Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
john

UK Politics - Put your mask in the bin and hug your granny

Recommended Posts

And this new tax is not even going to achieve its headline aim of relieving anxiety by capping social care, even after they have stopped using the money to prop up the NHS until the next election. This is a typical complex plan requiring a great deal of bureaucracy and probably riddled with gotchas that won't be come apparent for a while. However it has already been spotted that the cap applies only to "actual care" and does not include "accommodation costs". Given that a central part of the issue is that many care homes are owned by offshore tax avoiding companies whose main interest is extracting as much short term profit as possible, is is very easy to see where that will go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Werthead said:

There's also the aspect that there are jobs in Britain which make sense if you go and do them for 3-4 months in an intensive burst, living on site and working long hours, if you're living in another country with a much lower cost of living, and you go back home afterwards. Replacing those jobs with Brits is impossible not for the reasons it's unpleasant etc (though that doesn't help), but because it doesn't make any kind of economic sense even if you live quite nearby, and none at all if you're living in a big town or city halfway across the country and can get a job that pays more just sitting on the phone all day or staring at Excel spreadsheets.

Yes, this is included in what I'd called 'mobile or seasonal workforce' above, and overlaps to some extent with the issue of paying below the market rate - but many of this type of job are already minimum wage jobs.

16 hours ago, Werthead said:

Britain has a huge problem in that we have a low-tax economy compared to a lot of other countries (and European and Scandinavian countries in particular), a very meh level of income, but a high cost of living, paying over the odds for food, housing utilities and services. That leaves virtually no flex in the system. If governments could, say, depress house prices by embarking on a genuine national housebuilding scheme, bringing down mortgage and rent costs for many millions of people, that would release billions that could go into a social care tax or NI scheme. The same if they could find ways of reducing other costs.

I don't think depressing house prices would do that, in fact. The trouble is that would reduce mortgage payments for some, but it would leave lots of people under water, with a loan that exceeded the value of their assets. And that's not good for individuals or the banking system. One can argue that those assets are currently overinflated in value, and so this would be a necessary correction, but it would still cause a lot of issues and not necessarily free up the money you'd think.

We do need to do something about housing in this country and that's been urgent for quite a while. We have an economy built on the assumption that people can and will own their own homes, but the reality is that we have a whole generation now for whom that's not the reality, and who in fact are transferring their income in the form of rent to increase the wealth of the generation above them. That's unsustainable. But that's a separate issue to paying for public services, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oof!

 

 

Edited by Spockydog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

Oops!

Education Minister Gavin Williamson struggles to tell two black men apart. Cleary it was a Zoom call he was paying attention to, and not at all a bit of PR so he could pretend to care.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58490809

To be fair it might not be "all black people look the same" excuse.  I myself would have difficulty working out who was who unless Rashford was in their Football kit and I could see the back of his shirt.  This is simply because I have no interest in Football or Rugby.  Out of the current England team if you lined them all up I probably could only accurately identify Harry Kane.  I could make some reasonable guesses with a few of the others but only if told these people played for England in Euro 2020/21.

 

However he should totally have known who he was speaking to and paid enough attention to find out the sport.  He was either provided with the wrong information before taking the call, or simply did not listen and just heard / saw black sportsman activist who talked about free school means.  Yes its basics to ask who you are talking to if you don't already know, especially if you are going to then name drop them.  But I'm not upset that he couldn't instantly recognise someone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, look, everybody. Yet another Brexit "benefit".

Quote

Britain is on course to lose its status as one of Germany’s top 10 trading partners this year for the first time since 1950, as Brexit-related trade barriers drive firms in Europe’s largest economy to look for business elsewhere.

So. Much. Winning.

 

Edited by Spockydog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, of course she is.

Priti Patel to send boats carrying migrants to UK back across Channel

Quote

Priti Patel is preparing to send back small boats carrying migrants in the Channel despite warnings from the French authorities that it could endanger lives.

Border Force staff are being trained to employ “turn-around” tactics at sea under plans developed for two years, a statement from the Home Office said.

It would allow UK officers to force small boats back into French waters. It is unclear if the proposals would include taking migrants back to French shores.

The proposals have already been rejected by the French government. A letter released on Wednesday showed they could not be accepted by the interior minister, Gérald Darmanin, on the grounds that “safeguarding human lives at sea takes priority over considerations of nationality, status and migratory policy”.

So, let's imagine that one of these boat pushing incidents goes wrong, the dinghy capsizes, and a bunch of Afghan refugees and their children drown. None of their voters will give a shit, right?

Edited by Spockydog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

Well, of course she is.

Priti Patel to send boats carrying migrants to UK back across Channel

So, let's imagine that one of these boat pushing incidents goes wrong, the dinghy capsizes, and a bunch of Afghan refugees and their children drown. None of their voters will give a shit, right?

It's also futile. Does she think we turn them back they won't try again until they are successful. The woman is a fucking dimwit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Her hard-on for killing refugees is even more despicable considering her own parents arrived in this country as refugees after fleeing Uganda for their lives.

She is a disgrace to humanity.

Edited by Spockydog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on comments in this thread, you would think she was sending migrants to death camps to be gassed, instead of slightly inconveniencing their illegal border crossing.

Also, you can't call someone a refugee if the country they are fleeing is... France. You know, a safe first-world country with same standard of living as the UK and much nicer climate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/7/2021 at 9:00 PM, Rippounet said:

You keep missing the point, don't you? Almost all the other EU countries did it. Britain was the one major country that didn't.

Again the point you raised was that DIRECTIVE 2004/38/EC  Chapter 6 could be used by countries to restrict access to their country, so which countries have used that specifically to remove citizens from their country. It doesn't seem to be any sort of alternative from my perspective, but if it is then I'd be interested to know where it's been used. You then cited Liechtenstein as a country that found an exemption to free movement of people, which you must sure understand is not comparable to the UK in any sort of way. So what point am I missing?

Most of this seems to be about rejecting immigrants who are not claiming work and who are sponging off the system, but again, this is just the point I made earlier, its a bit of a strawman, most EU immigrants came over and got work and weren't just sitting around claiming benefits. So I don't see how this is relevant.

 

On 9/7/2021 at 9:00 PM, Rippounet said:

Did it now?
You might want to double-check this.

No, sorry, its true. Cameron was totally handed his arse on a plate in regards to asking for an 'emergency brake', he was forced into a humilating back peddling and came back with a completely watered down response that ended up being one of the direct reasons for the referendum being held in the first place.

Cameron pins Brexit on EU failure to grant UK brake on migration

Quote

French officials said Mr Cameron insisted that he could have won last week’s referendum had EU leaders granted him an “emergency brake” on migration which, he said, was “a driving factor” behind the Out vote.


Iain Duncan Smith: Cameron let Germans veto 'emergency brake'
 

Quote

Germany’s resistance to the policy was reported at the time of the renegotiation, but the former work and pensions secretary detailed what he said took place, claiming the emergency brake was included in a draft of a speech by Cameron hours before it was due to be delivered.

“I saw the draft,” he told the Sun. “I know that right up until the midnight hour, there was a strong line in there about restricting the flow of migrants from the European Union – an emergency brake on overall migration.

That was dropped, literally the night before. And it was dropped because the Germans said if that is in the speech, we will have to attack it.

Duncan Smith said it was the Germans’ warning that Britain simply would not be given border control that led to Cameron watering down his language and conceding that freedom of movement was a central principle of the EU that could not be tampered with.

“It’s like they were sitting in a room, even when they were not there. There was a spare chair for them – called the German chair. They have had a de facto veto over everything.”


 

Edited by Heartofice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Gorn said:

Based on comments in this thread, you would think she was sending migrants to death camps to be gassed, instead of slightly inconveniencing their illegal border crossing.

Also, you can't call someone a refugee if the country they are fleeing is... France. You know, a safe first-world country with same standard of living as the UK and much nicer climate.

Its also worth noting there are legal means of applying for asylum in this country, and if you consider that those who are trying to get in illegally are actually just trying to jump the queue and get ahead of people who are trying to do it the right way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It must be great, I mean, really fucking life affirming, being a Tory supporter.

Whether it's wrecking the economy with their Brexit insanity, robbing the young to care for the old, robbing the poor to give to their chums, ignoring the climate emergency to make themselves richer, blatantly lying about every single fucking thing they do, or stripping the public of the right to protest their bullshit, it's just win win win.

Must give you such a warm fuzzy feeling inside, eh?

Well, congratulations for helping make the world a much, much shittier place. Well done.

 

Edited by Spockydog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Duncan Smith said it was the Germans’ warning that Britain simply would not be given border control that led to Cameron watering down his language and conceding that freedom of movement was a central principle of the EU that could not be tampered with.

This little piece just shoes how clueless they were and still are. Freedom of movement *is* one of the central principles. And as @Rippounet patently tries to explain, it is their clueless or deliberate implementation that has lead to this situation. But yeah, flinging shit at Brussels, Paris and Berlin is always a good option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Again the point you raised was that DIRECTIVE 2004/38/EC  Chapter 6 could be used by countries to restrict access to their country, so which countries have used that specifically to remove citizens from their country.

All. EU. Countries. Save. The UK. Ireland. Sweden.
France did it for five years for instance. For five years, French authorities removed EU citizens that did not comply with the rules in place.

You are asking me which countries used DIRECTIVE 2004/38/EC to solve what you see as a problem. I've been telling you, again, again, and again, that almost all EU countries used DIRECTIVE 2004/38/EC to not have the problem in the first place.

That's how the EU works: you have three months to "remove" people. After that it's too late.
Edit: not that "removing" people is that much easier outside the EU imho. You can't kick out the people you've already welcomed.
 

2 hours ago, Heartofice said:

No, sorry, its true. Cameron was totally handed his arse on a plate in regards to asking for an 'emergency brake', he was forced into a humilating back peddling and came back with a completely watered down response

Well, if we bear in mind that Cameron was asking for special treatment in order for Britain to solve a problem of its own making that it was too late to save, I'd say he got everything he could get.
I mean, what was the EU supposed to do?

Edited by Rippounet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

All. EU. Countries. Save. The UK. Ireland. Sweden.
France did it for five years for instance. For five years, French authorities removed EU citizens that did not comply with the rules in place.

You are asking me which countries used DIRECTIVE 2004/38/EC to solve what you see as a problem. I've been telling you, again, again, and again, that almost all EU countries used DIRECTIVE 2004/38/EC to not have the problem in the first place.

Again, you keep saying this, but how many people were ejected? And why is it relevant if as I've said repeatedly, immigrants are arriving in the country ALREADY having jobs, or able to pick up work within those 3 months. I feel like you are deliberately ignoring the point I've been making over and over.

From article 6. 

Quote

All Union citizens shall have the right of residence on the territory of another Member State for a period of longer than three months if they: (a) are workers or self-employed persons in the host Member State; or (b) have sufficient resources for themselves and their family members not to become a burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State during their period of residence and have comprehensive sickness insurance cover in the host Member State; or (c) – are enrolled at a private or public establishment, accredited or financed by the host Member State on the basis of its legislation or administrative practice, for the principal purpose of following a course of study, including vocational training; and – have comprehensive sickness insurance cover in the host Member State and assure the relevant national authority, by means of a declaration or by such equivalent means as they may choose, that they have sufficient resources for themselves and their family members not to become a burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State during their period of residence; or 30.4.2004 EN Official Journal of the European Union L 158/ _______________________________________________________________________________ 94 (d) are family members accompanying or joining a Union citizen who satisfies the conditions referred to in points (a), (b) or (c).

So what if a huge majority of immigrants satisfy those criteria? What happens then? How does it have any effect? 

How does this have any real tangible effect on EU immigration into the UK? 
 

33 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Well, if we bear in mind that Cameron was asking for special treatment in order for Britain to solve a problem of its own making that it was too late to save, I'd say he got everything he could get.
I mean, what was the EU supposed to do?

Oh right so it did happen then?

Was what he was asking for unreasonable? The EU completely underestimated how this would play in the UK, thinking that triggering article 50 would be inconceivable, so stuck their guns. Not even understanding that at this stage is maybe the reason we are where we are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. The reason we are where we are today is because a bunch of gullible morons slurped deep on Gove & Johnson's Koolaid.

 

Edited by Spockydog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

Oh right so it did happen then?

Was what he was asking for unreasonable? The EU completely underestimated how this would play in the UK, thinking that triggering article 50 would be inconceivable, so stuck their guns. Not even understanding that at this stage is maybe the reason we are where we are.

I will give you that. The EU (what you are actually saying here is the other partners in the EU, a body of which the UK was a member at this point) underestimated that threat. But I have to confess. The last time my kid threatened to hold her breath till I give in, I also didn't take that threat not to serious. But rest assured. My kid was smart enough to start breathing eventually. Question for the MDs in this forum: When you are low on oxygen, is it possible to see sunlit uplands with unicorns and so on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...