, bring investment with them and innovation and are better motivated to work harder.
Maybe that's why UK productivity is so poor - we're so anti-immigration!
For info, productivity is defined as the ratio of outputs to inputs.
DeleteI know that. Which is why all the things I mentioned suppress productivity:
Wage compression discourages people from working harder, which would increase their productivity
Taxes on employment and regulations discouraging hiring and expansion all prevent productive firms expanding, which means more people out of work or in low-value occupations, lowering productivity
Stock Exchange regulations encouraging productive firms to list in New York means that the productivity of those firms gets credited to the USA, not us.
So, remove those productivity-suppressing factors and there’s a good chance we see at least some productivity increases.
If the USA can do it, why can’t we?
research into the reasons for the UKs poor productivity is extensive
DeleteKey factors include (none of the things you mentioned BTW)
- low levels of investment and re-investment particularly in new technology
- low skill levels and inadequate investment in training and retraining (both management and worker)
- regional inequalities
- the fact we're now largely a labour-intensive service economy with the loss of high-output industry over the decades
- inadequate infrastructure -transport, communications etc.
Effective solutions are harder to come by although Burnham's attempts in regard to teh No. 10 of the North may help
Thanks for raisin the question Mik . My views on migration are set out fully in five posts last year, starting with this one:
Deletehttps://keynesianliberal.blogspot.com/2025/05/welcome-immigrants-thanks-for-coming.html.
Briefly I think they greatly enhance our culture and quality of life, within thirty years, maybe sooner, instead of trying to turn them away we shall be begging them to come, and in any case we have no more chance of abolishing the pull and push factors which cause migration than Canute had of stopping the tide.
The problem, which you rightly ask to be defined, is that there will always be a section of the "native" society who are dissatisfied with their lives and look for some ""other" to blame. The "other" might be God, or "the Gods" but immigrants are easy to identify becasue they look, sound or behave differently. Over the years the scapegoat has been Jews, Roman Catholics, the Irish, Germans, Italians, the Windrush Generation, Poles, and Asians. You may be able to think of more, not least if you go back earlier - Picts, Jutes, Normans?
The problem to my mind is that some ambitious fringe politicians adopt the opprobrium heaped on the scapegoat and distort it. Irresponsible newspapers more interested in their sales and profits profits than the truth, amplify it and timid mainstream leaders, instead of speaking out loudly on the realities of the situation try to appease the disrupters by weasel words such as ""legitimate concerns."
The solution is a fairer and more varied press and media, better education (Finland?) and braver and more responsible mainstream politicians.
The problem, which you rightly ask to be defined, is that there will always be a section of the "native" society who are dissatisfied with their lives and look for some ""other" to blame.
DeleteDo you honestly think that is the only possible reason to object to immigration?
Here’s another possible reason. Imagine someone who is not dissatisfied with their life but exactly the opposite: they like their life, and their neighbourhood, exactly the way it is.
Now, introducing lots of immigrants into an area quickly inevitably changes the character of the area. You may think that change is good – presumably that’s what you mean by ‘ they greatly enhance our culture’ — but you can’t reasonably deny that the area will change.
Well, isn’t it reasonable for the person who is happy with the neighbourhood the way it is — who prefers the culture un-enhanced — to object to the immigration?
Do you think it’s impossible for a person like this to exist?
low levels of investment and re-investment particularly in new technology
DeleteIndeed this doesn’t help, but immigration actually makes this worse by depressing wages, so making investment in new technology less attractive than just hiring some cheap immigrant labour.
low skill levels and inadequate investment in training and retraining (both management and worker)
Wage compression causes this by making it less worthwhile learning new skills because the rewards aren’t good enough to compensate for the effort.
regional inequalities
Regional inequalities don’t cause productivity gaps, that’s the wrong way around. It’s actually some areas being less productive than others that causes the inequalities.
the fact we're now largely a labour-intensive service economy with the loss of high-output industry over the decades
Not really relevant — productivity applies just as much to service jobs, like computer programming, as to more traditional manufacturing.
inadequate infrastructure -transport, communications etc.
That’s the one thing you’ve got right, and yes, we should improve communications infrastructure, reduce energy costs, etc, instead of importing immigrants.
Peter, further to your post on migration etcc
Delete"Thanks for raisin the question Mik . My views on migration are set out fully in five posts last year, starting with this one:
Briefly I think they greatly enhance our culture and quality of life"
Peter, I agree entirely - as I would being the son of an immigrant who learned to play cricket, darts and dominoes! The UK would be far worse off without their contribution.
That's not to say there aren't problems and challenges but I regard these as mostly of our own making. Anti-foreigner sentiment is fuelled by populist politicians and the media; successive govts have failed to promote the reality of immigration and the benefits it brings (Brexit springs to mind here in the same way); successive govts have failed to invest in the infrastructure (housing, schools etc that are impacted)
I'll be very saddened if we revert to being an isolationist nation of white shopkeepers
I'll be very saddened if we revert to being an isolationist nation of white shopkeepers
DeleteBritain has never been isolationist. When we were a nation of white shopkeepers we ruled the world, and you don’t get much less isolationist than that. I’m rather proud of what we did as a nation of white shopkeepers.
Think things through before posting.
ReplyDeleteI would have thought that we'd actually want to retain those who've studied here and qualified
BTW anyone on a study visa HAS to cover all their costs AND they're charged very high study fees by UK universities
It's impossible to know in ADVANCE whether an individual migrant who works will make a positive financial contribution or not. It's only at the end that you'd know this by which time it's too late
Migrants in jobs below degree level are not permitted to bring in dependents
Refugees.
The UK is legally obliged to accept refugees under international law (which the UK helped set up). It also is legally obliged to process asylum applications for those physically in the UK who claim asylum
I would have thought that we'd actually want to retain those who've studied here and qualified
DeleteThey can re-apply and if the evidence shows they are likely to be net contributors then yes, we do want them.
BTW anyone on a study visa HAS to cover all their costs AND they're charged very high study fees by UK universities
Indeed, but there has been a rash of people on student visas, when the end of the visa approaches, claiming asylum. We need to stop that.
It's impossible to know in ADVANCE whether an individual migrant who works will make a positive financial contribution or not.
In individual cases, yes, so we need to use statistics: work out which visa types, which countries of origin, etc, are net drains on average and then stop using those visas or letting in people from those countries, etc.
Migrants in jobs below degree level are not permitted to bring in dependents
That’s simply not true. Migrants on health and social care visas have brought in tens (maybe hundreds?) of thousands of dependants.
.
The UK is legally obliged to accept refugees under international law (which the UK helped set up). It also is legally obliged to process asylum applications for those physically in the UK who claim asylum
We will be withdrawing from those treaties after the next general election, so that’s not an issue.
"Migrants in jobs below degree level are not permitted to bring in dependents
DeleteThat’s simply not true. Migrants on health and social care visas have brought in tens (maybe hundreds?) of thousands of dependants."
Check the legislation
"there has been a rash of people on student visas, when the end of the visa approaches, claiming asylum."
Less than 15000 a year with a high failure rate
And we've already had their money
Check the legislation
DeleteYou check: https://www.gov.uk/health-care-worker-visa/your-partner-and-children
No requirement for a degree.
Less than 15000 a year with a high failure rate
Fifteen thousand ? There should be none .
And we've already had their money
The money paid for their education, which they have had; now they need to leave.
"The Home Office barred care workers from bringing family members in March 2024 and later extended the ban to all migrant workers unless they had a job at degree level or above."
DeleteDaily Express July 2026
The Home Office barred care workers from bringing family members in March 2024 and later extended the ban to all migrant workers unless they had a job at degree level or above
DeleteSo part of what I am saying they should do is such a good idea that they already did it?
Great. Now they just need to go farther and do the rest of it.
You really need to keep up to date
DeleteBTW, Farage & co are in denial about the fact that the UK NEEDS migrants to help it cope with the current and future demographics, the financial consequences of that and the economic impact on GDP if we DON'T attract enough migrants
Various estimates exist as to the numbers required but there's a general consensus that at least 250,000 NET migrants are needed each year for the next couple of decades at least
And we're only talking economic migrants here
"Less than 15000 a year with a high failure rate
DeleteFifteen thousand ? There should be none "
again you really need to keep up to date
This is less than 2% of overseas students and virtually none of those applying get approved
try looking up the Pareto principle to help you focus on where the problem is (I keep reminding you to first define the problem but you won't listen)
the UK NEEDS migrants to help it cope with the current and future demographics
DeleteIn fact importing immigrants, if they stay and get old, makes the future demographic challenges worse
Which is why, as I wrote above, we need to make sure immigrants’ stay here is time-limited, so that they can come and work here and then go home and be a burden on someone else when they get old, instead of adding to the burden of our aging native population an extra burden of aging immigrants.
This is less than 2% of overseas students
It doesn’t matter what proportion of overseas student it is, it’s in absolute terms too many. It should be zero, not fifteen thousand.
and virtually none of those applying get approved
Doesn’t matter — asylum applicants whose claims are not approved never get deported, so they stay here anyway whether their claims are approved or not.
Mik W: re your comment on Oil Reserves, Climate Change and Net Zero:
DeleteYou may very well be right that it is already too late to stop the damage. However I think the majority view among the relevant scientists is that we can preserve a habitable planet provided we act urgently. True, the majority view can be wrong, but I think we owe it to future generations to take the optimistic view that there is still hope, provided we act urgently.
As you say , Net Zero by 2050 (and receding) is hardly urgent but, if, as R A Butler defined, “politics is the art of the possible” maybe that’s the best we can get. Perhaps this year’s wild fires along with the even hotter summer predicted for next, will put the pressure on for stronger action now rather than later.
You also rightly point out that the UK’s contribution to the dangerous emissions is “only 1.5%”. However, as the writer Sydney Smith (18th Century parson in Yorkshire?) pointed out: “The worst mistake is to do nothing because you can only do little.” Although the UK no longer has the political clout that some super-patriots embarrassingly claim, we still have significant international influence, so there is a good case for leading by example.
Consequently I shall be extremely disappointed if Andy Burnham blows his reputation for being on the side of the angels by caving in the fossil fuel lobby and authorising further exploitation of the North Sea Oil Field.
NB. I have responded (21st August) above to your comment on the nature of the “immigration problem” but it has been published rather out of sequence.
However I think the majority view among the relevant scientists is that we can preserve a habitable planet provided we act urgently.
DeleteNo serious scientist thinks there is any chance of the planet becoming ‘uninhabitable’ in the near future.
Some areas that are currently inhabitable may become uninhabitable, but equally if that happens then some areas that are currently uninhabitable will become habitable.
And of course humans are very good at finding ways to adapt the environment to live in places that could be considered ‘uninhabitable’ within such adaptations, whether that’s Arizona or Alaska.
That will be an intermediate stage and promote a lot of migration. It's actually happening now.
DeleteThe point is that the planet will remain habitable whatever we do.
DeleteWe may be able to influence, to a degree, how comfortable the planet is to inhabit in the future.
But there is absolutely no danger of it becoming uninhabitable whatever action we take or don’t take.
"Doesn’t matter — asylum applicants whose claims are not approved never get deported, so they stay here anyway whether their claims are approved or not."
DeleteAgain, you really need to keep up to date
Over the last 2 years around 60000 have been deported
"The UK NEEDS migrants to help it cope with the current and future demographics
DeleteIn fact importing immigrants, if they stay and get old, makes the future demographic challenges worse"
Again, you need to do the research
First, the evidence is that most migrants produce a financial surplus for the UK over their lifetime (unlike the average Brit) - a combination of high skills (hence salary), fee income to the Govt for their visas and the fact that the UK hasn't had to pay for their education nor training
Second, a reduction in migrant workers over the next few years has a negative impact on GDP of around -1.5%. Doesn't sound much that that equates to around £30 billion a year. Lost money for the UK economy
Third, over the same period migrant workers would mean a reduction in government borrowing by around £15 billion - extra tax income without any real increase in govt spending
In other words migrant workers make economic sense for the UK
A shame our political leaders and tabloid press don't send that message to the great British public
Over the last 2 years around 60000 have been deported
DeleteNow you are simply lying.
‘ In 2025, around 11,600 people who had previously claimed asylum were recorded leaving the UK, the highest number since comparable records began in 2010. These figures include refused asylum seekers who had exhausted all avenues of appeal, those granted protection but removed for other reasons such as criminal behaviour, and people who left voluntarily before receiving a decision.’
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/returns-of-unauthorised-migrants-from-the-uk/
Where did you get your 60,000 figure from? It is not correct.
"Where did you get your 60,000 figure from? It is not correct."
Delete"The UK has deported nearly 60,000 people since the Labour Party came to power"
https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/69795/the-uk-has-deported-nearly-60000-people-since-the-labour-party-came-to-power
"Home Office says nearly 60,000 people deported from UK"
Guardian Feb 2026
https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/69795/the-uk-has-deported-nearly-60000-people-since-the-labour-party-came-to-power
DeleteSorry, missed this yesterday.
That 60,000 figure is the total number deported. But that is not what you claimed. I wrote:
‘ asylum applicants whose claims are not approved never get deported’
And you responded with the 60,000 claim, ie, implying that 60,000 asylum applicants whose claims were not approved had been deported. But that is not the case, as that 60,000 number includes not just asylum applicants whose claims were not approved, but all others deported for any reason whatsoever as well.
Indeed 60,000 is a ridiculously low figure for total deportations.
First, the evidence is that most migrants produce a financial surplus for the UK over their lifetime
ReplyDeleteThen link to the evidence. If you don’t, then this can be counted as much a lie as the ‘60,000 deportations’ claim.
Note: even if the average migrant’s contribution is positive, or the overall contribution of migrants is positive, that doesn’t mean that most migrants produce a surplus: it could be that the vast majority are a net cost to Britain, but that a few very wealthy or successful immigrants balance it out (in which case we should deport the poor ones who are a net drain and only let in those rich and successful ones). You have claimed that ‘most migrants’ produce a surplus, so you must be able to link to the evidence for that. ,
a reduction in migrant workers over the next few years has a negative impact on GDP of around -1.5%.
Quite possibly. But that short-term hit could well be worth it in the long term, and it is the long term which matters, both financially and culturally.
over the same period migrant workers would mean a reduction in government borrowing by around £15 billion - extra tax income without any real increase in govt spending
We need to deal with borrowing by reducing government spending.
"First, the evidence is that most migrants produce a financial surplus for the UK over their lifetime
DeleteThen link to the evidence. If you don’t, then this can be counted as much a lie as the ‘60,000 deportations’ claim."
I'm not your research assistant - look it up yourself from your own reference
Note: even if the average migrant’s contribution is positive, or the overall contribution of migrants is positive, that doesn’t mean that most migrants produce a surplus: it could be that the vast majority are a net cost to Britain, but that a few very wealthy or successful immigrants balance it out (in which case we should deport the poor ones who are a net drain and only let in those rich and successful ones). You have claimed that ‘most migrants’ produce a surplus, so you must be able to link to the evidence for that.
As I said - look it up
a reduction in migrant workers over the next few years has a negative impact on GDP of around -1.5%.
Quite possibly. But that short-term hit could well be worth it in the long term, and it is the long
term which matters, both financially and culturally.
As usual you show you don't understand basic economics.
This isn't a short term hit - it's permanent
over the same period migrant workers would mean a reduction in government borrowing by around £15 billion - extra tax income without any real increase in govt spending
We need to deal with borrowing by reducing government spending.
Nothing to do with migration - again your showing your lack of understanding
Peter - Climate change
DeleteI take your points. I accept there's a moral and leadership case for the UK top be seen as taking whatever actions it can over this.
There's also the argument that the UK's historic contribution to greenhouse gases is larger than many given the Industrial Revolution - and its consequent use of fossil fuels - started here first
"The point is that the planet will remain habitable whatever we do."
DeleteOf course it will ... but for who and in what form?
Literally millions of people will be directly affected as temperatures rise, areas become uninhabitable and uneconomic to farm productively, coastal areas and major cities will have to relocate as water levels rise .... and millions more will be indirectly affected
I'm not your research assistant - look it up yourself from your own reference
DeleteSo you have no evidence. As you have no evidence your claim is dismissed.
As I said - look it up
As I said -- you have no evidence. So your claim is dismissed.
As usual you show you don't understand basic economics.
This isn't a short term hit - it's permanent
There's no such thing as a 'permanent hit' to GDP. If we do something that causes GDP to to fall by 1.5%, and then GDP gros by 5%, the hit wasn't permanent -- we are back to where we were and more so.
Nothing to do with migration
Exactly -- that our public spending is too high has nothing to do with migration. I was pointing that out because you brought it up.
There's also the argument that the UK's historic contribution to greenhouse gases is larger than many given the Industrial Revolution - and its consequent use of fossil fuels - started here first
I certainly do not accept the argument that my living standards should lower because Britain was successful in the past, and I doubt you'd get many to accept that.
Of course it will ... but for who and in what form?
For humans, and in a form close to what it is now, but just with habitable bands shifted a little (for instance, if average temperature rises, then some areas may become to hot for settlement but other areas which are currently too cold for settlement will become habitable) -- this is obvious if you think about it.
"As I said - look it up
DeleteAs I said -- you have no evidence. So your claim is dismissed."
Oh dear - he's thrown his toys out of the pram in a tantrum
You appear incapable of actually reading from your own quoted source on this
Leave the discussion to the grown ups
"There's no such thing as a 'permanent hit' to GDP. If we do something that causes GDP to to fall by 1.5%, and then GDP gros by 5%, the hit wasn't permanent -- we are back to where we were and more so."
DeleteIf we do something !!!!
And what exactly do you propose we do to compensate for a £30 billion hit on the economy from lower economic migration?
BTW - the Uk hasn't hit a 5% annual growth in GDP for decades - do your research first
DeleteOh dear - he's thrown his toys out of the pram in a tantrum
DeleteNot at all. Provide evidence and I will engage.
And what exactly do you propose we do to compensate for a £30 billion hit on the economy from lower economic migration?
Cut taxes to boost growth.
Provide evidence and I will engage.
DeleteMy apologies; you did provide evidence yesterday, and I missed it. I have explained above why your figure is wrong (briefly, because it is the total figure, not the figure for rejected asylum applicants specifically).
"Cut taxes to boost growth"
DeleteA wonderfully naive view
Unfortunately as in most of economics it's not that simple
First of all, .such cuts have to be funded by major reductions in govt spending so as not to spook the money markets (as Truss found out)
Second, economic analysis suggests that while tax cuts can increase the size of the economy (a one-off level effect), they rarely sustain a higher rate of growth over the long term without accompanying improvements in productivity.
The Oxford University Centre for Business Taxation states that such cuts provides a useful short-term stimulus but is "very unlikely to affect the long-term growth rate," which relies on continual productivity increases.
We're back to the productivity puzzle again!
(BTW, research suggests that skilled economic migrants tend to be more productive than native Brits - but then you're not in favour are you?)
such cuts have to be funded by major reductions in govt spending
DeleteExcellent, we could do with major reductions in government spending — the benefits Bill could easily be halved, for example.
they rarely sustain a higher rate of growth over the long term without accompanying improvements in productivity.
Indeed, but it would be a good start. We can then do other things to try to create the conditions for increasing productivity, such as ending wage compression.
research suggests that skilled economic migrants tend to be more productive than native Brits - but then you're not in favour are you?
I’m very much in favour of skilled economic migrants from compatible cultures. I want lots of those, and no unskilled migrants or dependent migrants, and no migrants who won’t assimilate into the dominant culture.
For instance, we don’t need to import low-skilled migrants to work in career homes or the NHS. We need to withdraw benefits from native Brits with conditions like anxiety in order to force them to work in care homes or the NHS or else they starve.
DeleteThat will improve productivity because lots of people currently economically inactive, and therefore not contributing to productivity, will suddenly become productive, at same time as reducing spending to free up money for growth-boosting tax cuts.
Thus killing at least three, possibly four birds with one stone.
totally naive.
DeleteWhy do you think this hasn't been done already!
"the benefits Bill could easily be halved, for example."
Oh really? So which benefits exactly? And how much would each cut save exactly?
"ending wage compression"
As I've already said this isn't a major factor affecting UK productivity and has to be dealt with at the micro not macro level
"no migrants who won’t assimilate into the dominant culture."
DeleteAnd how exactly would you assess this - even if you're able to articulate what is meant by the dominant culture? Racist? being CofE? White? Anti-foreigners? eating fish & chips? Singing the national anthem?
Why do you think this hasn't been done already!
DeleteBecause some politicians genuinely think that it’s good to have massive state-controlled wealth redistribution, while others are scared that the reaction of voters who lose their benefits will lose them their seats.
So which benefits exactly? And how much would each cut save exactly?
Pensions, Universal credit and disability benefit are the biggest expenditures, so I’d start there. First means-test pensions, so you can stop paying pensioners who don’t need the money while still supporting those who do. Tighten up the eligibility criteria for disability benefits.
Fundamentally the problem is that the benefits budget works backwards. Every other department is given a budget and has to decide how to spend it. Benefits the eligibility and awards are worked out first, and then the money has to be found somehow (ie by borrowing).
I would reverse that: each year in the budget the government should set out how much is available for benefits and then the benefits apparatus should decide how to divvy that up between welfare recipients.
isn't a major factor affecting UK productivity and has to be dealt with at the micro not macro level
It’s definitely a factor and there are macro features affecting it, such as a minimum wage which is far too high in relationship to the median wage, which could be dealt with centrally.
And how exactly would you assess this - even if you're able to articulate what is meant by the dominant culture?
DeleteI think we have enough experience now to look around and see immigrants from which countries assimilate and which ones form insular sub-communities, so we can just discriminate in the first instance on those countries.
For example, migrants from India tend to assimilate well, so we want more of them (high-skilled ones obviously) and fewer from, say, Bangladesh.
DeleteSimilarly more migrants from the Christian parts of Nigeria.
Delete"First means-test pensions, so you can stop paying pensioners who don’t need the money while still supporting those who do."
DeleteUnfortunately, for my generation at least there's been an implied social contract with Govt on pensions
Keep paying your NI contributions (which are compulsory) and you'll get a basic state pension when you retire
Break the contract and we then have a morally bankrupt govt that's reneged
And means testing would raise some interesting points
According to the Retirement Living Standards set by the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association (PLSA) and Loughborough University, the annual income required for a pensioner at what is defined as the minimum standard is £13,900 for a single person
New state pension provides a maximum of £12500.- ie less than the minimum required!
Try means testing that!
Keep paying your NI contributions (which are compulsory) and you'll get a basic state pension when you retire
DeleteNo, that was never the deal. If that had been the deal then they euros have had to not start paying out pensions until the first people who paid NI contributions retired. They didn’t. That shows that there was never any link between NI and pensions — pensions were always benefits paid out of current taxation, never a quid pro quo for National Insurance contributions.
According to the Retirement Living Standards set by the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association (PLSA) and Loughborough University, the annual income required for a pensioner at what is defined as the minimum standard is £13,900 for a single person
And according to the My Living Standards set by the My Lifetime Savings Association, the minimum standard for me is £234, 699.
So I suggest we ignore both.
Again you really need to do your research first
Delete"National Insurance Contributions (NICs) are a form of tax in the UK paid by employees, employers, and the self-employed to fund state benefits like the State Pension.
Your NIC record determines your entitlement requiring at least 10 qualifying years for a basic State Pension and 35 years for the full new State Pension."
gov.uk
"National Insurance Contributions (NICs) are a form of tax in the UK paid by employees, employers, and the self-employed to fund state benefits like the State Pension.
DeleteYes — note the present tenses. National Insurance Contributions paid now fund benefits now. Nothing in there says anything about them funding future benefits, because they don’t.
Your NIC record determines your entitlement requiring at least 10 qualifying years for a basic State Pension and 35 years for the full new State Pension."
Yes - again, present tense. That’s the current situation. But governments can, and do, vary the qualifications for benefits all the time. One government might expand eligibility for pensions or other benefits; another might contract them. One government might increase the amount of a benefit; another might reduce it. A Parliament cannot bind its successors; no government can make promises binding on a future government, and in this case, of course, no promises were ever made.
The idea that there was every any ‘deal’ whereby National Insurance contributions now would entitle you to a pension in the future is a widespread misunderstanding. It is not and has never been the case.
NI contributions
DeleteMeans tested state pension
You are correct in that any UK govt can legislate for what it wants including overturning past legislation. You are also correct that current state pensions are effectively paid for via current tax revenue including NI
From a practical perspective however, this is cloud cuckoo land
Any govt that retrospectively tried to alter the basics of state pensions - that they're effectively linked to your historic NI contributions - would find itself successfully legally challenged and would have committed political suicide.
Any govt that retrospectively tried to alter the basics of state pensions - that they're effectively linked to your historic NI contributions - would find itself successfully legally challenged
DeleteIt couldn’t be legally challenged, because the law is whatever the Crown in Parliament says it is.
and would have committed political suicide.
Aye, there’s the rub. It’s not a legal problem, it’s a political one. And I am optimistic that the British people will realise that this needs to happen before there is a full-blown fiscal crisis.
But if they don’t, and the full-blown crisis happens, pensions will still be cut — but it will be the IMF giving the orders, not the electorate.
So here’s a good question. If most immigrants are net contributors, why are there areas where most of the social housing is occupied by immigrants? Because someone who needs social housing can’t be a net contributor, can they?
ReplyDeleteWhich areas specifically are you talking about?
ReplyDeleteI've been unable to find any data showing social housing allocated to migrants - it seems available only for those born outside the UK (which is not the same)
More generally
"To be eligible for social housing in the UK, applicants must generally be over 16 (or 18, depending on the local authority) and have the legal right to reside in the UK. Eligibility is determined by immigration status, with those subject to immigration control and having no recourse to public funds typically excluded.
Qualification depends on meeting specific local criteria, which commonly include:
Local Connection: Having lived, worked, or had family in the area for a specified period (e.g., 3–5 years), though exceptions exist for those fleeing domestic abuse, care leavers under 25, and armed forces personnel.
Housing Need: Being legally homeless, living in overcrowded or unsuitable conditions, or having medical/disability needs exacerbated by current housing.
Financial Limits: Many councils impose caps on income (e.g., £50,000–£64,200 annually) and savings (e.g., £16,000–£30,000), excluding homeowners or those with significant assets.
Behavioral History: Applicants with a history of antisocial behavior, rent arrears, or providing false information are often disqualified.
Priority is assigned through a banding or points system, prioritizing those in the most urgent need, such as victims of domestic abuse, those in severe health crises, or households facing immediate homelessness."
Various sources
Which areas specifically are you talking about?
Delete‘ Although 76% of “household reference people” in a small area of Ealing living in social housing said they were born outside the UK, the figure for London as a whole was much smaller, at just under 48%.’
https://fullfact.org/online/london-social-housing-foreign-born/
it seems available only for those born outside the UK (which is not the same)
Anyone born outside Britain must be a migrant by definition (except for a very few such as those born to British citizens on overseas military bases) — if they were born outside Britain, now else could they now be in Britain except by migrating here?
again do your research first.
DeleteThe Ealing figure you quote has been widely misrepresented and rebutted and refers to an area with only 234 households. Hardly representative
Born outside the UK does NOT equate to migrant status. The census records people who describe themselves as being ‘born outside of the UK’ rather than ‘foreign nationals’ or migrants
The same data shoed that the majority of those born outside the UK identified themselves as British nationality
The Ealing figure you quote has been widely misrepresented and rebutted and refers to an area with only 234 households. Hardly representative
DeleteWhat about the 48% figure for London as a whole? That’s representative. How, if most migrants are net contributors, could they occupy nearly half of social housing in London? No one who lives in social housing can be a net contributor.
Born outside the UK does NOT equate to migrant status.
How can it not? How could someone who was born outside Britain, but now lives here, not be a migrant? That is literally what ‘migrant’ means: someone who moves from the place they were born to live somewhere else.
Oh dear more confusion for yourself.
DeleteFirst of all look at the data on "The Fiscal Impact of Immigration in the UK" from your own quoted source especially Fig 3 Cumulative
Second, the income cap could be as high as £65k before you're NOT eligible for social housing and if you're earning that amount of money over time you bet you're a net contributor
Third, you're conflating being born outside the UK with nationality
and here's some more
Delete"In addition, social housing residents born outside of the UK may have been in the country for decades, and hold citizenship. More than three-quarters of heads of household socially renting in London held a UK passport."
https://pa.media/blogs/fact-check/most-social-housing-residents-in-london-were-born-in-the-uk/
and again
Delete"migrants living in the UK with temporary immigration statuses – such as a work, study or family visa – are not eligible for social housing. This is because they are subject to the “No Recourse to Public Funds” (NRPF) condition, which prevents access to state-funded welfare"
Migration Observatory
First of all look at the data on "The Fiscal Impact of Immigration in the UK" from your own quoted source especially Fig 3 Cumulative
DeleteFigure 3 from https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-fiscal-impact-of-immigration-in-the-uk/? That doesn’t provide any support for the idea that ‘most migrants are net contributors’. In fact the reverse: it shows that only migrants on skilled worker visas are net contributors; all others are a net drain, or at most break-even. And I have always said we want more skilled worker migrants, as they are the contributors, and none of the rest.
Second, the income cap could be as high as £65k before you're NOT eligible for social housing and if you're earning that amount of money over time you bet you're a net contributor
Not if you’re in social housing you’re not — remember social housing is itself a benefit (it’s a subsidy to the market rent which you would otherwise be paying) which has to be counted against your gross contributions when working out whether you are a net contributor.
Third, you're conflating being born outside the UK with nationality
Nationality is irrelevant. A migrant who has applied for, and been granted, British nationality, is still a migrant if they migrated here - that is what ‘migrant’ means, someone who migrated.
Figure 3
DeleteYou must be looking at a different diagram to me
So if you were born abroad to Brit parents and your parents brought you to the UK would you be British or a migrant?
You must be looking at a different diagram to me
DeleteDescribe the diagram you are looking at.
So if you were born abroad to Brit parents and your parents brought you to the UK would you be British or a migrant?
As I wrote above: ‘Anyone born outside Britain must be a migrant by definition (except for a very few such as those born to British citizens on overseas military bases)’ (emphasis because you missed it the first time).
But that isn’t who’s in the council houses. Brits who lives in council houses don’t give birth abroad.
Describe the diagram you are looking at.
DeleteI already did
Anyone born outside Britain must be a migrant
I wonder if Farage realises? - that the migrants he's so against include Brits with automatic citizenship?
Quite ironic
BTW most social housing isn't council housing these days. Do try to keep up
Describe the diagram you are looking at.
DeleteI already did
No, you didn’t.
Anyone born outside Britain must be a migrant
I wonder if Farage realises? - that the migrants he's so against include Brits with automatic citizenship?
Quite ironic
So you’re not going to address the actual point. I think we can accept that as you admitting defeat.
BTW most social housing isn't council housing these days. Do try to keep up
Again, not the point; you are just exposing that you have no answers.
"So you’re not going to address the actual point. I think we can accept that as you admitting defeat."
DeleteWhat actual point? You've not made one
My point (or one of them) is that economic migrants collectively make a positive financial contribution to the economy. Some migrants contribute more than others (just as happens with native Brits)
Classing anyone born abroad as a migrant is technically correct but misleading (deliberately so by people like Farage). Many of these "migrants" are legally British citizens - as indeed was King Charlie 3's father
My point (or one of them) is that economic migrants collectively make a positive financial contribution to the economy.
DeleteThat wasn’t what you wrote in https://keynesianliberal.blogspot.com/2026/08/blunders-for-mr-burnham-to-avoid.html?showComment=1787394275798&m=1#c1153624261191321062
I quote:
‘ First, the evidence is that most migrants produce a financial surplus for the UK over their lifetime’
I hope you can see that ‘most migrants produce a financial surplus for the UK over their lifetime’ and ‘ economic migrants collectively make a positive financial contribution to the economy’ are completely different claims? The second one might be true; do you admit that the first one is definitely not?
Anyway; now can you at least admit you’ve moved the goalposts?
And the next point - the one I’ve been trying to make over and over again — is:
Given that some migrants are net contributors and some are a net drain, do you not think we should be doing more to encourage more of the former type to come to Britain, while keeping out, and actively deporting, the latter type?
Because that way, even if right now migrants as a whole make a positive contribution, by shifting the balance so we get more net contributors and no net drainers, we could make that an even more collective positive contribution?
Classing anyone born abroad as a migrant is technically correct but misleading (deliberately so by people like Farage).
DeleteIt’s not misleading at all. What is misleading it to rely on a mere technical legal definition when that is not the substantive point at issue.
Consider ten migrants. Imagine that, over the course of their total stay in Britain (until they either leave or die):
DeleteSix are a net drain on Britain to the tune of roughly £1 million each
Two roughly break even
One makes a net contribution of £5 million
One makes a net contribution of £10 million
Now, you can see, can’t you that it is true that collectively, those migrants make a positive financial contribution to the economy (of £9 million)
However, it is not true that most of them make a net contribution — in fact most of them are a net drain on the economy.
So, do you not think that public servants in Britain have a duty to try to keep the six who are a net drain out, while still getting the ones who are net contributors to come here? Because then the collective net contribution would be £15 million, not £9 million, which is better for Britain — and that’s what matters.
Did you bother looking at Fig 3 that I showed you?
DeleteSkilled migrants (which includes Health & Care migrants) show a cumulative net fiscal impact that's positive. This type of work visa is the main work route into the UK
Unskilled and low income migrants can't get a work visa any longer - please try to keep up
Here's the situation
1. The UK economy needs migrant workers
2. Migrant workers collectively have a positive net fiscal impact on the economy
3. The UK economy will take a BIG hit (c. £30 billion) as migrant numbers decline
4. there's no Plan B for making up the £30 billion impact
So simple choice to put to the people:
either accept that migration is economically necessary and here to stay OR accept that most Brits are going to be worse off as the economy suffers
Skilled migrants (which includes Health & Care migrants)
DeleteIt includes some Health & Care migrants, such as doctors and dentists. Obviously not unskilled labour like hospital porters or care home workers.
This type of work visa is the main work route into the UK
Right. But there are lots of non-work routes, aren’t there? So you agree we need to shut those down? (Some may have recently been shut down, but not all; we need to shut down the rest, agree?)
Unskilled and low income migrants can't get a work visa any longer - please try to keep up
Okay. But the fact remains that before that visa route was withdrawn a lot of people came here under those visas, so we need to get rid of them, yes?
either accept that migration is economically necessary and here to stay OR accept that most Brits are going to be worse off as the economy suffers
Okay. I choose the second. I suspect most of the electorate agrees with me. We will find out at the next general election — would you agree that if a plurality of voters vote at that election for either Reform or the Conservative party you accept that as the expressed opinion of the British people?
You've not done your homework again
Delete"Skilled migrants (which includes Health & Care migrants)
It includes some Health & Care migrants, such as doctors and dentists. Obviously not unskilled labour like hospital porters or care home workers."
The UK Health and Care Worker visa is specifically designed for qualified doctors, nurses, allied health professionals, and adult social care workers and no one else
"This type of work visa is the main work route into the UK
Right. But there are lots of non-work routes, aren’t there? So you agree we need to shut those down? (Some may have recently been shut down, but not all; we need to shut down the rest, agree?)"
a) we're talking about economic migrants here so "non-work routes" are irrelevant.
b) I've no idea what you actually mean by the phrase anyway.
Study visas? (foreign students are estimated to bring in around £40 billion over their study period)
Family members? Those with a visa are restricted to partners and kids only and have no access to public funds
Refugees and asylum seekers? I take the attitude that my place of birth was random good fortune and that as a rich country the UK can afford to help those in need. There but for the grace of god ….
"Unskilled and low income migrants can't get a work visa any longer - please try to keep up
Okay. But the fact remains that before that visa route was withdrawn a lot of people came here under those visas, so we need to get rid of them, yes?"
No.
They were accepted in good faith and to now renege on the original agreement would be morally reprehensible.
"either accept that migration is economically necessary and here to stay OR accept that most Brits are going to be worse off as the economy suffers
Okay. I choose the second. I suspect most of the electorate agrees with me. "
That's your choice but where's your evidence that "most of the electorate agrees with me"?
The electorate have never been told of the economic consequences to them and the UK in general of reducing legal work immigration (£30 billion hit and counting)
I wonder why?
The answer? Farage, Badenoch and the other populist politicians know that spelling out the stark economic consequences will lose them support. It's noticeable that even Farage is not promising to stop migration completely – he knows the consequences but won't go public on them.
Remember all the Brexit promises and benefits that never materialised?
“We will find out at the next general election — would you agree that if a plurality of voters vote at that election for either Reform or the Conservative party you accept that as the expressed opinion of the British people?”
Yes I would – IF Farage and Badenoch are brave enough to make it a single issue election
History repeats itself. Blaming migration for the UK's economic woes will not resolve them any more than Hitler's blaming the Jews solved Germany's economic problems in the 30's
BTW, as I live in Scotland and as we have majority of MSP's in the Scottish Parliament who support Scottish independence I assume we have your support as well – the expressed opinion of the Scottish people? Please write to your MP to tell them.
The UK Health and Care Worker visa is specifically designed for qualified doctors, nurses, allied health professionals, and adult social care workers and no one else
DeleteYes. Some of those are skilled jobs (doctors) and some are unskilled jobs (adult social care workers).
We need to close off the routes for the unskilled ones.
Family members? Those with a visa are restricted to partners and kids only and have no access to public funds
Yes — there is absolutely no reason a worker here temporarily to earn more money than they would at home need their family with them. Plenty of people (eg, soldiers, oil workers) leave their families at home while they go away to work, and then return to them richer.
Refugees and asylum seekers? I take the attitude that my place of birth was random good fortune and that as a rich country the UK can afford to help those in need.
Genuine refugees (ie, those in truly danger of persecution for their religion or political activities that we approve of, such as pro-democracy campaigners in China or Russian), they can come in. People whose home countries are just a bit shit because of bad governance, geographical bad luck, or other reasons, no. We are not the world’s welfare state.
They were accepted in good faith and to now renege on the original agreement would be morally reprehensible.
No it wouldn’t. It would be just like a company which hired someone in good faith discovering that the economic climate has changed and now they need to be made redundant. Mistakes are made in good faith all the time and it is not morally reprehensible to correct them.
The electorate have never been told of the economic consequences to them and the UK in general of reducing legal work immigration (£30 billion hit and counting)
On the contrary, outlets like the Guardian and the BBC are forever pushing that line. Pretty much everyone has heard it.
They may not believe it, but that’s different to not having been told it.
It's noticeable that even Farage is not promising to stop migration completely – he knows the consequences but won't go public on them.
No one wants to stop migration completely. They want — as I keep arguing on this page — to become a lot more selective.
BTW, as I live in Scotland and as we have majority of MSP's in the Scottish Parliament who support Scottish independence I assume we have your support as well – the expressed opinion of the Scottish people? Please write to your MP to tell them.
If it is ever the expressed opinion of the British people as a whole to cut Scotland free, good luck to them (I wouldn’t want to live in Scotland if that ever happens, it will be Hell). But not of a mere subset of the British people.
as a rich country the UK
DeleteOh and you might not have noticed, but Britain is not a rich country any more. Two decades of zero productivity growth has that effect.
We cannot keep making policy based on the idea that Britain is a rich country.
Oh dear!
Delete"The UK Health and Care Worker visa is specifically designed for qualified doctors, nurses, allied health professionals, and adult social care workers and no one else
Yes. Some of those are skilled jobs (doctors) and some are unskilled jobs (adult social care workers)."
Source. gov.uk
You must meet all of the following requirements to be eligible for a Health and Care Worker visa:
you’re a qualified doctor, nurse, health professional or adult social care professional
Note the word "qualified"
Note the word "qualified"
DeleteExactly what ‘qualifications’ does an ‘adult social care professional’ have, and how are they more high-skilled than, say, a supermarket or warehouse worker?
It’s a low-skilled job.
Frankly, it’s an unskilled job. Anyone could do it.
Delete"They were accepted in good faith and to now renege on the original agreement would be morally reprehensible.
DeleteNo it wouldn’t."
"An Englishman’s word is his bond" is a proverb asserting that an English person’s verbal promise is as binding and trustworthy as a formal legal contract."
Clearly you don't think the saying applies any more. Is this part of the migrant assimilation you bleat on about?
Note the word "qualified"
DeleteExactly what ‘qualifications’ does an ‘adult social care professional’ have, and how are they more high-skilled than, say, a supermarket or warehouse worker?
It’s a low-skilled job.
You should check with the Home Office and gov.uk which lists the QUALIFICATIONS needed
"Oh and you might not have noticed, but Britain is not a rich country any more. "
DeleteThe United Kingdom is economically classified as a rich country globally, ranking as the fifth-largest economy by nominal GDP
Of course we'd be even richer if it wasn't for Brexit
Clearly you don't think the saying applies any more.
DeleteWhich ‘Englishman’’ are you talking about, exactly?
The ones who made the rules under which the previous visas were granted are out of power. The ones who will replace them never made that ‘bond’.
Do you disagree with the fundamental constitutional principle that no Parliament can bind its successors?
You should check with the Home Office and gov.uk which lists the QUALIFICATIONS needed
DeleteSo you admit that you can’t find any actual qualifications required.
And of course just needing a ‘qualification’ doesn’t make a job a skilled job, if that qualification is something that anybody could get.
The United Kingdom is economically classified as a rich country globally, ranking as the fifth-largest economy by nominal GDP
DeleteFifth-largest country by nominal GDP isn’t ‘rich’. You need to look at GDP per capita.
Clearly you don't think the saying applies any more.
DeleteWhich ‘Englishman’’ are you talking about, exactly?
The ones who made the rules under which the previous visas were granted are out of power. The ones who will replace them never made that ‘bond’.
Do you disagree with the fundamental constitutional principle that no Parliament can bind its successors?
Shae that with the bond markets and see what happens to the UK credit score
Shae that with the bond markets and see what happens to the UK credit score
DeleteAh good. So we are clear that there’s no legal, constitutional or moral reason an incoming government can’t do a sovereign default. The reason to not do so is because of the consequences: a bond strike.
Likewise, then, there is no legal, constitutional or moral reason an incoming government can’t cancel a bunch of visas. The reason not to do so would be because of the consequences: a hit to GDP (1.5%, you say above).
So providing we’re happy to accept the consequences (the GDP hit) then we can cancel the visas.
I am happy to accept a hit to GDP, so there is no reason not to cancel the visas. Agreed?
I am happy to accept a hit to GDP, so there is no reason not to cancel the visas. Agreed
DeleteAs usual you clearly don't understand what you're talking about
The hit (£30 billion) is NOT from cancelling existing visas but from a policy of reducing migration to what the OBR defines as the low migration scenario - where net migration settles significantly below central forecasts, typically around 105,000 to 115,000 annually by the late 2020s.
Cancelling existing visas just because the UK has changed its mind IS immoral
"I wouldn’t want to live in Scotland if that ever happens, it will be Hell"
DeleteYour right - it would be for you Independence or not
By and large Scotland is a welcoming and tolerant place where people still have a strong sense of community and helping each other out regardless of skin colour, nationality, gender ...
There's an acceptance of the need for fairness and equality a strong pro-Europe history and a recognition that migrants are needed and welcomed - even the English who mover here
You'd hate it
Cancelling existing visas just because the UK has changed its mind IS immoral
DeleteNo, it isn’t. No more than cancelling an employment contract or ending a lease because circumstances have changed is immoral.
By and large Scotland
DeleteAh, the Myth of Scottish Exceptionalism.
In all actual surveys of social attitudes, the Scottish population scores pretty much exactly the same as the English population.
In the election to the Scottish Assembly this May, Reform UK won the same number of seats as Labour, putting them joint second.
Scotland is no different to England, social-attitudes-wise.
The only difference is the nationalism.
"In all actual surveys of social attitudes, the Scottish population scores pretty much exactly the same as the English population"
DeleteOh really? Which surveys have you been looking at then?
Scots are more likely to perceive British society as unequal; 20% of respondents in Scotland view the income distribution as "very unfair" compared to 13% in England.
There is stronger opposition to market-based services: 45% of Scots believe it is wrong for higher earners to buy better education, versus 34% in England.
Concerns about health equity are higher north of the border, with 64% of Scots viewing it as unfair that wealthier people can afford better healthcare, compared to 54% in England.
Support for government redistribution is higher in Scotland, with 43% favoring income redistribution from the better-off to the less well-off, compared to 34% in England.
Scots are more likely to believe taxes on high incomes are too low (44% vs. 36% in England) and more likely to identify with social democratic parties.
58% of Scots support reduced immigration, versus 75% in England and Wales
More Scots think immigration is good for their country (41%) than bad (31%), while in England and Wales "bad" outpolls "good" (49% vs 35%).
60% of Scots judge immigrants' contribution to the UK as good (highest of the four nations), compared to 56% in England.
75% of Scots say Britain was wrong to leave the EU, versus 56% in England
Only 5% of Scots think Brexit has been more of a success than a failure, compared to 11–12% in England and Wales.
50% of Scots are in favour of independence while 15% of those in England think Scotland should become independent
Test for statistical significance if you can be bothered.
All this tells me Scotland is different from England - thankfully
"Cancelling existing visas just because the UK has changed its mind IS immoral
DeleteNo, it isn’t. No more than cancelling an employment contract or ending a lease because circumstances have changed is immoral."
So what "circumstances" have changed other than Farage's manipulation of public opinion?
So what "circumstances" have changed
DeleteWe’ve done the sums and realised that they would be a net drain on the economy. That’s what’s changed.
That’s why we’ve already blocked new applications to that visa. Now we need to get rid of the ones already here.
other than Farage's manipulation of public opinion?
Are you saying my opinion has been ‘manipulated’ by Mr Farage? You really think that?
"So what "circumstances" have changed
DeleteWe’ve done the sums and realised that they would be a net drain on the economy. That’s what’s changed."
a) who's "they" !
b) and what sums show a net drain?
"other than Farage's manipulation of public opinion?
Are you saying my opinion has been ‘manipulated’ by Mr Farage? You really think that?"
I've no idea as I know nothing about you. However, Farage is a past master of manipulating public opinion in a typical populist way
a) who's "they" !
DeleteUnskilled and low-skilled immigrants, immigrants on dependent visas, etc.
Look; above I have pointed out the evidence that unskilled and low-skilled immigrants are a net drain. Your response has been to point out that the visa on which those immigrants have entered are no longer available. Fine, as far as it goes, but that still means that a load of people entered on those visas when they were available, so we have two options:
1, accept that although we’re not letting in more immigrants who will be a net drain, we have to just accept the net drain from the ones already here.
2. Change the conditions of those visas retrospectively so that those immigrants have to leave before they become a net drain.
Option 1 is obviously unacceptable so it has to be option 2.
However, Farage is a past master of manipulating public opinion in a typical populist way
No, he’s not. What he is good at is tapping into pre-existing public option that is not represented by the mainstream parties, and giving it an outlet and focus, while keeping a clear line between his movements and the really toxic elements that gravitated to, for example, the BNP in the first decade of thIs century or the Restore Britain party now.
Mr Farage doesn’t create the public opinions that have propelled his career. He just gives a figurehead that allows people who already think those things to see that they are not alone and the ideas they hold are not beyond the pale of civilised discussion
"Option 1 is obviously unacceptable so it has to be option 2."
DeleteNo it doesn't.
As I've repeatedly said this group came to the UK in good faith and for me - and I suspect others - it's morally wrong to kick them out just because it no longer suits the UK.
It's not "fair play" - one important feature of British culture I would argue
As I've repeatedly said this group came to the UK in good faith
DeleteAnd as I’ve repeatedly said, we more know that they were allowed in under a mistaken calculation. A mistake made on good faith can be rectified in good faith. Just like a company which hires someone thinking they are in good health can make them redundant if it turns out that they made a mistake and in fact are losing money.
and for me - and I suspect others - it's morally wrong to kick them out just because it no longer suits the UK.
You’re incorrect to think that, though. It’s not morally wrong at all to correct a mistake.
so let's take a situation on today's news
Delete"Hundreds of UK military veterans have had their pensions slashed after the Ministry of Defence (MoD) identified clerical errors that resulted in overpayments totaling £5.1 million. The Ministry is pursuing more than 1,000 retired service personnel to recover these funds, with some individuals facing repayment demands of tens of thousands of pounds. "
Is it morally right or wrong to write off these debts as it's through no fault of the veterans this happened?
"Farage's manipulation of public opinion?
DeleteFarage doesn’t create the public opinions that have propelled his career. He just gives a figurehead that allows people who already think those things to see that they are not alone and the ideas they hold are not beyond the pale of civilised discussion"
I never said he did CREATE but rather manipulate in the same way that Hitler did with the Jews
This is what every populist wannabe politician does - exploit and capitalise on peoples' concerns and worries and look for a scapegoat to blame. He's very good at that.
As for "civilised discussion" I've yet to see any from Reform or the other anti-immigration politicians.
Is it morally right or wrong to write off these debts as it's through no fault of the veterans this happened?
DeleteIt’s neither morally right nor morally wrong. It would be generous to allow them to keep the money and we might well want do so — I would want to do so — if we had spare public money. However we don’t have spare public money. So unless we are prepared to massively cut benefits, then as they were not entitled to the money, they will have to repay it — to do otherwise would be unfair to the taxpayers whose money was mistakenly given to them.
I never said he did CREATE but rather manipulate in the same way that Hitler did with the Jews
DeleteBut is that not what all politicians do? Doesn’t Mr Burnham, then, manipulate people’s concerns about inflation by offering populist policies like nationalisations and free buses? Doesn’t he look for scapegoats in the form of social media companies and tech billionaires?
Doesn’t Mr Davey manipulate people’s concerns about social care?
So what’s the difference between Mr Farage and Mr Burnham and Mr Davey? They all manipulate people’s concerns to get elected, don’t they?
As for "civilised discussion" I've yet to see any from Reform or the other anti-immigration politicians.
Have you not seen civilised discussion from me?
"Is it morally right or wrong to write off these debts as it's through no fault of the veterans this happened?
DeleteIt’s neither morally right nor morally wrong. It would be generous to allow them to keep the money and we might well want do so — I would want to do so — if we had spare public money. However we don’t have spare public money. So unless we are prepared to massively cut benefits, then as they were not entitled to the money, they will have to repay it — to do otherwise would be unfair to the taxpayers whose money was mistakenly given to them."
It has to be one or the other - you can't sit in the middle on this one
"I never said he did CREATE but rather manipulate in the same way that Hitler did with the Jews
DeleteBut is that not what all politicians do? Doesn’t Mr Burnham, then, manipulate people’s concerns about inflation by offering populist policies like nationalisations and free buses? Doesn’t he look for scapegoats in the form of social media companies and tech billionaires?
Doesn’t Mr Davey manipulate people’s concerns about social care?
So what’s the difference between Mr Farage and Mr Burnham and Mr Davey? They all manipulate people’s concerns to get elected, don’t they?"
The difference is that some politicians are genuinely trying to solve problems and sort out messes.
Farage is interested in one thong and one thing only - Nigel Farage - and he'll do or say anything that is to his benefit.
As for "civilised discussion" I've yet to see any from Reform or the other anti-immigration politicians.
Wasn't aware you were an anti-immigrant politician
Have you not seen civilised discussion from me?
It has to be one or the other - you can't sit in the middle on this one
DeleteThen I don’t think it is morally right or wrong, but for practical reasons, considering our current circumstances, then the money should be recovered.
My answer would be different if the country was in different financial circumstances, but in the situation as it is now, that is my answer.
The difference is that some politicians are genuinely trying to solve problems and sort out messes.
DeleteBut Mr Farage is genuinely trying to sort out the problem of excessive immigration and the mess that that has caused.
Wasn't aware you were an anti-immigrant politician
You know nothing about me. For all you know I could be Nigel Farage. So answer the question: have you not seen civilised discussion from me?
"But Mr Farage is genuinely trying to sort out the problem of excessive immigration and the mess that that has caused."
DeleteHow naive - the only thing Farage is bothered about is Nigel Farage
How naive - the only thing Farage is bothered about is Nigel Farage
DeleteI didn’t realise you knew Mr Farage personally.
It is notable, however, that Mr Farage has definitely made financial sacrifices for the sake of his political career. If all he cared about was really himself, he could have made himself a lot richer by never getting involved in politics, and indeed by not getting back into politics in 2024.
However, the discussion should not be about personalities. The problems of mass migration would still exist even if Mr Farage had remained a commodities trader. Discussing Mr Farage is a distraction from the real issue, which is, how do we deal with those problems? How do we have policies that put Britain and the British people first?
DeleteScots are more likely to perceive British society as unequal
ReplyDelete[…]
50% of Scots are in favour of independence while 15% of those in England think Scotland should become independent
Only three of those are significantly (ie, more than 10%) different: support for reduced immigration (because Scotland has a much smaller proportion of immigrants than England), thinking that it was wrong to leave the European Union and support for Scottish independence. Both of which proves what I said: Scottish attitudes are much the same as English, except for all the stupid nationalism.
Oh dear - you obviously don't understand statistical significance.
DeleteIt's not an arbitrary difference of at least 10%
It requires a formal calculation using a hypothesis test to asses whether two % are statistically different from each other using relative sample sizes
Leaving the stats behind, I was born and bred in England. I've lived in Scotland for the last few decades. Trust me when I say that the two countries DO have different attitudes and norms
"Scottish attitudes are much the same as English, except for all the stupid nationalism"
.... and the stupid racism and xenophobia of the English
you obviously don't understand statistical significance.
DeleteI’m not talking about statistical significance. I’m talking about significance of magnitude.
For example, you could prove to a high degree of statistical significance that, say, drinking alcohol raises your risk of some type of cancer from 0.005% to,0.0075%.
That’s statistically significant. But is it real-world significant in that it makes it worth changing your behaviour? Of course not. It’s statistically significant but it is not of a significant magnitude.
I was born and bred in England. I've lived in Scotland for the last few decades. Trust me when I say that the two countries DO have different attitudes and norms
Seems more likely that attitudes and norms in both England and Scotland have changed jn the last few decades, but you are out of touch with English attitudes, and most probably exist in a liberal middle-class bubble in Scotland where attitudes are just as unrepresentative of those of normal Scots as are the identical attitudes of liberal middle-class bubbles in England (trust me, I know, I live in a liberal middle-class bubble somewhere in Britain).
"significance of magnitude"
DeleteThis is another of your made-up phrases that's meaningless
The % are either statistically different or they're not
And most of the ones I quoted are
"but you are out of touch with English attitudes"
No I'm not. I have friends and family I see regularly down in England and I;'m well aware of how English attitudes have changed
BTW most "normal" scots actually live in a liberal middle class bubble!
and I should have said that most of the people I know who are English are pro-Reform (although they're unable to articulate why clearly)
Deletemost of the people I know who are English are pro-Reform (although they're unable to articulate why clearly)
DeleteHave I managed to help you to understand?
"Have I managed to help you to understand?"
DeleteFraid not
You admit that restricting immigration will cause economic harm to the UK and yet still support it
As Spock would say - that's not logical.
I had the same issue understanding Brexit voters
"Economic research indicates that Brexit has reduced UK GDP per capita by 6–8% by 2025. Business investment has been hit hardest, estimated to be 12–18% lower than it would have been without leaving the EU, while employment and productivity are each estimated to be 3–4% lower."
Another of Farage's success stories then?
"Ten years after the 2016 referendum, Brexit polling in 2026 shows a clear majority of UK voters now say leaving the European Union was the wrong decision."
Too late guys the damage is done - as it will be with immigration
You admit that restricting immigration will cause economic harm to the UK and yet still support it
DeleteAs Spock would say - that's not logical.
And do you not think that when Mr Spock said that, he was missing something vital about life? Do you not understand that for some people there are things more important than money or material wealth?
Do you not understand that for some people there are things more important than money or material wealth?
DeleteBut that's not how Farage sold Brexit is it?
Remember the £ sign on the bus?
But that's not how Farage sold Brexit is it?
DeleteIt is exactly how Brexit was sold. Do you not remember the Leave slogan: ‘Take Back Control’?
In other words: it is worth being a bit poorer, if in return we don’t have to pool our sovereignty.
For some people, being in control on one’s own life is more important than being rich.
The Icelanders clearly understand, even if you do not.
Delete"being in control on one’s own life is more important than being rich."
DeleteAh, but how much is that an illusion?
Ask a whole series of PMs about small boats
Ask Liz Truss about the money markets
Ask the scientists about global warming
Ask Trump about Iran and UK fuel prices
the list goes on ...
I seem to remember Canute ... ?
Ah, but how much is that an illusion?
DeleteBeing in control doesn’t mean things will always go your way. It just means no one can stop you doing what you want to do, and then bearing the consequences of your choice — whether those consequences are good or bad.
Better tell Farage he's in control of donations then
DeleteBetter tell Farage he's in control of donations then
DeleteMr Farage is in completely in control of which donations he accepts.
Then he must take the consequences of accepting them (publicity, possible prosecutions and convictions, etc)