My mate thinks we can simply turn back people who arrive here
With the number of people crossing the English channel reaching 20k so
far this year, can anything legally be done to deport en masse the
people who arrive here, before their cases are assessed? I hasten to
add I have no issue with anyone arriving here after fleeing persecution, although I'm also mindful that isn't always the case. Given that there
are no safe routes into this country, the only option is to arrive here "illegally".
My mate thinks we can simply turn back people who arrive here and that
is exactly what Reform will do if they become the ruling party in 2029.
I'm convinced it isn't as simple as that. and would break some kind of international law if they were to do so. Is that the case or can
migrants be turned away immediately when they arrive here?
On Wed, 02 Jul 2025 11:54:36 +0100, John wrote:
My mate thinks we can simply turn back people who arrive here
Back to where ?
And if they should be in distress, how do we prevent any and all mariners from following the international obligation to aid such people wherever
they may be found ?
Generally, simple solutions are indicative of simple people, not a
guarantee of efficacy.
Fun fact: the only invasion of Britain to be opposed on the beaches was
in 55BC.
On 02/07/2025 14:53, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jul 2025 11:54:36 +0100, John wrote:
My mate thinks we can simply turn back people who arrive here
Back to where ?
And if they should be in distress, how do we prevent any and all mariners
from following the international obligation to aid such people wherever
they may be found ?
Generally, simple solutions are indicative of simple people, not a
guarantee of efficacy.
Fun fact: the only invasion of Britain to be opposed on the beaches was
in 55BC.
Regardless of any rights or wrongs, outrage or legal shenanigans, the
fact remains that Britain is already over-crowded and the illegals alone equate to the requirement of a new town each year. That of course
ignores the drain on resources and the issue of paying for it all.
SOMETHING has to be done. Frankly, I don't give a sausage if it breaks
some convenient international law or whatever, this is a genuine
emergency situation.
Regardless of any rights or wrongs, outrage or legal shenanigans, the
fact remains that Britain is already over-crowded and the illegals alone
equate to the requirement of a new town each year. That of course
ignores the drain on resources and the issue of paying for it all.
SOMETHING has to be done. Frankly, I don't give a sausage if it breaks
some convenient international law or whatever, this is a genuine
emergency situation.
No it isn't. And we need more immigration, not less. Solving the
situation would be very easy - provide safe and legal routes,
and process claims promptly.
On 02/07/2025 19:33, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Regardless of any rights or wrongs, outrage or legal shenanigans, the
fact remains that Britain is already over-crowded and the illegals alone >>> equate to the requirement of a new town each year. That of course
ignores the drain on resources and the issue of paying for it all.
SOMETHING has to be done. Frankly, I don't give a sausage if it breaks
some convenient international law or whatever, this is a genuine
emergency situation.
No it isn't. And we need more immigration, not less. Solving the
situation would be very easy - provide safe and legal routes,
and process claims promptly.
No we do NOT require any further drain on our resources (particularly education & NHS), neither is it desirable to concrete over valuable farm
land for a rapidly increasing population.
The tired old argument about quick processing would simply exacerbate
the situation.
I might have a little more sympathy with your stance if I could actually define the logic behind it, and if you could justify the expensive
priority treatment given to the uninvited such as hotel accommodation
and quick medical attention which some of our native homeless can only
dream of.
On 02/07/2025 19:33, Jon Ribbens wrote:
[quoted text muted]
They've made good progress on dealing with asylum claims, but smashing
the gangs has been problematic,
On 02/07/2025 14:53, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jul 2025 11:54:36 +0100, John wrote:
My mate thinks we can simply turn back people who arrive here
Back to where ?
France presumably, which I understand is something France would have to
agree with
On 02/07/2025 19:33, Jon Ribbens wrote:
No we do NOT require any further drain on our resources (particularly education & NHS),
Regardless of any rights or wrongs, outrage or legal shenanigans, the
fact remains that Britain is already over-crowded and the illegals alone >>> equate to the requirement of a new town each year. That of course
ignores the drain on resources and the issue of paying for it all.
SOMETHING has to be done. Frankly, I don't give a sausage if it breaks
some convenient international law or whatever, this is a genuine
emergency situation.
No it isn't. And we need more immigration, not less. Solving the
situation would be very easy - provide safe and legal routes,
and process claims promptly.
neither is it desirable to concrete over valuable farm
land for a rapidly increasing population.
The tired old argument about quick processing would simply exacerbate
the situation.
I might have a little more sympathy with your stance if I could actually define the logic behind it, and if you could justify the expensive
priority treatment given to the uninvited such as hotel accommodation
and quick medical attention which some of our native homeless can only
dream of.
On 02/07/2025 19:33, Jon Ribbens wrote:
No we do NOT require any further drain on our resources (particularly education & NHS), neither is it desirable to concrete over valuable farm
Regardless of any rights or wrongs, outrage or legal shenanigans, the
fact remains that Britain is already over-crowded and the illegals alone >>> equate to the requirement of a new town each year. That of course
ignores the drain on resources and the issue of paying for it all.
SOMETHING has to be done. Frankly, I don't give a sausage if it breaks
some convenient international law or whatever, this is a genuine
emergency situation.
No it isn't. And we need more immigration, not less. Solving the
situation would be very easy - provide safe and legal routes,
and process claims promptly.
land for a rapidly increasing population.
The tired old argument about quick processing would simply exacerbate
the situation.
I might have a little more sympathy with your stance if I could actually define the logic behind it, and if you could justify the expensive
priority treatment given to the uninvited such as hotel accommodation
and quick medical attention which some of our native homeless can only
dream of.
On 02/07/2025 19:33, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-02, Les. Hayward <les@nospam.invalid> wrote:
On 02/07/2025 14:53, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jul 2025 11:54:36 +0100, John wrote:
My mate thinks we can simply turn back people who arrive here
Back to where ?
And if they should be in distress, how do we prevent any and all mariners >>>> from following the international obligation to aid such people wherever >>>> they may be found ?
Generally, simple solutions are indicative of simple people, not a
guarantee of efficacy.
Fun fact: the only invasion of Britain to be opposed on the beaches was >>>> in 55BC.
Regardless of any rights or wrongs, outrage or legal shenanigans, the
fact remains that Britain is already over-crowded and the illegals alone >>> equate to the requirement of a new town each year. That of course
ignores the drain on resources and the issue of paying for it all.
SOMETHING has to be done. Frankly, I don't give a sausage if it breaks
some convenient international law or whatever, this is a genuine
emergency situation.
No it isn't. And we need more immigration, not less. Solving the
situation would be very easy - provide safe and legal routes,
and process claims promptly.
They've made good progress on dealing with asylum claims, but smashing
the gangs has been problematic, as the gangmasters just change tactics,
so it's a whack a mole situation in that respect.
Safe routes is certainly part of the answer imo.
On 2 Jul 2025 at 22:45:14 BST, "Les. Hayward" wrote:
On 02/07/2025 19:33, Jon Ribbens wrote:
No we do NOT require any further drain on our resources (particularly
Regardless of any rights or wrongs, outrage or legal shenanigans, the
fact remains that Britain is already over-crowded and the illegals alone >>>> equate to the requirement of a new town each year. That of course
ignores the drain on resources and the issue of paying for it all.
SOMETHING has to be done. Frankly, I don't give a sausage if it breaks >>>> some convenient international law or whatever, this is a genuine
emergency situation.
No it isn't. And we need more immigration, not less. Solving the
situation would be very easy - provide safe and legal routes,
and process claims promptly.
education & NHS),
No. You could usefully read:
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-fiscal-impact-of-immigration-in-the-uk/
neither is it desirable to concrete over valuable farm
land for a rapidly increasing population.
The tired old argument about quick processing would simply exacerbate
the situation.
The housing problem isn't so much about supply - more affordability, quality, and patterns of ownership.
I might have a little more sympathy with your stance if I could actually
define the logic behind it, and if you could justify the expensive
priority treatment given to the uninvited such as hotel accommodation
and quick medical attention which some of our native homeless can only
dream of.
That does sound to be from the Reform playbook. Do you have a source for that conclusion?
On 03/07/2025 07:52, RJH wrote:
On 2 Jul 2025 at 22:45:14 BST, "Les. Hayward" wrote:
On 02/07/2025 19:33, Jon Ribbens wrote:
No we do NOT require any further drain on our resources (particularly
Regardless of any rights or wrongs, outrage or legal shenanigans, the >>>>> fact remains that Britain is already over-crowded and the illegals
alone
equate to the requirement of a new town each year. That of course
ignores the drain on resources and the issue of paying for it all.
SOMETHING has to be done. Frankly, I don't give a sausage if it breaks >>>>> some convenient international law or whatever, this is a genuine
emergency situation.
No it isn't. And we need more immigration, not less. Solving the
situation would be very easy - provide safe and legal routes,
and process claims promptly.
education & NHS),
No. You could usefully read:
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-fiscal-
impact-of-immigration-in-the-uk/
neither is it desirable to concrete over valuable farm
land for a rapidly increasing population.
The tired old argument about quick processing would simply exacerbate
the situation.
The housing problem isn't so much about supply - more affordability,
quality,
and patterns of ownership.
I might have a little more sympathy with your stance if I could actually >>> define the logic behind it, and if you could justify the expensive
priority treatment given to the uninvited such as hotel accommodation
and quick medical attention which some of our native homeless can only
dream of.
That does sound to be from the Reform playbook. Do you have a source
for that
conclusion?
Well, the Reform playbook might have got it right then. There are plenty
of reports (some even from government) reporting across a wide range of media, and individual accounts.
Your comment regarding housing does not add up. 10,000 additional
families will require 10,000 additional dwellings. Regardless of cost or quality, it is simple arithmetic.
On 2 Jul 2025 at 22:45:14 BST, "Les. Hayward" wrote:
On 02/07/2025 19:33, Jon Ribbens wrote:
No we do NOT require any further drain on our resources (particularly
Regardless of any rights or wrongs, outrage or legal shenanigans, the
fact remains that Britain is already over-crowded and the illegals alone >>>> equate to the requirement of a new town each year. That of course
ignores the drain on resources and the issue of paying for it all.
SOMETHING has to be done. Frankly, I don't give a sausage if it breaks >>>> some convenient international law or whatever, this is a genuine
emergency situation.
No it isn't. And we need more immigration, not less. Solving the
situation would be very easy - provide safe and legal routes,
and process claims promptly.
education & NHS),
No. You could usefully read:
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-fiscal-impact-of-immigration-in-the-uk/
neither is it desirable to concrete over valuable farm
land for a rapidly increasing population.
The tired old argument about quick processing would simply exacerbate
the situation.
The housing problem isn't so much about supply - more affordability, quality, and patterns of ownership.
I might have a little more sympathy with your stance if I could actually
define the logic behind it, and if you could justify the expensive
priority treatment given to the uninvited such as hotel accommodation
and quick medical attention which some of our native homeless can only
dream of.
That does sound to be from the Reform playbook. Do you have a source for that conclusion?
On 02/07/2025 11:54, John wrote:
With the number of people crossing the English channel reaching 20k so
far this year, can anything legally be done to deport en masse the
people who arrive here, before their cases are assessed? I hasten to
add I have no issue with anyone arriving here after fleeing persecution,
although I'm also mindful that isn't always the case. Given that there
are no safe routes into this country, the only option is to arrive here
"illegally".
My mate thinks we can simply turn back people who arrive here and that
is exactly what Reform will do if they become the ruling party in 2029.
I'm convinced it isn't as simple as that. and would break some kind of
international law if they were to do so. Is that the case or can
migrants be turned away immediately when they arrive here?
What's the issue? Perhaps we should have an office in Calais giving away short term asylum seeker visas and a tick for the ferry.
With the number of people crossing the English channel reaching 20k so
far this year, can anything legally be done to deport en masse the
people who arrive here, before their cases are assessed? I hasten to
add I have no issue with anyone arriving here after fleeing persecution, although I'm also mindful that isn't always the case. Given that there
are no safe routes into this country, the only option is to arrive here "illegally".
My mate thinks we can simply turn back people who arrive here and that
is exactly what Reform will do if they become the ruling party in 2029.
I'm convinced it isn't as simple as that. and would break some kind of international law if they were to do so. Is that the case or can
migrants be turned away immediately when they arrive here?
Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
What's the issue? Perhaps we should have an office in Calais giving
away short term asylum seeker visas and a tick for the ferry.
Better still, the government could rent luxury cruise liners, and sail
them along the coast of North Africa picking up economic migrants as
they go. Offices set up on board could issue British passports, so that
when the liners dock in the UK there won’t be any problems of entry,
also issuing clothes, money, and chits for pre-booked hotel rooms. It
will be so safe, we will be the envy of the world.
On 4 Jul 2025 07:48:20 GMT, Spike wrote:
Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
What's the issue? Perhaps we should have an office in Calais giving
away short term asylum seeker visas and a tick for the ferry.
Better still, the government could rent luxury cruise liners, and sail
them along the coast of North Africa picking up economic migrants as
they go. Offices set up on board could issue British passports, so that
when the liners dock in the UK there won’t be any problems of entry,
also issuing clothes, money, and chits for pre-booked hotel rooms. It
will be so safe, we will be the envy of the world.
And every single one of these people will be skilled, hard-working, law- abiding net contributors to the British economy. They'll bring their own houses, jobs, schools, doctors and roads with them so there won't be any problem there. It's been scientifically proven by experts in lab coats at London University.
On 03/07/2025 07:52, RJH wrote:
On 2 Jul 2025 at 22:45:14 BST, "Les. Hayward" wrote:
On 02/07/2025 19:33, Jon Ribbens wrote:
No we do NOT require any further drain on our resources (particularly
Regardless of any rights or wrongs, outrage or legal shenanigans, the >>>>> fact remains that Britain is already over-crowded and the illegals alone >>>>> equate to the requirement of a new town each year. That of course
ignores the drain on resources and the issue of paying for it all.
SOMETHING has to be done. Frankly, I don't give a sausage if it breaks >>>>> some convenient international law or whatever, this is a genuine
emergency situation.
No it isn't. And we need more immigration, not less. Solving the
situation would be very easy - provide safe and legal routes,
and process claims promptly.
education & NHS),
No. You could usefully read:
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-fiscal-impact-of-immigration-in-the-uk/
neither is it desirable to concrete over valuable farm
land for a rapidly increasing population.
The tired old argument about quick processing would simply exacerbate
the situation.
The housing problem isn't so much about supply - more affordability, quality,
and patterns of ownership.
I might have a little more sympathy with your stance if I could actually >>> define the logic behind it, and if you could justify the expensive
priority treatment given to the uninvited such as hotel accommodation
and quick medical attention which some of our native homeless can only
dream of.
That does sound to be from the Reform playbook. Do you have a source for that
conclusion?
Well, the Reform playbook might have got it right then. There are plenty
of reports (some even from government) reporting across a wide range of media, and individual accounts.
Your comment regarding housing does not add up. 10,000 additional
families will require 10,000 additional dwellings. Regardless of cost or quality, it is simple arithmetic.
On 04/07/2025 09:59 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-04, Handsome Jack <jack@handsome.com> wrote:
On 4 Jul 2025 07:48:20 GMT, Spike wrote:
Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
What's the issue? Perhaps we should have an office in Calais giving
away short term asylum seeker visas and a tick for the ferry.
Better still, the government could rent luxury cruise liners, and sail >>>> them along the coast of North Africa picking up economic migrants as
they go. Offices set up on board could issue British passports, so that >>>> when the liners dock in the UK there won’t be any problems of entry, >>>> also issuing clothes, money, and chits for pre-booked hotel rooms. It
will be so safe, we will be the envy of the world.
And every single one of these people will be skilled, hard-working, law- >>> abiding net contributors to the British economy. They'll bring their own >>> houses, jobs, schools, doctors and roads with them so there won't be any >>> problem there. It's been scientifically proven by experts in lab coats at >>> London University.
That sounds very unlikely. I think you've been misled by some propaganda
there my friend.
That's a bit of a "Whoosh!", isn't it?
On 2025-07-04, Handsome Jack <jack@handsome.com> wrote:
On 4 Jul 2025 07:48:20 GMT, Spike wrote:
Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
What's the issue? Perhaps we should have an office in Calais giving
away short term asylum seeker visas and a tick for the ferry.
Better still, the government could rent luxury cruise liners, and sail
them along the coast of North Africa picking up economic migrants as
they go. Offices set up on board could issue British passports, so that
when the liners dock in the UK there won’t be any problems of entry,
also issuing clothes, money, and chits for pre-booked hotel rooms. It
will be so safe, we will be the envy of the world.
And every single one of these people will be skilled, hard-working, law-
abiding net contributors to the British economy. They'll bring their own
houses, jobs, schools, doctors and roads with them so there won't be any
problem there. It's been scientifically proven by experts in lab coats at
London University.
That sounds very unlikely. I think you've been misled by some propaganda there my friend.
On 2025-07-04, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 04/07/2025 09:59 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-04, Handsome Jack <jack@handsome.com> wrote:
On 4 Jul 2025 07:48:20 GMT, Spike wrote:
Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
What's the issue? Perhaps we should have an office in Calais giving >>>>>> away short term asylum seeker visas and a tick for the ferry.
Better still, the government could rent luxury cruise liners, and sail >>>>> them along the coast of North Africa picking up economic migrants as >>>>> they go. Offices set up on board could issue British passports, so that >>>>> when the liners dock in the UK there won’t be any problems of entry, >>>>> also issuing clothes, money, and chits for pre-booked hotel rooms. It >>>>> will be so safe, we will be the envy of the world.
And every single one of these people will be skilled, hard-working, law- >>>> abiding net contributors to the British economy. They'll bring their own >>>> houses, jobs, schools, doctors and roads with them so there won't be any >>>> problem there. It's been scientifically proven by experts in lab coats at >>>> London University.
That sounds very unlikely. I think you've been misled by some propaganda >>> there my friend.
That's a bit of a "Whoosh!", isn't it?
Of you, apparently, yes.
John <megane.06@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/07/2025 19:33, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-02, Les. Hayward <les@nospam.invalid> wrote:
On 02/07/2025 14:53, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jul 2025 11:54:36 +0100, John wrote:
My mate thinks we can simply turn back people who arrive here
Back to where ?
And if they should be in distress, how do we prevent any and all
mariners from following the international obligation to aid such
people wherever they may be found ?
Generally, simple solutions are indicative of simple people, not
a guarantee of efficacy.
Fun fact: the only invasion of Britain to be opposed on the
beaches was in 55BC.
Regardless of any rights or wrongs, outrage or legal shenanigans,
the fact remains that Britain is already over-crowded and the
illegals alone equate to the requirement of a new town each year.
That of course ignores the drain on resources and the issue of
paying for it all.
SOMETHING has to be done. Frankly, I don't give a sausage if it
breaks some convenient international law or whatever, this is a
genuine emergency situation.
No it isn't. And we need more immigration, not less. Solving the
situation would be very easy - provide safe and legal routes,
and process claims promptly.
They've made good progress on dealing with asylum claims, but
smashing the gangs has been problematic, as the gangmasters just
change tactics, so it's a whack a mole situation in that respect.
Safe routes is certainly part of the answer imo.
All the internal EU routes are safe, once having crossed the
Mediterranean to Spain, Italy or Greece. Travel through those
countries, and France and Germany, is safe.
The real question is why these economies migrants ignore the
opportunities of these countries, in order to pay £thousands to
criminals to get on a dangerous, flimsy and overcrowded rubber boat
to come here. I doubt our hotels are better than those in the EU.
Perhaps towing the boats back to France might help, or to West
Falkland or South Georgia for processing might break the business
model.
Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 02/07/2025 11:54, John wrote:
With the number of people crossing the English channel reaching 20k so
far this year, can anything legally be done to deport en masse the
people who arrive here, before their cases are assessed? I hasten to
add I have no issue with anyone arriving here after fleeing persecution, >>> although I'm also mindful that isn't always the case. Given that there >>> are no safe routes into this country, the only option is to arrive here
"illegally".
My mate thinks we can simply turn back people who arrive here and that
is exactly what Reform will do if they become the ruling party in 2029.
I'm convinced it isn't as simple as that. and would break some kind of
international law if they were to do so. Is that the case or can
migrants be turned away immediately when they arrive here?
What's the issue? Perhaps we should have an office in Calais giving away
short term asylum seeker visas and a tick for the ferry.
Better still, the government could rent luxury cruise liners
On 3 Jul 2025 09:09:47 GMT Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]The advantage of sending people to The Falklands is that, when Starmer
gives them away to Argentina, as part of his plan to rid the UK of all
its pesky 'Colonial' territories,
As expected some ridicule the efforts and risk asylum seekers make on
their journey to the UK.
On Fri, 04 Jul 2025 23:17:22 +0100, Davey wrote:
On 3 Jul 2025 09:09:47 GMT Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]The advantage of sending people to The Falklands is that, when Starmer
gives them away to Argentina, as part of his plan to rid the UK of all
its pesky 'Colonial' territories,
Nothing wrong with that.
On 04/07/2025 08:48, Spike wrote:
Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 02/07/2025 11:54, John wrote:
With the number of people crossing the English channel reaching 20k so >>>> far this year, can anything legally be done to deport en masse the
people who arrive here, before their cases are assessed? I hasten to >>>> add I have no issue with anyone arriving here after fleeing persecution, >>>> although I'm also mindful that isn't always the case. Given that there >>>> are no safe routes into this country, the only option is to arrive here >>>> "illegally".
My mate thinks we can simply turn back people who arrive here and that >>>> is exactly what Reform will do if they become the ruling party in 2029. >>>> I'm convinced it isn't as simple as that. and would break some kind of >>>> international law if they were to do so. Is that the case or can
migrants be turned away immediately when they arrive here?
What's the issue? Perhaps we should have an office in Calais giving away >>> short term asylum seeker visas and a tick for the ferry.
Better still, the government could rent luxury cruise liners
As expected some ridicule the efforts and risk asylum seekers make on
their journey to the UK.
The difference between a ferry and a luxury liner is beyond confusion
and entering chip on shoulder territory.
On 4 Jul 2025 07:48:20 GMT, Spike wrote:
Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
What's the issue? Perhaps we should have an office in Calais giving
away short term asylum seeker visas and a tick for the ferry.
Better still, the government could rent luxury cruise liners, and sail
them along the coast of North Africa picking up economic migrants as
they go. Offices set up on board could issue British passports, so that
when the liners dock in the UK there won’t be any problems of entry,
also issuing clothes, money, and chits for pre-booked hotel rooms. It
will be so safe, we will be the envy of the world.
And every single one of these people will be skilled, hard-working, law- abiding net contributors to the British economy. They'll bring their own houses, jobs, schools, doctors and roads with them so there won't be any problem there. It's been scientifically proven by experts in lab coats at London University.
Apropos of this, I see the French police have slashed a dingy set to
depart La Belle France
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5ygjjxjlplo
On 05/07/2025 09:57, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jul 2025 23:17:22 +0100, Davey wrote:
On 3 Jul 2025 09:09:47 GMT Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]The advantage of sending people to The Falklands is that, when Starmer
gives them away to Argentina, as part of his plan to rid the UK of all
its pesky 'Colonial' territories,
Nothing wrong with that.
Unless of course, you happen to live there...
Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 04/07/2025 08:48, Spike wrote:
Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 02/07/2025 11:54, John wrote:
With the number of people crossing the English channel reaching 20k so >>>>> far this year, can anything legally be done to deport en masse the
people who arrive here, before their cases are assessed? I hasten to >>>>> add I have no issue with anyone arriving here after fleeing persecution, >>>>> although I'm also mindful that isn't always the case. Given that there >>>>> are no safe routes into this country, the only option is to arrive here >>>>> "illegally".
My mate thinks we can simply turn back people who arrive here and that >>>>> is exactly what Reform will do if they become the ruling party in 2029. >>>>> I'm convinced it isn't as simple as that. and would break some kind of >>>>> international law if they were to do so. Is that the case or can
migrants be turned away immediately when they arrive here?
What's the issue? Perhaps we should have an office in Calais giving away >>>> short term asylum seeker visas and a tick for the ferry.
Better still, the government could rent luxury cruise liners
As expected some ridicule the efforts and risk asylum seekers make on
their journey to the UK.
Actually, such people are asylum avoiders, having done so in the several countries through which they have passed and whose asylum systems they have studiously ignored. This makes them mere economic migrants.
The difference between a ferry and a luxury liner is beyond confusion
and entering chip on shoulder territory.
AI is having trouble parsing that sentence.
as part of his plan to rid the UK of all
its pesky 'Colonial' territories,
Better still, the government could rent luxury cruise liners, and sail them along the coast of North Africa picking up economic migrants as they go. Offices set up on board could issue British passports, so that when the liners dock in the UK there won’t be any problems of entry, also issuing clothes, money, and chits for pre-booked hotel rooms. It will be so safe,
we will be the envy of the world.
On Sat, 5 Jul 2025 10:56:42 -0000 (UTC)
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
as part of his plan to rid the UK of all
its pesky 'Colonial' territories,
As I said: " as part of his plan to rid the UK of all its pesky
'Colonial' territories'".
He appears to hate them as much as he hates the idea of private
schools, irrespective of their usefulness, who actually attends them,
and any opposing arguments.
It's the principal that counts, and if he can find an international law
or suggestion to justify his wish, so much the better, and there are 'opinions' in favour of relinquishing the Falklands, so he already has
that one ready to go.
On 2025-07-05, Davey <davey@example.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jul 2025 10:56:42 -0000 (UTC)
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
as part of his plan to rid the UK of all
its pesky 'Colonial' territories,
As I said: " as part of his plan to rid the UK of all its pesky
'Colonial' territories'".
He appears to hate them as much as he hates the idea of private
schools, irrespective of their usefulness, who actually attends
them, and any opposing arguments.
It's the principal that counts, and if he can find an international
law or suggestion to justify his wish, so much the better, and
there are 'opinions' in favour of relinquishing the Falklands, so
he already has that one ready to go.
Do you have any evidence whatsoever to support your opinion there?
On Sat, 5 Jul 2025 13:39:24 -0000 (UTC)
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-05, Davey <davey@example.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jul 2025 10:56:42 -0000 (UTC)
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
as part of his plan to rid the UK of all
its pesky 'Colonial' territories,
As I said: " as part of his plan to rid the UK of all its pesky
'Colonial' territories'".
He appears to hate them as much as he hates the idea of private
schools, irrespective of their usefulness, who actually attends
them, and any opposing arguments.
It's the principal that counts, and if he can find an international
law or suggestion to justify his wish, so much the better, and
there are 'opinions' in favour of relinquishing the Falklands, so
he already has that one ready to go.
Do you have any evidence whatsoever to support your opinion there?
His behaviour to date.
The housing problem isn't so much about supply - more affordability, quality, and patterns of ownership.
On 2025-07-05, Les. Hayward <les@nospam.invalid> wrote:
On 05/07/2025 09:57, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jul 2025 23:17:22 +0100, Davey wrote:
On 3 Jul 2025 09:09:47 GMT Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]The advantage of sending people to The Falklands is that, when Starmer >>>> gives them away to Argentina, as part of his plan to rid the UK of all >>>> its pesky 'Colonial' territories,
Nothing wrong with that.
Unless of course, you happen to live there...
Do you have any reason whatsoever to suppose that Starmer is going to
"give away" the Falkland Islands?
Unlike the Chagos Islands - which the International Court of Justice
had determined belonged to Mauritius, and which the Tory government
was already engaged in advanced negotiations for the return of - there
is very little pressure on the UK to give away the Falkland Islands.
There are no indiginous people clamouring for return or self-government.
The people who live there almost unanimously want to be British. There
is only the flimsiest of legal arguments that they should be governed by Argentina. There is no moral argument that they should not be governed
by the UK.
The far-right rags would absolutely crucify Starmer if he handed the
Falkland Islands to Argentina and there's no reason whatsoever for him
to want to do so. So why would he do that?
On 2025-07-05, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 04/07/2025 08:48, Spike wrote:
Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 02/07/2025 11:54, John wrote:
With the number of people crossing the English channel reaching 20k so >>>>>> far this year, can anything legally be done to deport en masse the >>>>>> people who arrive here, before their cases are assessed? I hasten to >>>>>> add I have no issue with anyone arriving here after fleeing persecution, >>>>>> although I'm also mindful that isn't always the case. Given that there >>>>>> are no safe routes into this country, the only option is to arrive here >>>>>> "illegally".
My mate thinks we can simply turn back people who arrive here and that >>>>>> is exactly what Reform will do if they become the ruling party in 2029. >>>>>> I'm convinced it isn't as simple as that. and would break some kind of >>>>>> international law if they were to do so. Is that the case or can >>>>>> migrants be turned away immediately when they arrive here?
What's the issue? Perhaps we should have an office in Calais giving away >>>>> short term asylum seeker visas and a tick for the ferry.
Better still, the government could rent luxury cruise liners
As expected some ridicule the efforts and risk asylum seekers make on
their journey to the UK.
Actually, such people are asylum avoiders, having done so in the several
countries through which they have passed and whose asylum systems they have >> studiously ignored. This makes them mere economic migrants.
Not legally it doesn't.
The difference between a ferry and a luxury liner is beyond confusion
and entering chip on shoulder territory.
AI is having trouble parsing that sentence.
I recommend the use of Human Intelligence instead.
On 2025-07-05, Davey <davey@example.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jul 2025 10:56:42 -0000 (UTC)
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
as part of his plan to rid the UK of all
its pesky 'Colonial' territories,
As I said: " as part of his plan to rid the UK of all its pesky
'Colonial' territories'".
He appears to hate them as much as he hates the idea of private
schools, irrespective of their usefulness, who actually attends them,
and any opposing arguments.
It's the principal that counts, and if he can find an international law
or suggestion to justify his wish, so much the better, and there are
'opinions' in favour of relinquishing the Falklands, so he already has
that one ready to go.
Do you have any evidence whatsoever to support your opinion there?
I notice that you've got nothing to counter the points I made.
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-05, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 04/07/2025 08:48, Spike wrote:
Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
As expected some ridicule the efforts and risk asylum seekers make on
their journey to the UK.
Actually, such people are asylum avoiders, having done so in the several >>> countries through which they have passed and whose asylum systems
they have studiously ignored. This makes them mere economic migrants.
Not legally it doesn't.
‘The law’ is merely dependent on the stroke of a pen. It isn’t physics, after all, it’s something made by humans. It’s fallible, it gets ignored, it gets outdated.
How many laws are there? How many get ignored? How many are outdated? Is there still a law about using makeup to “deceive an Englishman into marriage” which was “punishable as witchcraft”?
The difference between a ferry and a luxury liner is beyond confusion
and entering chip on shoulder territory.
AI is having trouble parsing that sentence.
I recommend the use of Human Intelligence instead.
Please feel free to demonstrate same.
On 5 Jul 2025 at 14:39:24 BST, "Jon Ribbens"
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-05, Davey <davey@example.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jul 2025 10:56:42 -0000 (UTC)
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
as part of his plan to rid the UK of all
its pesky 'Colonial' territories,
As I said: " as part of his plan to rid the UK of all its pesky
'Colonial' territories'".
He appears to hate them as much as he hates the idea of private
schools, irrespective of their usefulness, who actually attends
them, and any opposing arguments.
It's the principal that counts, and if he can find an
international law or suggestion to justify his wish, so much the
better, and there are 'opinions' in favour of relinquishing the
Falklands, so he already has that one ready to go.
Do you have any evidence whatsoever to support your opinion there?
I notice that you've got nothing to counter the points I made.
I think it is worth noting for confused party-political partisans
that it was the previous government that set in motion the current negotiatios to hand back the Chagos Islands. Also that the US has no intentions at all of handing them back, the only concession to
Mauritian sovereignty being the payment of rent. So the fuss about
the Chagos Islands is a rather silly party political point. There's
plenty of things one can object to about Starmer, but this really
isn't one of them.
On 03/07/2025 12:05, The Todal wrote:
Reform is, of course, a one-trick pony. They would have us believe that
all the nation's problems can be solved simply by reducing immigration.
And maybe by liberalising the no-smoking rules in pubs.
My original question was in relation to what Reform will do. If they do
get into power in 2029, can they legally deport the "illegals" as soon
as they arrive? I don't think they can, in fact I'm almost sure they
can't, but this is the premise they are promising the voters, and people
like my mate are swallowing the premise hook, line and sinker.
It is to process their applications speedily and then if they have the
right to live and work here, let them have jobs.
The Todal wrote:
It is to process their applications speedily and then if they have the
right to live and work here, let them have jobs.
Doesn't that argument degrade to "heads you can stay, tails we can't
make you go back"?
My original question was in relation to what Reform will do. If they do
get into power in 2029, can they legally deport the "illegals" as soon
as they arrive? I don't think they can, in fact I'm almost sure they
can't, but this is the premise they are promising the voters, and people
like my mate are swallowing the premise hook, line and sinker.
On 2025-07-06, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
The Todal wrote:
It is to process their applications speedily and then if they have the
right to live and work here, let them have jobs.
Doesn't that argument degrade to "heads you can stay, tails we can't
make you go back"?
No? If their application has been processed and rejected then I would
think that pretty much by definition there is somewhere we can send them
to.
On 06/07/2025 15:04, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-06, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
The Todal wrote:
It is to process their applications speedily and then if they have the >>>> right to live and work here, let them have jobs.
Doesn't that argument degrade to "heads you can stay, tails we can't
make you go back"?
No? If their application has been processed and rejected then I would
think that pretty much by definition there is somewhere we can send them
to.
So, where do you send a migrant who has thrown any documentation away
and there is no evidence of his nationality or whence he came?
I gather that's a common tactic for economic migrants to use.
On 06/07/2025 15:30, Norman Wells wrote:
On 06/07/2025 15:04, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-06, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
The Todal wrote:
It is to process their applications speedily and then if they have the >>>>> right to live and work here, let them have jobs.
Doesn't that argument degrade to "heads you can stay, tails we can't
make you go back"?
No? If their application has been processed and rejected then I would
think that pretty much by definition there is somewhere we can send them >>> to.
So, where do you send a migrant who has thrown any documentation away
and there is no evidence of his nationality or whence he came?
I gather that's a common tactic for economic migrants to use.
The onus is on the asylum seeker to say who they are and provide
evidence why they are in danger if they are sent back.
Throwing away their documentation is hardly going to help their case, is
it?
On 06/07/2025 16:15, Fredxx wrote:
On 06/07/2025 15:30, Norman Wells wrote:
On 06/07/2025 15:04, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-06, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
The Todal wrote:
It is to process their applications speedily and then if they have >>>>>> the
right to live and work here, let them have jobs.
Doesn't that argument degrade to "heads you can stay, tails we can't >>>>> make you go back"?
No? If their application has been processed and rejected then I would
think that pretty much by definition there is somewhere we can send
them
to.
So, where do you send a migrant who has thrown any documentation away
and there is no evidence of his nationality or whence he came?
I gather that's a common tactic for economic migrants to use.
The onus is on the asylum seeker to say who they are and provide
evidence why they are in danger if they are sent back.
Throwing away their documentation is hardly going to help their case,
is it?
Well, where do you send him back to? That was the question.
On 06/07/2025 12:53, John wrote:
My original question was in relation to what Reform will do. If they
do get into power in 2029, can they legally deport the "illegals" as
soon as they arrive? I don't think they can, in fact I'm almost sure
they can't, but this is the premise they are promising the voters, and
people like my mate are swallowing the premise hook, line and sinker.
If they're in power, they make the laws. If the laws they make say they
can deport illegals as soon as they arrive then, as long as they have somewhere they can send them, they clearly can.
On 03/07/2025 07:52, RJH wrote:
<snip>
The housing problem isn't so much about supply - more affordability, quality,
and patterns of ownership.
Are you serious when you believe that the housing issue has nothing to
do with demand?
Affordability is precisely because supply doesn't match demand.
What pattern of ownership do you have in mind causing your alleged affordability and quality?
Op 06/07/2025 om 14:59 schreef Norman Wells:
On 06/07/2025 12:53, John wrote:
My original question was in relation to what Reform will do. If they
do get into power in 2029, can they legally deport the "illegals" as
soon as they arrive? I don't think they can, in fact I'm almost sure
they can't, but this is the premise they are promising the voters, and
people like my mate are swallowing the premise hook, line and sinker.
If they're in power, they make the laws. If the laws they make say they
can deport illegals as soon as they arrive then, as long as they have
somewhere they can send them, they clearly can.
How was Italy able to reduce illegal immigration by 60% without sending
them back immediately and even remaining in the EU? Something doesn't
add up here.
There's no doubt Reform will win the next GE, but how long are they
going to stay in power for?
On 5 Jul 2025 at 14:33:30 BST, Fredxx wrote:
On 03/07/2025 07:52, RJH wrote:I didn't suggest that? Affordability, quality and tenure/patterns of ownership are each, in part, demand-led.
<snip>
The housing problem isn't so much about supply - more affordability,
quality, and patterns of ownership.
Are you serious when you believe that the housing issue has nothing to
do with demand?
Affordability is precisely because supply doesn't match demand.
It could also be linked to income and access to finance, for example. As I say, it's less about supply as such - only recently, households outstripped units of housing.
What pattern of ownership do you have in mind causing your alleged
affordability and quality?
I don't follow the question. But on patterns of ownership - I suppose
I should correct that to 'occupation' - I think the system needs to be
tenure neutral. That is it's no more or less advantageous to live in
any particular tenure. Economically, obviously. But also socially,
with no stigma for example. Plenty of other countries come close.
I take it you'd like to keep building until demand is sated, and
pretty much everyone is in a decent, affordable, home? That simply
won't happen. It's been the plan since the early 80s and successive governments failed. It needs a fundamental change.
Op 06/07/2025 om 14:59 schreef Norman Wells:
On 06/07/2025 12:53, John wrote:
My original question was in relation to what Reform will do. If they
do get into power in 2029, can they legally deport the "illegals" as
soon as they arrive? I don't think they can, in fact I'm almost sure
they can't, but this is the premise they are promising the voters,
and people like my mate are swallowing the premise hook, line and
sinker.
If they're in power, they make the laws. If the laws they make say
they can deport illegals as soon as they arrive then, as long as they
have somewhere they can send them, they clearly can.
How was Italy able to reduce illegal immigration by 60% without sending
them back immediately and even remaining in the EU? Something doesn't
add up here.
There's no doubt Reform will win the next GE, but how long are they
going to stay in power for?
Part of the problem I think is that "demand" currently includes "people
who don't want a home at all but just want to use a property that
someone could be living in as an empty land-bank instead". If we made
that illegal or highly taxed then "demand" would drop.
On 2025-07-07, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
On 5 Jul 2025 at 14:33:30 BST, Fredxx wrote:
On 03/07/2025 07:52, RJH wrote:I didn't suggest that? Affordability, quality and tenure/patterns of
<snip>
The housing problem isn't so much about supply - more affordability,
quality, and patterns of ownership.
Are you serious when you believe that the housing issue has nothing to
do with demand?
ownership are each, in part, demand-led.
Affordability is precisely because supply doesn't match demand.
It could also be linked to income and access to finance, for example. As I >> say, it's less about supply as such - only recently, households outstripped >> units of housing.
What pattern of ownership do you have in mind causing your alleged
affordability and quality?
I don't follow the question. But on patterns of ownership - I suppose
I should correct that to 'occupation' - I think the system needs to be
tenure neutral. That is it's no more or less advantageous to live in
any particular tenure. Economically, obviously. But also socially,
with no stigma for example. Plenty of other countries come close.
I take it you'd like to keep building until demand is sated, and
pretty much everyone is in a decent, affordable, home? That simply
won't happen. It's been the plan since the early 80s and successive
governments failed. It needs a fundamental change.
Part of the problem I think is that "demand" currently includes "people
who don't want a home at all but just want to use a property that
someone could be living in as an empty land-bank instead". If we made
that illegal or highly taxed then "demand" would drop.
On 5 Jul 2025 at 14:33:30 BST, Fredxx wrote:
On 03/07/2025 07:52, RJH wrote:
<snip>
The housing problem isn't so much about supply - more affordability, quality,
and patterns of ownership.
Are you serious when you believe that the housing issue has nothing to
do with demand?
I didn't suggest that? Affordability, quality and tenure/patterns of ownership
are each, in part, demand-led.
Affordability is precisely because supply doesn't match demand.
It could also be linked to income and access to finance, for example. As I say, it's less about supply as such - only recently, households outstripped units of housing.
What pattern of ownership do you have in mind causing your alleged
affordability and quality?
I don't follow the question. But on patterns of ownership - I suppose I should
correct that to 'occupation' - I think the system needs to be tenure neutral. That is it's no more or less advantageous to live in any particular tenure.
Economically, obviously. But also socially, with no stigma for example. Plenty
of other countries come close.
I take it you'd like to keep building until demand is sated, and pretty much everyone is in a decent, affordable, home? That simply won't happen. It's been
the plan since the early 80s and successive governments failed. It needs a fundamental change.
On 2025-07-07, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
On 5 Jul 2025 at 14:33:30 BST, Fredxx wrote:
On 03/07/2025 07:52, RJH wrote:I didn't suggest that? Affordability, quality and tenure/patterns of
<snip>
The housing problem isn't so much about supply - more affordability,
quality, and patterns of ownership.
Are you serious when you believe that the housing issue has nothing to
do with demand?
ownership are each, in part, demand-led.
Affordability is precisely because supply doesn't match demand.
It could also be linked to income and access to finance, for example. As I >> say, it's less about supply as such - only recently, households outstripped >> units of housing.
What pattern of ownership do you have in mind causing your alleged
affordability and quality?
I don't follow the question. But on patterns of ownership - I suppose
I should correct that to 'occupation' - I think the system needs to be
tenure neutral. That is it's no more or less advantageous to live in
any particular tenure. Economically, obviously. But also socially,
with no stigma for example. Plenty of other countries come close.
I take it you'd like to keep building until demand is sated, and
pretty much everyone is in a decent, affordable, home? That simply
won't happen. It's been the plan since the early 80s and successive
governments failed. It needs a fundamental change.
Part of the problem I think is that "demand" currently includes "people
who don't want a home at all but just want to use a property that
someone could be living in as an empty land-bank instead". If we made
that illegal or highly taxed then "demand" would drop.
Op 06/07/2025 om 14:59 schreef Norman Wells:
On 06/07/2025 12:53, John wrote:
My original question was in relation to what Reform will do. If they
do get into power in 2029, can they legally deport the "illegals" as
soon as they arrive? I don't think they can, in fact I'm almost sure
they can't, but this is the premise they are promising the voters,
and people like my mate are swallowing the premise hook, line and
sinker.
If they're in power, they make the laws. If the laws they make say
they can deport illegals as soon as they arrive then, as long as they
have somewhere they can send them, they clearly can.
How was Italy able to reduce illegal immigration by 60% without sending
them back immediately and even remaining in the EU? Something doesn't
add up here.
There's no doubt Reform will win the next GE, but how long are they
going to stay in power for?
On 07/07/2025 12:35, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Part of the problem I think is that "demand" currently includes "people
who don't want a home at all but just want to use a property that
someone could be living in as an empty land-bank instead". If we made
that illegal or highly taxed then "demand" would drop.
Can you make it a bit clearer what it is you want to ban?
There are 265k long term empty. That's a bit peculiar. Who leaves a
valuable resource unused? It would be just as good as a land bank if occupied. Is there a more detailed analysis of the reasons behind these? Maybe, the owners need help and encouragement to bring them back into
use? Maybe, they are so dilapidated that they are not really usable as
homes at all?
Holiday short lets - what's wrong with those? Don't we want people to
holiday in the UK? They are hardly vacant, surely?
Second homes - that looks like pretty conspicuous consumption, and they
are being heavily targeted through CT increases. Do we know how many of
those there are?
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
Part of the problem I think is that "demand" currently includes "people
who don't want a home at all but just want to use a property that
someone could be living in as an empty land-bank instead". If we made
that illegal or highly taxed then "demand" would drop.
Why stop there? Just think where we could go with this, such as the
abolition of all private property. Then people could just be ordered
about to make way as deemed necessary by their masters.
<div id="editor" contenteditable="false">There are 265k long term empty. That's a bit peculiar. Who leaves a
valuable resource unused? It would be just as good as a land bank if occupied. Is there a more detailed analysis of the reasons behind these? Maybe, the owners need help and encouragement to bring them back into
use? Maybe, they are so dilapidated that they are not really usable as
homes at all?
Holiday short lets - what's wrong with those? Don't we want people to
holiday in the UK? They are hardly vacant, surely?
Second homes - that looks like pretty conspicuous consumption, and they
are being heavily targeted through CT increases. Do we know how many of
those there are?
I don't follow the question. But on patterns of ownership - I suppose I should
correct that to 'occupation' - I think the system needs to be tenure neutral.
That is it's no more or less advantageous to live in any particular tenure.
That is impossible without massive increases in taxataon to the point of confiscation (which one assumes even Sir Starman or Chardonnay Rayner
would not embrace).
For home-owners, and additional to the payment of interest and the
repayment of the principal sum on a mortgage, there are also hefty
ongoing sums to pay out for insurance, maintenance, repairs and
occasional refurbishment. For tenants, the landlord self-interestedly
meets those costs but of course, has to embed them into the rent (how
else?). This obviously means that rent quantum is not directly
comparable with mortgage payments.
But the big difference is that eventually, the house is owned outright
and forms part of the owner's estate (assuming the need for care in a
care home does not arise).
That advantage could only be equalised with the situation of the tenant
by confiscating the property at some stage (though presumably even
Reeves would not think of doing that whilst an owner still lived).
But that is what would be necessary to create any situation wherein
"it's no more or less advantageous to live in any particular tenure".
Is that what you meant?
Economically, obviously. But also socially, with no stigma for example. Plenty
of other countries come close.
It was closer than it is now in the *UK* before the passing of the
misguided and discredited "Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977. That legislation put social-casualty applicants in legally-defined "housing
need" at the top of the priority list, totally trumping the time spent
on the waiting list by people whose housing need does not fall into the
Act's definitions. Today, the idea that a newly-married (and childless) couple could be allocated a council property - once quite normal - is
cloud cuckoo land.
I take it you'd like to keep building until demand is sated, and pretty much >> everyone is in a decent, affordable, home? That simply won't happen. It's been
the plan since the early 80s and successive governments failed. It needs a >> fundamental change.
Such as?
On 2025-07-07, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 07/07/2025 12:35, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Part of the problem I think is that "demand" currently includes "people
who don't want a home at all but just want to use a property that
someone could be living in as an empty land-bank instead". If we made
that illegal or highly taxed then "demand" would drop.
Can you make it a bit clearer what it is you want to ban?
...
There are 265k long term empty. That's a bit peculiar. Who leaves a
valuable resource unused? It would be just as good as a land bank if
occupied. Is there a more detailed analysis of the reasons behind these?
Maybe, the owners need help and encouragement to bring them back into
use? Maybe, they are so dilapidated that they are not really usable as
homes at all?
Well, perhaps have a sliding scale whereby the longer you leave a
residential property uninhabited, the more the council tax increases,
up to a maximum of 10x the usual rate, or something. Maybe you could
have a rule so that if you can show you spent at least the tax amount
on repairs or improvements in a period then the tax goes back to 1x. Obviously there could be other exceptions for things like long-term
hospital stays etc, and the delay before any increase kicked in would
be long enough so that normal holidays don't have any effect.
Holiday short lets - what's wrong with those? Don't we want people to
holiday in the UK? They are hardly vacant, surely?
An excellent point, the existing laws on those should actually be
enforced. As far as I'm aware you are supposed to need planning
permission to use a property for short lets, but this is basically
unenforced in many areas.
Second homes - that looks like pretty conspicuous consumption, and they
are being heavily targeted through CT increases. Do we know how many of
those there are?
Increase the CT more! :-)
On 07/07/2025 17:25, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-07, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 07/07/2025 12:35, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Part of the problem I think is that "demand" currently includes "people >>>> who don't want a home at all but just want to use a property that
someone could be living in as an empty land-bank instead". If we made
that illegal or highly taxed then "demand" would drop.
Can you make it a bit clearer what it is you want to ban?
...
There are 265k long term empty. That's a bit peculiar. Who leaves a
valuable resource unused? It would be just as good as a land bank if
occupied. Is there a more detailed analysis of the reasons behind these? >>> Maybe, the owners need help and encouragement to bring them back into
use? Maybe, they are so dilapidated that they are not really usable as
homes at all?
Well, perhaps have a sliding scale whereby the longer you leave a
residential property uninhabited, the more the council tax increases,
up to a maximum of 10x the usual rate, or something. Maybe you could
have a rule so that if you can show you spent at least the tax amount
on repairs or improvements in a period then the tax goes back to 1x.
Obviously there could be other exceptions for things like long-term
hospital stays etc, and the delay before any increase kicked in would
be long enough so that normal holidays don't have any effect.
Holiday short lets - what's wrong with those? Don't we want people to
holiday in the UK? They are hardly vacant, surely?
An excellent point, the existing laws on those should actually be
enforced. As far as I'm aware you are supposed to need planning
permission to use a property for short lets, but this is basically
unenforced in many areas.
I think there's a limit on planning enforcement. I can't remember
whether it's 3 years or 5 years? So, many of these boats will have sailed.
Personally, I can't see why you object to holiday lets, but you don't
object to hotels and B&Bs? It's clearly better in so many ways for
people to holiday in this country than overseas. It creates employment,
and the carbon footprint is much less, for example.
On 07/07/2025 08:56, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Op 06/07/2025 om 14:59 schreef Norman Wells:
On 06/07/2025 12:53, John wrote:
My original question was in relation to what Reform will do. If
they do get into power in 2029, can they legally deport the
"illegals" as soon as they arrive? I don't think they can, in fact
I'm almost sure they can't, but this is the premise they are
promising the voters, and people like my mate are swallowing the
premise hook, line and sinker.
If they're in power, they make the laws. If the laws they make say
they can deport illegals as soon as they arrive then, as long as they
have somewhere they can send them, they clearly can.
How was Italy able to reduce illegal immigration by 60% without
sending them back immediately and even remaining in the EU? Something
doesn't add up here.
It depends what they count. Italy is in the Schengen zone which enables
free passage within it, so a lot of arrivals will just pass through
briefly.
There's no doubt Reform will win the next GE, but how long are they
going to stay in power for?
Depends on their majority. But the only rule is that there has to be
another election within 5 years. Who knows, they may win that too and
be in power forever.
On 2025-07-08, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 07/07/2025 17:25, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-07, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 07/07/2025 12:35, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Part of the problem I think is that "demand" currently includes "people >>>>> who don't want a home at all but just want to use a property that
someone could be living in as an empty land-bank instead". If we made >>>>> that illegal or highly taxed then "demand" would drop.
Can you make it a bit clearer what it is you want to ban?
...
There are 265k long term empty. That's a bit peculiar. Who leaves a
valuable resource unused? It would be just as good as a land bank if
occupied. Is there a more detailed analysis of the reasons behind these? >>>> Maybe, the owners need help and encouragement to bring them back into
use? Maybe, they are so dilapidated that they are not really usable as >>>> homes at all?
Well, perhaps have a sliding scale whereby the longer you leave a
residential property uninhabited, the more the council tax increases,
up to a maximum of 10x the usual rate, or something. Maybe you could
have a rule so that if you can show you spent at least the tax amount
on repairs or improvements in a period then the tax goes back to 1x.
Obviously there could be other exceptions for things like long-term
hospital stays etc, and the delay before any increase kicked in would
be long enough so that normal holidays don't have any effect.
Holiday short lets - what's wrong with those? Don't we want people to
holiday in the UK? They are hardly vacant, surely?
An excellent point, the existing laws on those should actually be
enforced. As far as I'm aware you are supposed to need planning
permission to use a property for short lets, but this is basically
unenforced in many areas.
I think there's a limit on planning enforcement. I can't remember
whether it's 3 years or 5 years? So, many of these boats will have sailed.
Is that how that actually works though? Time limits on planning
objections to physical works make sense. Time limits on something
that is not an event in the past but an ongoing series of events
make much less sense. "You can't stop me using my flat for a short
let next month because I used it for a short let 5 years ago" is
nonsensical.
Personally, I can't see why you object to holiday lets, but you don't
object to hotels and B&Bs? It's clearly better in so many ways for
people to holiday in this country than overseas. It creates employment,
and the carbon footprint is much less, for example.
I didn't say anything about people not being allowed to go on holiday!
Hotels are at least properly planned and authorised. Even if there's
a ridiculous number of them these days.
Where I live a huge percentage of the housing stock has just vanished, because it's being used illegally for AirBnB instead. Getting those
homes back onto the housing market would surely reduce rents.
Italy is in the Schengen zone which enables free passage within it, so a
lot of arrivals will just pass through briefly.
On 2025-07-07, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
Part of the problem I think is that "demand" currently includes "people
who don't want a home at all but just want to use a property that
someone could be living in as an empty land-bank instead". If we made
that illegal or highly taxed then "demand" would drop.
Why stop there? Just think where we could go with this, such as the
abolition of all private property. Then people could just be ordered
about to make way as deemed necessary by their masters.
lol. I agree that private ownership of real estate should be abolished,
and part of my reason for that is that it would stop the exact same
thing that you think would be caused by it ;-)
On 07/07/2025 08:56, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Op 06/07/2025 om 14:59 schreef Norman Wells:
On 06/07/2025 12:53, John wrote:
My original question was in relation to what Reform will do. If
they do get into power in 2029, can they legally deport the
"illegals" as soon as they arrive? I don't think they can, in fact
I'm almost sure they can't, but this is the premise they are
promising the voters, and people like my mate are swallowing the
premise hook, line and sinker.
If they're in power, they make the laws. If the laws they make say
they can deport illegals as soon as they arrive then, as long as they
have somewhere they can send them, they clearly can.
How was Italy able to reduce illegal immigration by 60% without
sending them back immediately and even remaining in the EU? Something
doesn't add up here.
There's no doubt Reform will win the next GE, but how long are they
going to stay in power for?
<shudder> At least 5 years.
Op 08/07/2025 om 12:59 schreef John:
On 07/07/2025 08:56, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Op 06/07/2025 om 14:59 schreef Norman Wells:
On 06/07/2025 12:53, John wrote:
My original question was in relation to what Reform will do. If
they do get into power in 2029, can they legally deport the
"illegals" as soon as they arrive? I don't think they can, in fact
I'm almost sure they can't, but this is the premise they are
promising the voters, and people like my mate are swallowing the
premise hook, line and sinker.
If they're in power, they make the laws. If the laws they make say
they can deport illegals as soon as they arrive then, as long as they
have somewhere they can send them, they clearly can.
How was Italy able to reduce illegal immigration by 60% without
sending them back immediately and even remaining in the EU? Something
doesn't add up here.
There's no doubt Reform will win the next GE, but how long are they
going to stay in power for?
<shudder> At least 5 years.
Why shudder? Your democracy is self-proclaimed the best in the world.
So whatever you guys do should be God's gift to humanity, no?
Part of the problem I think is that "demand" currently includes "people
who don't want a home at all but just want to use a property that
someone could be living in as an empty land-bank instead". If we made
that illegal or highly taxed then "demand" would drop.
Op 07/07/2025 om 12:29 schreef Norman Wells:
Italy is in the Schengen zone which enables free passage within it, so
a lot of arrivals will just pass through briefly.
The Schengen rights do not apply to illegals, at least until they are considered refugees. Whatever you heard at the latest Reform rally may
not necessarily be true.
Holiday short lets - what's wrong with those? Don't we want people to
holiday in the UK? They are hardly vacant, surely?
All the internal EU routes are safe, once having crossed the Mediterranean
to Spain, Italy or Greece. Travel through those countries, and France and Germany, is safe.
The real question is why these economies migrants ignore the opportunities
of these countries, in order to pay £thousands to criminals to get on a dangerous, flimsy and overcrowded rubber boat to come here. I doubt our hotels are better than those in the EU.
Perhaps towing the boats back to France might help, or to West Falkland or South Georgia for processing might break the business model.
On 07/07/2025 12:35, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Part of the problem I think is that "demand" currently includes "people
who don't want a home at all but just want to use a property that
someone could be living in as an empty land-bank instead". If we made
that illegal or highly taxed then "demand" would drop.
I believe that there are special taxes on empty properties and second
homes already.
See
<https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/council-tax-for-empty-and-second-homes>
for an example.
On 07/07/2025 08:56, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
There's no doubt Reform will win the next GE, but how long are they
going to stay in power for?
<shudder> At least 5 years.
On 03/07/2025 10:09, Spike wrote:
All the internal EU routes are safe, once having crossed the Mediterranean >> to Spain, Italy or Greece. Travel through those countries, and France and
Germany, is safe.
The real question is why these economies migrants ignore the opportunities >> of these countries, in order to pay thousands to criminals to get on a
dangerous, flimsy and overcrowded rubber boat to come here. I doubt our
hotels are better than those in the EU.
Perhaps towing the boats back to France might help, or to West Falkland or >> South Georgia for processing might break the business model.
Perhaps they should send them to Rwanda?
I don't really understand why these people prefer the UK to France or Italy.
Perhaps its the language. Or perhaps it's the free accommodation, which
poor as it might look to us is enormously better than many people have
in the third world. Or perhaps it's the benefits.
On 08/07/2025 15:08, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Op 07/07/2025 om 12:29 schreef Norman Wells:
Italy is in the Schengen zone which enables free passage within it,
so a lot of arrivals will just pass through briefly.
The Schengen rights do not apply to illegals, at least until they are
considered refugees. Whatever you heard at the latest Reform rally may
not necessarily be true.
The rights may not apply, but there are no official border checks so,
once in one Schengen country, it's easy-peasy to cross into any other
even if you're an illegal immigrant.
How else do the majority of those in France waiting to cross to the UK
get there?
I don't really understand why these people prefer the UK to France or
Italy.
On 07/07/2025 19:53, RJH wrote:
On 7 Jul 2025 at 12:29:40 BST, JNugent wrote:
I don't follow the question. But on patterns of ownership - I suppose I should
correct that to 'occupation' - I think the system needs to be tenure neutral.
That is it's no more or less advantageous to live in any particular tenure.
That is impossible without massive increases in taxataon to the point of >>> confiscation (which one assumes even Sir Starman or Chardonnay Rayner
would not embrace).
The UK has got itself into a bit of a mess. Leave the o/occ sector to itself.
Incentivise (tax breaks for LLs) and regulate (standards, security, and
affordable rent) the PRS.
Invest in *social* housing. This is for me the most frustrating oversight. >> Unlike virtually any other example of public investment, this one yields
direct returns (rent), and off the scale indirect returns (crime, health,
education, just general well being). Done properly of course, and subsiding >> supply (building) rather than demand (housing benefit/UC). Not that it needs >> that much subsidy if the land is free and public borrowing is cheap. Which >> brings in planning and compulsory purchase . . .
Whilst it could be more, nearly £4b a year for the next 10 years is a welcome addition.
I don't really understand why these people prefer the UK to France or
Italy.
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 12:59:25 +0100, John <megane.06@gmail.com> wrote:
On 07/07/2025 08:56, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
There's no doubt Reform will win the next GE, but how long are they
going to stay in power for?
<shudder> At least 5 years.
I think that's extremely unlikely. Current polls show Reform as being the largest party if there was to be a general election now. But I can remember when the SDP were going to be the next government. Insurgent parties always do well in between elections, but Reform will struggle to maintain those levels of support until 2029.
In any case, even if Reform do maintain current levels of support, they wouldn't have a majority. They'd be the largest party in a hung parliament, which would put them in pole position to be the lead partner in a coalition. But I think they'd struggle to find a willing partner. And as a minority administration, they'd be vulnerable to a vote of no confidence. Plus, of course, with hundreds of completely new MPs, they'd struggle to maintain discipline and cohesion. It certainly woldn't be a strong and stable government.
On 7/9/25 09:15, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 12:59:25 +0100, John <megane.06@gmail.com> wrote:
On 07/07/2025 08:56, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
There's no doubt Reform will win the next GE, but how long are they
going to stay in power for?
<shudder> At least 5 years.
I think that's extremely unlikely. Current polls show Reform as being the
largest party if there was to be a general election now. But I can
remember
when the SDP were going to be the next government. Insurgent parties
always
do well in between elections, but Reform will struggle to maintain those
levels of support until 2029.
In any case, even if Reform do maintain current levels of support, they
wouldn't have a majority. They'd be the largest party in a hung
parliament,
which would put them in pole position to be the lead partner in a
coalition.
But I think they'd struggle to find a willing partner. And as a minority
administration, they'd be vulnerable to a vote of no confidence. Plus, of
course, with hundreds of completely new MPs, they'd struggle to maintain
discipline and cohesion. It certainly woldn't be a strong and stable
government.
Electoral Calculus estimates a 35% chance of a Reform majority, if an election were held now.
<https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/prediction_main.html>
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 12:59:25 +0100, John <megane.06@gmail.com> wrote:
On 07/07/2025 08:56, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
There's no doubt Reform will win the next GE, but how long are they
going to stay in power for?
<shudder> At least 5 years.
I think that's extremely unlikely. Current polls show Reform as being the largest party if there was to be a general election now. But I can remember when the SDP were going to be the next government.
On 7/9/25 09:15, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 12:59:25 +0100, John <megane.06@gmail.com> wrote:
On 07/07/2025 08:56, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
There's no doubt Reform will win the next GE, but how long are they
going to stay in power for?
<shudder> At least 5 years.
I think that's extremely unlikely. Current polls show Reform as being the
largest party if there was to be a general election now. But I can remember >> when the SDP were going to be the next government. Insurgent parties always >> do well in between elections, but Reform will struggle to maintain those
levels of support until 2029.
In any case, even if Reform do maintain current levels of support, they
wouldn't have a majority. They'd be the largest party in a hung parliament, >> which would put them in pole position to be the lead partner in a coalition. >> But I think they'd struggle to find a willing partner. And as a minority
administration, they'd be vulnerable to a vote of no confidence. Plus, of
course, with hundreds of completely new MPs, they'd struggle to maintain
discipline and cohesion. It certainly woldn't be a strong and stable
government.
Electoral Calculus estimates a 35% chance of a Reform majority, if an election were held now.
<https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/prediction_main.html>
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 12:59:25 +0100, John <megane.06@gmail.com> wrote:
On 07/07/2025 08:56, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
There's no doubt Reform will win the next GE, but how long are they
going to stay in power for?
<shudder> At least 5 years.
I think that's extremely unlikely. Current polls show Reform as being the largest party if there was to be a general election now. But I can remember when the SDP were going to be the next government. Insurgent parties always do well in between elections, but Reform will struggle to maintain those levels of support until 2029.
In any case, even if Reform do maintain current levels of support, they wouldn't have a majority. They'd be the largest party in a hung parliament, which would put them in pole position to be the lead partner in a coalition. But I think they'd struggle to find a willing partner. And as a minority administration, they'd be vulnerable to a vote of no confidence. Plus, of course, with hundreds of completely new MPs, they'd struggle to maintain discipline and cohesion. It certainly woldn't be a strong and stable government.
Mark
On 08/07/2025 14:01, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-08, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 07/07/2025 17:25, Jon Ribbens wrote:Is that how that actually works though? Time limits on planning
On 2025-07-07, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 07/07/2025 12:35, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Part of the problem I think is that "demand" currently includes "people >>>>>> who don't want a home at all but just want to use a property that
someone could be living in as an empty land-bank instead". If we made >>>>>> that illegal or highly taxed then "demand" would drop.
Can you make it a bit clearer what it is you want to ban?
...
There are 265k long term empty. That's a bit peculiar. Who leaves a
valuable resource unused? It would be just as good as a land bank if >>>>> occupied. Is there a more detailed analysis of the reasons behind these? >>>>> Maybe, the owners need help and encouragement to bring them back into >>>>> use? Maybe, they are so dilapidated that they are not really usable as >>>>> homes at all?
Well, perhaps have a sliding scale whereby the longer you leave a
residential property uninhabited, the more the council tax increases,
up to a maximum of 10x the usual rate, or something. Maybe you could
have a rule so that if you can show you spent at least the tax amount
on repairs or improvements in a period then the tax goes back to 1x.
Obviously there could be other exceptions for things like long-term
hospital stays etc, and the delay before any increase kicked in would
be long enough so that normal holidays don't have any effect.
Holiday short lets - what's wrong with those? Don't we want people to >>>>> holiday in the UK? They are hardly vacant, surely?
An excellent point, the existing laws on those should actually be
enforced. As far as I'm aware you are supposed to need planning
permission to use a property for short lets, but this is basically
unenforced in many areas.
I think there's a limit on planning enforcement. I can't remember
whether it's 3 years or 5 years? So, many of these boats will have sailed. >>
objections to physical works make sense. Time limits on something
that is not an event in the past but an ongoing series of events
make much less sense. "You can't stop me using my flat for a short
let next month because I used it for a short let 5 years ago" is
nonsensical.
I think a lot of these holiday lets are registered for business rates (because they are effectively £nil). So, it's an ongoing usage, and the
LA can't claim it's been hidden from them.
Personally, I can't see why you object to holiday lets, but you don't
object to hotels and B&Bs? It's clearly better in so many ways for
people to holiday in this country than overseas. It creates employment,
and the carbon footprint is much less, for example.
I didn't say anything about people not being allowed to go on holiday!
Hotels are at least properly planned and authorised. Even if there's
a ridiculous number of them these days.
Where I live a huge percentage of the housing stock has just vanished,
because it's being used illegally for AirBnB instead. Getting those
homes back onto the housing market would surely reduce rents.
Do you live in central London, then?
I don't think many areas of the UK can have this particular issue.
That seems realistic, but if Labour and the Tories could each replace
their disappointing leaders with someone with more passion, charisma and willingness to stand up to Trump when it is necessary to do so, I think Reform might then fade away.
On 09/07/2025 15:30, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I think a lot of these holiday lets are registered for business rates
(because they are effectively £nil). So, it's an ongoing usage, and the >>> LA can't claim it's been hidden from them.
I would be pretty surprised if the ones round here were registered for
business rates, which are certainly not anywhere near "nil".
Could I suggest that you have a gander at https://www.gov.uk/apply-for-business-rate-relief/small-business-rate-relief
It's a well-known dodge. :)
I think a lot of these holiday lets are registered for business rates
(because they are effectively £nil). So, it's an ongoing usage, and the
LA can't claim it's been hidden from them.
I would be pretty surprised if the ones round here were registered for business rates, which are certainly not anywhere near "nil".
Personally, I can't see why you object to holiday lets, but you don't
object to hotels and B&Bs? It's clearly better in so many ways for
people to holiday in this country than overseas. It creates employment, >>>> and the carbon footprint is much less, for example.
I didn't say anything about people not being allowed to go on holiday!
Hotels are at least properly planned and authorised. Even if there's
a ridiculous number of them these days.
Where I live a huge percentage of the housing stock has just vanished,
because it's being used illegally for AirBnB instead. Getting those
homes back onto the housing market would surely reduce rents.
Do you live in central London, then?
Yes.
I don't think many areas of the UK can have this particular issue.
I would guess many city centres and touristy towns.
On 2025-07-09, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 09/07/2025 15:30, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I think a lot of these holiday lets are registered for business rates
(because they are effectively £nil). So, it's an ongoing usage, and the >>>> LA can't claim it's been hidden from them.
I would be pretty surprised if the ones round here were registered for
business rates, which are certainly not anywhere near "nil".
Could I suggest that you have a gander at
https://www.gov.uk/apply-for-business-rate-relief/small-business-rate-relief >>
It's a well-known dodge. :)
You think there's many properties round here that can be rented for £15k
a year?
Interestingly, there's a web page here:
https://www.tax.service.gov.uk/business-rates-find/search
which, given the lack of listings for any of the flats I'm talking
about, would seem to imply that I am correct and they are not registered
for business rates.
On 09/07/2025 12:14, The Todal wrote:
That seems realistic, but if Labour and the Tories could each replace
their disappointing leaders with someone with more passion, charisma
and willingness to stand up to Trump when it is necessary to do so, I
think Reform might then fade away.
I'm not convinced that directly confronting Trump is a sensible plan. He
just doubles down. Waiting until his attention has focused on something
else may work better.
On 8 Jul 2025 at 21:22:07 BST, Vir Campestris wrote:
I believe that there are special taxes on empty properties and second
homes already.
See
<https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/council-tax-for-empty-and-second-homes>
for an example.
IMVHO, good for Cambs. Maybe, in line with their policy, CT premiums will go above 100% in the future.
However, I don't understand why they keep making a distinction between furnished and unfurnished. It's easy enough nowadays to give the impression of
furnished quite cheaply.
On 09/07/2025 08:14, RJH wrote:
On 8 Jul 2025 at 21:22:07 BST, Vir Campestris wrote:
I believe that there are special taxes on empty properties and second
homes already.
See
<https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/council-tax-for-empty-and-second-homes>
for an example.
IMVHO, good for Cambs. Maybe, in line with their policy, CT premiums
will go above 100% in the future.
However, I don't understand why they keep making a distinction between
furnished and unfurnished. It's easy enough nowadays to give the
impression of furnished quite cheaply.
Read it again.
Empty and unfurnished - premium after 12 months.
Furnished - straight away unless someone is living there, or it is a 2nd home.
On 08/07/2025 15:10, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Op 08/07/2025 om 12:59 schreef John:
On 07/07/2025 08:56, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Op 06/07/2025 om 14:59 schreef Norman Wells:
On 06/07/2025 12:53, John wrote:
My original question was in relation to what Reform will do. If
they do get into power in 2029, can they legally deport the
"illegals" as soon as they arrive? I don't think they can, in fact >>>>>> I'm almost sure they can't, but this is the premise they are
promising the voters, and people like my mate are swallowing the
premise hook, line and sinker.
If they're in power, they make the laws. If the laws they make say >>>>> they can deport illegals as soon as they arrive then, as long as
they have somewhere they can send them, they clearly can.
How was Italy able to reduce illegal immigration by 60% without
sending them back immediately and even remaining in the EU? Something
doesn't add up here.
There's no doubt Reform will win the next GE, but how long are they
going to stay in power for?
<shudder> At least 5 years.
Why shudder? Your democracy is self-proclaimed the best in the world. So
whatever you guys do should be God's gift to humanity, no?
Reform is currently riding on the crest of a wave fueled by many
citizens dislike of the people arriving by boat.
But of course the vital fundamental truth which is being ignored as it doesn't sell newspapers is that there isn't going to be an election for another 4 years, so current polls don't matter in the slightest. If, by
the time 4 years are up, Labour has actually managed to improve things
and there's any sense of optimism about the future, they'll get
re-elected. If they haven't, who knows... but my money would not be on a Reform government, *especially* not one with a majority.
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 10:38:02 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
But of course the vital fundamental truth which is being ignored as it
doesn't sell newspapers is that there isn't going to be an election for
another 4 years, so current polls don't matter in the slightest. If, by
the time 4 years are up, Labour has actually managed to improve things
and there's any sense of optimism about the future, they'll get
re-elected. If they haven't, who knows... but my money would not be on a
Reform government, *especially* not one with a majority.
Worth bearing in mind how despite the economy doing increasingly well
under Biden, Trump won by telling people to ignore all that.
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 10:38:02 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
But of course the vital fundamental truth which is being ignored as it
doesn't sell newspapers is that there isn't going to be an election for
another 4 years, so current polls don't matter in the slightest. If, by
the time 4 years are up, Labour has actually managed to improve things
and there's any sense of optimism about the future, they'll get
re-elected. If they haven't, who knows... but my money would not be on a
Reform government, *especially* not one with a majority.
Worth bearing in mind how despite the economy doing increasingly well
under Biden, Trump won by telling people to ignore all that.
I don't think that really has anything to do with it. People are angry
after 14 years of the Tories systematically destroying the country,
this feeling swept Labour into power as the only alternative party,
and despite their election being caused by a strong desire for change Labour's immediate message has basically been "actually we're not going
to deliver any change, it's just going to be more of the same".
So it's pretty clear that Reform's current high polling is as a result
of a combined protest vote against the Tories and New Tories aka Labour, again powered by anger against the current lot rather than any actual
support for Reform's policies, none of which most people would be able
to identify anyway except something vague about "boats are bad", which
nobody really cares about, it's just a hook on which to hang the sense
of anger about absolutely everything being shit.
But of course the vital fundamental truth which is being ignored as it doesn't sell newspapers is that there isn't going to be an election for another 4 years, so current polls don't matter in the slightest. If, by
the time 4 years are up, Labour has actually managed to improve things
and there's any sense of optimism about the future, they'll get
re-elected. If they haven't, who knows... but my money would not be on
a Reform government, *especially* not one with a majority.
On 2025-07-11, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 10:38:02 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
But of course the vital fundamental truth which is being ignored as it
doesn't sell newspapers is that there isn't going to be an election
for another 4 years, so current polls don't matter in the slightest.
If, by the time 4 years are up, Labour has actually managed to improve
things and there's any sense of optimism about the future, they'll get
re-elected. If they haven't, who knows... but my money would not be on
a Reform government, *especially* not one with a majority.
Worth bearing in mind how despite the economy doing increasingly well
under Biden, Trump won by telling people to ignore all that.
I think the UK electorate is still (currently) somewhat more
reality-based than the US electorate.
On 11/07/2025 11:38, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I don't think that really has anything to do with it. People are angry
after 14 years of the Tories systematically destroying the country,
this feeling swept Labour into power as the only alternative party,
and despite their election being caused by a strong desire for change
Labour's immediate message has basically been "actually we're not going
to deliver any change, it's just going to be more of the same".
There's a fundamental problem, which Trump is addressing, or attempting to.
We love cheap goods from abroad. What we don't love is that this has
exported the associated jobs. We obviously can't have it both ways, but
for a long time the cheap goods held sway.
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 13:10:14 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-11, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 10:38:02 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
But of course the vital fundamental truth which is being ignored as it >>>> doesn't sell newspapers is that there isn't going to be an election
for another 4 years, so current polls don't matter in the slightest.
If, by the time 4 years are up, Labour has actually managed to improve >>>> things and there's any sense of optimism about the future, they'll get >>>> re-elected. If they haven't, who knows... but my money would not be on >>>> a Reform government, *especially* not one with a majority.
Worth bearing in mind how despite the economy doing increasingly well
under Biden, Trump won by telling people to ignore all that.
I think the UK electorate is still (currently) somewhat more
reality-based than the US electorate.
I don't.
On 7 Jul 2025 at 12:29:40 BST, JNugent wrote:
I don't follow the question. But on patterns of ownership - I suppose I shouldThat is impossible without massive increases in taxataon to the point of
correct that to 'occupation' - I think the system needs to be tenure neutral.
That is it's no more or less advantageous to live in any particular tenure. >>
confiscation (which one assumes even Sir Starman or Chardonnay Rayner
would not embrace).
The UK has got itself into a bit of a mess. Leave the o/occ sector to itself. >Incentivise (tax breaks for LLs) and regulate (standards, security, and >affordable rent) the PRS.
Invest in *social* housing. This is for me the most frustrating oversight. >Unlike virtually any other example of public investment, this one yields >direct returns (rent), and off the scale indirect returns (crime, health, >education, just general well being). Done properly of course, and subsiding >supply (building) rather than demand (housing benefit/UC). Not that it needs >that much subsidy if the land is free and public borrowing is cheap. Which >brings in planning and compulsory purchase . . .
If I were to buy a cheap flat in Liverpool (not a difficult thing >financially), and if I registered for Council Tax in my sole name, or in
my wife's name, or even in a deceased relative's name (shades of "Day Of
The Jackal"), how would Liverpool City Council know that the premises
were a pied terre for a resident of southern England?
On 2025-07-11, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 11/07/2025 11:38, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I don't think that really has anything to do with it. People are angry
after 14 years of the Tories systematically destroying the country,
this feeling swept Labour into power as the only alternative party,
and despite their election being caused by a strong desire for change
Labour's immediate message has basically been "actually we're not going
to deliver any change, it's just going to be more of the same".
There's a fundamental problem, which Trump is addressing, or attempting to. >>
We love cheap goods from abroad. What we don't love is that this has
exported the associated jobs. We obviously can't have it both ways, but
for a long time the cheap goods held sway.
That seems to be a complete change of subject from what I was saying,
but nevertheless: I don't think that is actually a problem. America is
an extremely rich country. The problem is that all the wealth is being
more and more concentrated in the hands of a very few people, and that
is happening because their democracy has been entirely captured by
money.
On 2025-07-11, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 13:10:14 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-11, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 10:38:02 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
But of course the vital fundamental truth which is being ignored as it >>>>> doesn't sell newspapers is that there isn't going to be an election
for another 4 years, so current polls don't matter in the slightest. >>>>> If, by the time 4 years are up, Labour has actually managed to improve >>>>> things and there's any sense of optimism about the future, they'll get >>>>> re-elected. If they haven't, who knows... but my money would not be on >>>>> a Reform government, *especially* not one with a majority.
Worth bearing in mind how despite the economy doing increasingly well
under Biden, Trump won by telling people to ignore all that.
I think the UK electorate is still (currently) somewhat more
reality-based than the US electorate.
I don't.
Note I was making a comparative observation. I didn't say the UK
electorate is on first name terms with reality, I'd say it was more
a "nod vaguely as they pass in the street" sort of relationship.
But much of the US electorate wouldn't recognise reality if it
punched them in the face while yelling "taste reality, punk!"
On 11/07/2025 17:59, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-11, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 11/07/2025 11:38, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I don't think that really has anything to do with it. People are angry >>>> after 14 years of the Tories systematically destroying the country,
this feeling swept Labour into power as the only alternative party,
and despite their election being caused by a strong desire for change
Labour's immediate message has basically been "actually we're not going >>>> to deliver any change, it's just going to be more of the same".
There's a fundamental problem, which Trump is addressing, or
attempting to.
We love cheap goods from abroad. What we don't love is that this has
exported the associated jobs. We obviously can't have it both ways, but
for a long time the cheap goods held sway.
That seems to be a complete change of subject from what I was saying,
but nevertheless: I don't think that is actually a problem. America is
an extremely rich country. The problem is that all the wealth is being
more and more concentrated in the hands of a very few people, and that
is happening because their democracy has been entirely captured by
money.
It's not a change of subject.
On 11/07/2025 17:59, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-11, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 11/07/2025 11:38, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I don't think that really has anything to do with it. People are angry >>>> after 14 years of the Tories systematically destroying the country,
this feeling swept Labour into power as the only alternative party,
and despite their election being caused by a strong desire for change
Labour's immediate message has basically been "actually we're not going >>>> to deliver any change, it's just going to be more of the same".
There's a fundamental problem, which Trump is addressing, or
attempting to.
We love cheap goods from abroad. What we don't love is that this has
exported the associated jobs. We obviously can't have it both ways, but
for a long time the cheap goods held sway.
That seems to be a complete change of subject from what I was saying,
but nevertheless: I don't think that is actually a problem. America is
an extremely rich country. The problem is that all the wealth is being
more and more concentrated in the hands of a very few people, and that
is happening because their democracy has been entirely captured by
money.
It's not a change of subject. Fewer jobs mean more people on benefits.
People on lower incomes have worse health, which leads to increases in
PIP, as well as strain on the health system. It's a vicious circle.
People then look for someone to blame, and immigrants are the chosen scapegoat. Hence, the appalling Farage is electable.
Of course, taxes can be increased, but there's a limit to that. Apart
from it being very unpopular, you risk the most skilled people leaving.
I doubt many people will leave if basic rate goes up 1-2% or top rate
5-10%, but if taxes are too swingeing people will leave. The East
Germans had that problem, so they put up a wall to keep their population
from leaving.
I don't think a modest tax increase is anything like enough to sort
things out, whilst a huge tax increase will lead to the most able people leaving. Hence, Trumponomics has some appeal.
On 11/07/2025 18:12, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-11, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 13:10:14 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-11, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 10:38:02 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
But of course the vital fundamental truth which is being ignored as it >>>>>> doesn't sell newspapers is that there isn't going to be an election >>>>>> for another 4 years, so current polls don't matter in the slightest. >>>>>> If, by the time 4 years are up, Labour has actually managed to improve >>>>>> things and there's any sense of optimism about the future, they'll get >>>>>> re-elected. If they haven't, who knows... but my money would not be on >>>>>> a Reform government, *especially* not one with a majority.
Worth bearing in mind how despite the economy doing increasingly well >>>>> under Biden, Trump won by telling people to ignore all that.
I think the UK electorate is still (currently) somewhat more
reality-based than the US electorate.
I don't.
Note I was making a comparative observation. I didn't say the UK
electorate is on first name terms with reality, I'd say it was more
a "nod vaguely as they pass in the street" sort of relationship.
But much of the US electorate wouldn't recognise reality if it
punched them in the face while yelling "taste reality, punk!"
The reality is that through immigration houses are unaffordable to buy
or rent.
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 18:53:05 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Land is never free, unless you already own it. Compulsory purchase has
to be at the market rate.
On 10/07/2025 09:20 PM, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 09/07/2025 08:14, RJH wrote:
On 8 Jul 2025 at 21:22:07 BST, Vir Campestris wrote:
I believe that there are special taxes on empty properties and
second homes already.
See
<https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/council-tax-for-empty-and-
second-homes>
for an example.
IMVHO, good for Cambs. Maybe, in line with their policy, CT
premiums will go above 100% in the future.
However, I don't understand why they keep making a distinction
between furnished and unfurnished. It's easy enough nowadays to
give the impression of furnished quite cheaply.
Read it again. Empty and unfurnished - premium after 12 months.
Furnished - straight away unless someone is living there, or it is a
2nd home.
If I were to buy a cheap flat in Liverpool (not a difficult thing financially), and if I registered for Council Tax in my sole name, or
in my wife's name, or even in a deceased relative's name (shades of
"Day Of The Jackal"), how would Liverpool City Council know that the
premises were a pied á terre for a resident of southern England?
Not, as far as I am aware, that Liverpool City Council has succumbed
to that form of misanthropic madness. Indeed, it has a discount
scheme for some (not all) second homes within its boundaries.
On 11:15 11 Jul 2025, JNugent said:
On 10/07/2025 09:20 PM, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 09/07/2025 08:14, RJH wrote:
On 8 Jul 2025 at 21:22:07 BST, Vir Campestris wrote:
I believe that there are special taxes on empty properties and
second homes already.
See
<https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/council-tax-for-empty-and-
second-homes>
for an example.
IMVHO, good for Cambs. Maybe, in line with their policy, CT
premiums will go above 100% in the future.
However, I don't understand why they keep making a distinction
between furnished and unfurnished. It's easy enough nowadays to
give the impression of furnished quite cheaply.
Read it again. Empty and unfurnished - premium after 12 months.
Furnished - straight away unless someone is living there, or it is a
2nd home.
If I were to buy a cheap flat in Liverpool (not a difficult thing
financially), and if I registered for Council Tax in my sole name, or
in my wife's name, or even in a deceased relative's name (shades of
"Day Of The Jackal"), how would Liverpool City Council know that the
premises were a pied terre for a resident of southern England?
Not, as far as I am aware, that Liverpool City Council has succumbed
to that form of misanthropic madness. Indeed, it has a discount
scheme for some (not all) second homes within its boundaries.
I recall one of the credit checking agencies offering a service where
they try to establish where a person lives. Unfortunately Google can't
remind me where I originally saw this. Perhaps they all do now.
No doubt it's based on the info they hold on the locations a person
pays for items electronically, the usage or non-usage of utility
services for an address associated with the person, credit checks
performed by mail order companies, etc.
On 2025-07-11, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 11/07/2025 17:59, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-11, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 11/07/2025 11:38, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I don't think that really has anything to do with it. People are angry >>>>> after 14 years of the Tories systematically destroying the country,
this feeling swept Labour into power as the only alternative party,
and despite their election being caused by a strong desire for change >>>>> Labour's immediate message has basically been "actually we're not going >>>>> to deliver any change, it's just going to be more of the same".
There's a fundamental problem, which Trump is addressing, or
attempting to.
We love cheap goods from abroad. What we don't love is that this has
exported the associated jobs. We obviously can't have it both ways, but >>>> for a long time the cheap goods held sway.
That seems to be a complete change of subject from what I was saying,
but nevertheless: I don't think that is actually a problem. America is
an extremely rich country. The problem is that all the wealth is being
more and more concentrated in the hands of a very few people, and that
is happening because their democracy has been entirely captured by
money.
It's not a change of subject.
Yes it is. We were talking about the UK; you started talking about Trump.
On 11/07/2025 11:28 PM, GB wrote:
On 11/07/2025 17:59, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-11, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 11/07/2025 11:38, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I don't think that really has anything to do with it. People are angry >>>>> after 14 years of the Tories systematically destroying the country,
this feeling swept Labour into power as the only alternative party,
and despite their election being caused by a strong desire for change >>>>> Labour's immediate message has basically been "actually we're not
going
to deliver any change, it's just going to be more of the same".
There's a fundamental problem, which Trump is addressing, or
attempting to.
We love cheap goods from abroad. What we don't love is that this has
exported the associated jobs. We obviously can't have it both ways, but >>>> for a long time the cheap goods held sway.
That seems to be a complete change of subject from what I was saying,
but nevertheless: I don't think that is actually a problem. America is
an extremely rich country. The problem is that all the wealth is being
more and more concentrated in the hands of a very few people, and that
is happening because their democracy has been entirely captured by
money.
It's not a change of subject. Fewer jobs mean more people on benefits.
People on lower incomes have worse health, which leads to increases in
PIP, as well as strain on the health system. It's a vicious circle.
"People on lower incomes have worse health"
Untrue.
The furthest you can go is "People on lower incomes tend to have worse health". A reduction in income does not magically trigger "worse
health", as I am sure you will agree.
People then look for someone to blame, and immigrants are the chosen
scapegoat. Hence, the appalling Farage is electable.
That's nothing but a value judgment based on your preferences. It is not
a fact which would meet with universal agreement.
I am no supporter of Reform, but on balance, I'd rather see them in government than any variant of Labour. And as I said, I do not support
or vote for reform.
Of course, taxes can be increased, but there's a limit to that. Apart
from it being very unpopular, you risk the most skilled people leaving.
I doubt many people will leave if basic rate goes up 1-2% or top rate
5-10%, but if taxes are too swingeing people will leave. The East
Germans had that problem, so they put up a wall to keep their population
from leaving.
All socialist countries have (or, as the case may be, used to have) that system to some extent or other.
That's how popular socialism is for the people upon whom it is imposed.
I don't think a modest tax increase is anything like enough to sort
things out, whilst a huge tax increase will lead to the most able people
leaving. Hence, Trumponomics has some appeal.
What does "sort things out" mean?
See the link below to see that it extends to a general dissatisfaction
with the political system.
Contrast that with China, where most people are pretty happy with the political system. (Or, at least, that's what the polls show, and they
may be telling the truth.)
The difference is that the Chinese economy is growing rapidly, which
makes people feel good. Ours isn't. Trump's isolationism is an attempt
to reverse that.
On 12/07/2025 00:28, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-11, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 11/07/2025 17:59, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-11, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 11/07/2025 11:38, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I don't think that really has anything to do with it. People are angry >>>>>> after 14 years of the Tories systematically destroying the country, >>>>>> this feeling swept Labour into power as the only alternative party, >>>>>> and despite their election being caused by a strong desire for change >>>>>> Labour's immediate message has basically been "actually we're not going >>>>>> to deliver any change, it's just going to be more of the same".
There's a fundamental problem, which Trump is addressing, or
attempting to.
We love cheap goods from abroad. What we don't love is that this has >>>>> exported the associated jobs. We obviously can't have it both ways, but >>>>> for a long time the cheap goods held sway.
That seems to be a complete change of subject from what I was saying,
but nevertheless: I don't think that is actually a problem. America is >>>> an extremely rich country. The problem is that all the wealth is being >>>> more and more concentrated in the hands of a very few people, and that >>>> is happening because their democracy has been entirely captured by
money.
It's not a change of subject.
Yes it is. We were talking about the UK; you started talking about Trump.
It's a shame you didn't address any of the key points I raised.
On 2025-07-11, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 11/07/2025 18:12, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-11, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 13:10:14 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-11, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 10:38:02 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
But of course the vital fundamental truth which is being ignored as it >>>>>>> doesn't sell newspapers is that there isn't going to be an election >>>>>>> for another 4 years, so current polls don't matter in the slightest. >>>>>>> If, by the time 4 years are up, Labour has actually managed to improve >>>>>>> things and there's any sense of optimism about the future, they'll get >>>>>>> re-elected. If they haven't, who knows... but my money would not be on >>>>>>> a Reform government, *especially* not one with a majority.
Worth bearing in mind how despite the economy doing increasingly well >>>>>> under Biden, Trump won by telling people to ignore all that.
I think the UK electorate is still (currently) somewhat more
reality-based than the US electorate.
I don't.
Note I was making a comparative observation. I didn't say the UK
electorate is on first name terms with reality, I'd say it was more
a "nod vaguely as they pass in the street" sort of relationship.
But much of the US electorate wouldn't recognise reality if it
punched them in the face while yelling "taste reality, punk!"
The reality is that through immigration houses are unaffordable to buy
or rent.
Because all the immigrants are so rich?
On 11/07/2025 17:59, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-11, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 11/07/2025 11:38, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I don't think that really has anything to do with it. People are angry >>>> after 14 years of the Tories systematically destroying the country,
this feeling swept Labour into power as the only alternative party,
and despite their election being caused by a strong desire for change
Labour's immediate message has basically been "actually we're not going >>>> to deliver any change, it's just going to be more of the same".
There's a fundamental problem, which Trump is addressing, or
attempting to.
We love cheap goods from abroad. What we don't love is that this has
exported the associated jobs. We obviously can't have it both ways, but
for a long time the cheap goods held sway.
That seems to be a complete change of subject from what I was saying,
but nevertheless: I don't think that is actually a problem. America is
an extremely rich country. The problem is that all the wealth is being
more and more concentrated in the hands of a very few people, and that
is happening because their democracy has been entirely captured by
money.
It's not a change of subject. Fewer jobs mean more people on benefits.
People on lower incomes have worse health, which leads to increases in
PIP, as well as strain on the health system. It's a vicious circle.
People then look for someone to blame, and immigrants are the chosen scapegoat. Hence, the appalling Farage is electable.
from it being very unpopular, you risk the most skilled people leaving.
I doubt many people will leave if basic rate goes up 1-2% or top rate
5-10%, but if taxes are too swingeing people will leave. The East
Germans had that problem, so they put up a wall to keep their population
from leaving.
I don't think a modest tax increase is anything like enough to sort
things out, whilst a huge tax increase will lead to the most able people leaving. Hence, Trumponomics has some appeal.
On 12/07/2025 00:55, JNugent wrote:
On 11/07/2025 11:28 PM, GB wrote:
On 11/07/2025 17:59, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-11, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 11/07/2025 11:38, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I don't think that really has anything to do with it. People are
angry after 14 years of the Tories systematically destroying the
country, this feeling swept Labour into power as the only
alternative party, and despite their election being caused by a
strong desire for change Labour's immediate message has basically
been "actually we're not going to deliver any change, it's just
going to be more of the same".
There's a fundamental problem, which Trump is addressing, or
attempting to.
We love cheap goods from abroad. What we don't love is that this has >>>>> exported the associated jobs. We obviously can't have it both ways,
but for a long time the cheap goods held sway.
That seems to be a complete change of subject from what I was saying,
but nevertheless: I don't think that is actually a problem. America is >>>> an extremely rich country. The problem is that all the wealth is being >>>> more and more concentrated in the hands of a very few people, and that >>>> is happening because their democracy has been entirely captured by
money.
It's not a change of subject. Fewer jobs mean more people on benefits.
People on lower incomes have worse health, which leads to increases in
PIP, as well as strain on the health system. It's a vicious circle.
"People on lower incomes have worse health"
Untrue.
The furthest you can go is "People on lower incomes tend to have worse
health". A reduction in income does not magically trigger "worse
health", as I am sure you will agree.
Yes, I do agree.
People then look for someone to blame, and immigrants are the chosen
scapegoat. Hence, the appalling Farage is electable.
That's nothing but a value judgment based on your preferences. It is
not a fact which would meet with universal agreement.
Which one of the several opinions I offered do you particularly disagree with?
the way the country is governed. That's not any particular party. See
the link below to see that it extends to a general dissatisfaction with
the political system.
Contrast that with China, where most people are pretty happy with the political system. (Or, at least, that's what the polls show, and they
may be telling the truth.)
The difference is that the Chinese economy is growing rapidly, which
makes people feel good. Ours isn't. Trump's isolationism is an attempt
to reverse that.
I am no supporter of Reform, but on balance, I'd rather see them in
government than any variant of Labour. And as I said, I do not support
or vote for reform.
Of course, taxes can be increased, but there's a limit to that. Apart
from it being very unpopular, you risk the most skilled people leaving.
I doubt many people will leave if basic rate goes up 1-2% or top rate
5-10%, but if taxes are too swingeing people will leave. The East
Germans had that problem, so they put up a wall to keep their population >>> from leaving.
All socialist countries have (or, as the case may be, used to have)
that system to some extent or other.
That's how popular socialism is for the people upon whom it is imposed.
I don't think a modest tax increase is anything like enough to sort
things out, whilst a huge tax increase will lead to the most able people >>> leaving. Hence, Trumponomics has some appeal.
What does "sort things out" mean?
A lot of government sector institutions, like social housing, have been hollowed out over the years. It will take an awful lot of money to
reverse that.
On 13/07/2025 10:25, GB wrote:
See the link below to see that it extends to a general dissatisfaction
with the political system.
Sorry, this link:
https://natcen.ac.uk/news/trust-and-confidence-britains-system-government-record-low
On 13/07/2025 10:25, GB wrote:
See the link below to see that it extends to a general dissatisfaction
with the political system.
Sorry, this link:
https://natcen.ac.uk/news/trust-and-confidence-britains-system-government-record-low
On 2025-07-13, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
Contrast that with China, where most people are pretty happy with the
political system. (Or, at least, that's what the polls show, and they
may be telling the truth.)
The difference is that the Chinese economy is growing rapidly, which
makes people feel good. Ours isn't. Trump's isolationism is an attempt
to reverse that.
Trump's isolation is an attempt to stop the Chinese economy growing
rapidly? Or to stop people feeling good? Or to make the UK economy
grow rapidly?
On 2025-07-13, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 12/07/2025 00:28, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-11, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:It's a shame you didn't address any of the key points I raised.
On 11/07/2025 17:59, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-11, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 11/07/2025 11:38, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I don't think that really has anything to do with it. People are angry >>>>>>> after 14 years of the Tories systematically destroying the country, >>>>>>> this feeling swept Labour into power as the only alternative party, >>>>>>> and despite their election being caused by a strong desire for change >>>>>>> Labour's immediate message has basically been "actually we're not going >>>>>>> to deliver any change, it's just going to be more of the same".
There's a fundamental problem, which Trump is addressing, or
attempting to.
We love cheap goods from abroad. What we don't love is that this has >>>>>> exported the associated jobs. We obviously can't have it both ways, but >>>>>> for a long time the cheap goods held sway.
That seems to be a complete change of subject from what I was saying, >>>>> but nevertheless: I don't think that is actually a problem. America is >>>>> an extremely rich country. The problem is that all the wealth is being >>>>> more and more concentrated in the hands of a very few people, and that >>>>> is happening because their democracy has been entirely captured by
money.
It's not a change of subject.
Yes it is. We were talking about the UK; you started talking about Trump. >>
I think those points were adequately addressed by what I've already
said. Also you seemed to miss the point that decreasing inequality
would increase rather than decrease most peoples' income.
Do you think immigrants are happy to live in a shed?
On 12/07/2025 01:12, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-11, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 11/07/2025 18:12, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-11, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 13:10:14 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-11, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 10:38:02 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
But of course the vital fundamental truth which is being ignored as it >>>>>>>> doesn't sell newspapers is that there isn't going to be an election >>>>>>>> for another 4 years, so current polls don't matter in the slightest. >>>>>>>> If, by the time 4 years are up, Labour has actually managed to improve >>>>>>>> things and there's any sense of optimism about the future, they'll get >>>>>>>> re-elected. If they haven't, who knows... but my money would not be on >>>>>>>> a Reform government, *especially* not one with a majority.
Worth bearing in mind how despite the economy doing increasingly well >>>>>>> under Biden, Trump won by telling people to ignore all that.
I think the UK electorate is still (currently) somewhat more
reality-based than the US electorate.
I don't.
Note I was making a comparative observation. I didn't say the UK
electorate is on first name terms with reality, I'd say it was more
a "nod vaguely as they pass in the street" sort of relationship.
But much of the US electorate wouldn't recognise reality if it
punched them in the face while yelling "taste reality, punk!"
The reality is that through immigration houses are unaffordable to buy
or rent.
Because all the immigrants are so rich?
Do you think immigrants are happy to live in a shed?
Don't you believe the simply theory of supply and demand?
On 13/07/2025 16:11, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-13, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:You're in a frivolous mood at the moment, aren't you. Trump obviously
Contrast that with China, where most people are pretty happy with the
political system. (Or, at least, that's what the polls show, and they
may be telling the truth.)
The difference is that the Chinese economy is growing rapidly, which
makes people feel good. Ours isn't. Trump's isolationism is an attempt
to reverse that.
Trump's isolation is an attempt to stop the Chinese economy growing
rapidly? Or to stop people feeling good? Or to make the UK economy grow
rapidly?
wants to bring manufacturing industry back to the USA, so as to grow the domestic economy and provide more work.
On 13/07/2025 16:11, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-13, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
Contrast that with China, where most people are pretty happy with the
political system. (Or, at least, that's what the polls show, and they
may be telling the truth.)
The difference is that the Chinese economy is growing rapidly, which
makes people feel good. Ours isn't. Trump's isolationism is an attempt
to reverse that.
Trump's isolation is an attempt to stop the Chinese economy growing
rapidly? Or to stop people feeling good? Or to make the UK economy
grow rapidly?
You're in a frivolous mood at the moment, aren't you. Trump obviously
wants to bring manufacturing industry back to the USA, so as to grow the domestic economy and provide more work.
On 13/07/2025 16:11, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-13, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
Contrast that with China, where most people are pretty happy with the
political system. (Or, at least, that's what the polls show, and they
may be telling the truth.)
The difference is that the Chinese economy is growing rapidly, which
makes people feel good. Ours isn't. Trump's isolationism is an attempt
to reverse that.
Trump's isolation is an attempt to stop the Chinese economy growing
rapidly? Or to stop people feeling good? Or to make the UK economy
grow rapidly?
You're in a frivolous mood at the moment, aren't you. Trump obviously
wants to bring manufacturing industry back to the USA, so as to grow the domestic economy and provide more work.
On 13/07/2025 12:20, Fredxx wrote:
On 11/07/2025 23:28, GB wrote:
I don't think a modest tax increase is anything like enough to sort
things out, whilst a huge tax increase will lead to the most able
people leaving. Hence, Trumponomics has some appeal.
1 or 2 % transferred from National Insurance to Income Tax would be
sufficient and not affect the average working person.
It's the same pot and goes into general taxation, so transferring oe to
the other will make no difference at all.
What was a stupid mistake imo was lowering employees national insurance
from 12% to 8% at a time when the country couldn't really afford it.
Had Labour been brave enough they could have reversed that cut with no detriment, but instead they backed themselve into a corner by saying no
tax increases for workers.
On 13/07/2025 15:46, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-13, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 12/07/2025 00:28, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-11, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 11/07/2025 17:59, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-11, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 11/07/2025 11:38, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I don't think that really has anything to do with it. People are >>>>>>>> angryThere's a fundamental problem, which Trump is addressing, or
after 14 years of the Tories systematically destroying the country, >>>>>>>> this feeling swept Labour into power as the only alternative party, >>>>>>>> and despite their election being caused by a strong desire for >>>>>>>> change
Labour's immediate message has basically been "actually we're
not going
to deliver any change, it's just going to be more of the same". >>>>>>>
attempting to.
We love cheap goods from abroad. What we don't love is that this has >>>>>>> exported the associated jobs. We obviously can't have it both
ways, but
for a long time the cheap goods held sway.
That seems to be a complete change of subject from what I was saying, >>>>>> but nevertheless: I don't think that is actually a problem.
America is
an extremely rich country. The problem is that all the wealth is
being
more and more concentrated in the hands of a very few people, and
that
is happening because their democracy has been entirely captured by >>>>>> money.
It's not a change of subject.
Yes it is. We were talking about the UK; you started talking about
Trump.
It's a shame you didn't address any of the key points I raised.
I think those points were adequately addressed by what I've already
said. Also you seemed to miss the point that decreasing inequality
would increase rather than decrease most peoples' income.
Just to reassure you. I hadn't missed that important point.
On 2025-07-13, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 12/07/2025 01:12, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-11, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 11/07/2025 18:12, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-11, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 13:10:14 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-11, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 10:38:02 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
But of course the vital fundamental truth which is being ignored as it
doesn't sell newspapers is that there isn't going to be an election >>>>>>>>> for another 4 years, so current polls don't matter in the slightest. >>>>>>>>> If, by the time 4 years are up, Labour has actually managed to improve
things and there's any sense of optimism about the future, they'll get
re-elected. If they haven't, who knows... but my money would not be on
a Reform government, *especially* not one with a majority.
Worth bearing in mind how despite the economy doing increasingly well >>>>>>>> under Biden, Trump won by telling people to ignore all that.
I think the UK electorate is still (currently) somewhat more
reality-based than the US electorate.
I don't.
Note I was making a comparative observation. I didn't say the UK
electorate is on first name terms with reality, I'd say it was more
a "nod vaguely as they pass in the street" sort of relationship.
But much of the US electorate wouldn't recognise reality if it
punched them in the face while yelling "taste reality, punk!"
The reality is that through immigration houses are unaffordable to buy >>>> or rent.
Because all the immigrants are so rich?
Do you think immigrants are happy to live in a shed?
What does that mean?
Don't you believe the simply theory of supply and demand?
"Demand" only includes people who can pay.
If something costs £100 then
its price won't go up no matter how many people there are who would like
to buy it but don't have £100.
On 13/07/2025 12:20, Fredxx wrote:
On 11/07/2025 23:28, GB wrote:
I don't think a modest tax increase is anything like enough to sort
things out, whilst a huge tax increase will lead to the most able
people leaving. Hence, Trumponomics has some appeal.
1 or 2 % transferred from National Insurance to Income Tax would be
sufficient and not affect the average working person.
It's the same pot and goes into general taxation, so transferring oe to
the other will make no difference at all.
What was a stupid mistake imo was lowering employees national insurance
from 12% to 8% at a time when the country couldn't really afford it.
Had Labour been brave enough they could have reversed that cut with no detriment, but instead they backed themselve into a corner by saying no
tax increases for workers.
On 2025-07-13, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 13/07/2025 16:11, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-13, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
Contrast that with China, where most people are pretty happy with the
political system. (Or, at least, that's what the polls show, and they
may be telling the truth.)
The difference is that the Chinese economy is growing rapidly, which
makes people feel good. Ours isn't. Trump's isolationism is an attempt >>>> to reverse that.
Trump's isolation is an attempt to stop the Chinese economy growing
rapidly? Or to stop people feeling good? Or to make the UK economy
grow rapidly?
You're in a frivolous mood at the moment, aren't you. Trump obviously
wants to bring manufacturing industry back to the USA, so as to grow the
domestic economy and provide more work.
I'm just confused because you keep writing as if the UK and the US
are interchangeable.
I think you are over-estimating Trump's intellect if you think he has
thought the whole thing through as far as "grow the economy". I expect
he mostly thinks in emotions and images, like a rat or perhaps a dog.
On 13/07/2025 12:20, Fredxx wrote:
On 11/07/2025 23:28, GB wrote:
I don't think a modest tax increase is anything like enough to sort
things out, whilst a huge tax increase will lead to the most able
people leaving. Hence, Trumponomics has some appeal.
1 or 2 % transferred from National Insurance to Income Tax would be
sufficient and not affect the average working person.
It's the same pot and goes into general taxation, so transferring oe to
the other will make no difference at all.
What was a stupid mistake imo was lowering employees national insurance
from 12% to 8% at a time when the country couldn't really afford it.
Had Labour been brave enough they could have reversed that cut with no detriment, but instead they backed themselve into a corner by saying no
tax increases for workers.
On 14/07/2025 09:09, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-13, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 13/07/2025 16:11, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-13, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
Contrast that with China, where most people are pretty happy with the >>>>> political system. (Or, at least, that's what the polls show, and they >>>>> may be telling the truth.)
The difference is that the Chinese economy is growing rapidly, which >>>>> makes people feel good. Ours isn't. Trump's isolationism is an attempt >>>>> to reverse that.
Trump's isolation is an attempt to stop the Chinese economy growing
rapidly? Or to stop people feeling good? Or to make the UK economy
grow rapidly?
You're in a frivolous mood at the moment, aren't you. Trump obviously
wants to bring manufacturing industry back to the USA, so as to grow the >>> domestic economy and provide more work.
I'm just confused because you keep writing as if the UK and the US
are interchangeable.
I write that way because we and the US have very much the same problem - perhaps, more so. I can't see why that confuses you? Is it not
startlingly obvious?
On 14/07/2025 00:41, John wrote:
On 13/07/2025 12:20, Fredxx wrote:
On 11/07/2025 23:28, GB wrote:
I don't think a modest tax increase is anything like enough to
sort things out, whilst a huge tax increase will lead to the most
able people leaving. Hence, Trumponomics has some appeal.
1 or 2 % transferred from National Insurance to Income Tax would
be sufficient and not affect the average working person.
It's the same pot and goes into general taxation, so transferring
oe to the other will make no difference at all.
Actually it will.
People still at work will be unaffected. Pensioners - who don't pay
NI - will find they're paying significant extra income tax.
What was a stupid mistake imo was lowering employees national
insurance from 12% to 8% at a time when the country couldn't really
afford it.
Had Labour been brave enough they could have reversed that cut with
no detriment, but instead they backed themselve into a corner by
saying no tax increases for workers.
IIRC they have never defined "worker".
On 14/07/2025 11:17, JNugent wrote:
On 14/07/2025 12:41 AM, John wrote:
On 13/07/2025 12:20, Fredxx wrote:
On 11/07/2025 23:28, GB wrote:
I don't think a modest tax increase is anything like enough to sort
things out, whilst a huge tax increase will lead to the most able
people leaving. Hence, Trumponomics has some appeal.
1 or 2 % transferred from National Insurance to Income Tax would be
sufficient and not affect the average working person.
It's the same pot and goes into general taxation, so transferring oe to
the other will make no difference at all.
Not true.
Income Tax is payable by people who have no liability for National
"Insurance", including those below or over the ages at which NI is
payable. it is also payable on incomes not subject to National
"Insurance".
To regain the equivalent of 4% via NICs, the income tax rise would be
smaller than 4%, possibly 1% or less.
Yes, see my reply to Roger.
What was a stupid mistake imo was lowering employees national insurance
from 12% to 8% at a time when the country couldn't really afford it.
I have to say that I thought that Labout would reverse that. I don't
even think they'd have had much political flak for it.
Agreed
Had Labour been brave enough they could have reversed that cut with no
detriment, but instead they backed themselve into a corner by saying no
tax increases for workers.
But they really aren't that bothered about being caught out in the
lies they tell. Remember the universal howls of derision when they
insisted that it had been "necessary" to scrap the Winter Fuel
Allowance because otherwise there'd have been a run on the pound?
I don't recall that,
I thought they said they had to do it because the
Conservatives had left a £22b black hole.
And as much as my leanings are to the left of centre, I couldn't
actually believe that was the very first thing they did. It was crass
and just seemed to be a swipe at pensioners.
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 14:36:04 +0100
Mike Scott <usenet.16@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid> wrote:
On 14/07/2025 00:41, John wrote:'Worker' has been defined by the PM as somebody who receives a
On 13/07/2025 12:20, Fredxx wrote:
On 11/07/2025 23:28, GB wrote:
I don't think a modest tax increase is anything like enough to
sort things out, whilst a huge tax increase will lead to the most
able people leaving. Hence, Trumponomics has some appeal.
1 or 2 % transferred from National Insurance to Income Tax would
be sufficient and not affect the average working person.
It's the same pot and goes into general taxation, so transferring
oe to the other will make no difference at all.
Actually it will.
People still at work will be unaffected. Pensioners - who don't pay
NI - will find they're paying significant extra income tax.
What was a stupid mistake imo was lowering employees national
insurance from 12% to 8% at a time when the country couldn't really
afford it.
Had Labour been brave enough they could have reversed that cut with
no detriment, but instead they backed themselve into a corner by
saying no tax increases for workers.
IIRC they have never defined "worker".
payslip. Landlords are specifically excluded, payslip or not.
Do MPs receive a payslip?
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 14:36:04 +0100
Mike Scott <usenet.16@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid> wrote:
On 14/07/2025 00:41, John wrote:
On 13/07/2025 12:20, Fredxx wrote:
On 11/07/2025 23:28, GB wrote:
I don't think a modest tax increase is anything like enough to
sort things out, whilst a huge tax increase will lead to the most
able people leaving. Hence, Trumponomics has some appeal.
1 or 2 % transferred from National Insurance to Income Tax would
be sufficient and not affect the average working person.
It's the same pot and goes into general taxation, so transferring
oe to the other will make no difference at all.
Actually it will.
People still at work will be unaffected. Pensioners - who don't pay
NI - will find they're paying significant extra income tax.
What was a stupid mistake imo was lowering employees national
insurance from 12% to 8% at a time when the country couldn't really
afford it.
Had Labour been brave enough they could have reversed that cut with
no detriment, but instead they backed themselve into a corner by
saying no tax increases for workers.
IIRC they have never defined "worker".
'Worker' has been defined by the PM as somebody who receives a
payslip. Landlords are specifically excluded, payslip or not.
Do MPs receive a payslip?
IIRC they have never defined "worker".'Worker' has been defined by the PM as somebody who receives a
payslip. Landlords are specifically excluded, payslip or not.
Do MPs receive a payslip?
I feel as a group we're (pensioners) in the govt sights.
Mike Scott wrote:
I feel as a group we're (pensioners) in the govt sights.
I'm not a pensioner yet (though I might end-up calling in some of my
private pensions before I hit state retirement age) I fully expect to be dancing the govt's bullets ...
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 10:38:02 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
But of course the vital fundamental truth which is being ignored as it
doesn't sell newspapers is that there isn't going to be an election for
another 4 years, so current polls don't matter in the slightest. If, by
the time 4 years are up, Labour has actually managed to improve things
and there's any sense of optimism about the future, they'll get
re-elected. If they haven't, who knows... but my money would not be on
a Reform government, *especially* not one with a majority.
I don't think Labour can fix it; their support base won't accept what
has to be done so they will just muddle through the next 4 years (if
they last that long).
On 15/07/2025 00:37, Davey wrote:
IIRC they have never defined "worker".
'Worker' has been defined by the PM as somebody who receives a
payslip. Landlords are specifically excluded, payslip or not.
Do MPs receive a payslip?
And pensioners?
I feel as a group we're (pensioners) in the govt sights. Weren't
pensioners described recently as a "wealthy" group? (Can't remember
where I possibly saw that)
On 15/07/2025 00:37, Davey wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 14:36:04 +0100
Mike Scott <usenet.16@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid> wrote:
On 14/07/2025 00:41, John wrote:
On 13/07/2025 12:20, Fredxx wrote:
On 11/07/2025 23:28, GB wrote:
I don't think a modest tax increase is anything like enough to
sort things out, whilst a huge tax increase will lead to the most
able people leaving. Hence, Trumponomics has some appeal.
1 or 2 % transferred from National Insurance to Income Tax would
be sufficient and not affect the average working person.
It's the same pot and goes into general taxation, so transferring
oe to the other will make no difference at all.
Actually it will.
People still at work will be unaffected. Pensioners - who don't pay
NI - will find they're paying significant extra income tax.
What was a stupid mistake imo was lowering employees national
insurance from 12% to 8% at a time when the country couldn't really
afford it.
Had Labour been brave enough they could have reversed that cut with
no detriment, but instead they backed themselve into a corner by
saying no tax increases for workers.
IIRC they have never defined "worker".
'Worker' has been defined by the PM as somebody who receives a
payslip. Landlords are specifically excluded, payslip or not.
Do MPs receive a payslip?
Periodically my pension provider sends me a document called a "payslip",
and, since I'm retired, I don't do a stroke of work.
On 16/07/2025 09:53, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 10:38:02 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
But of course the vital fundamental truth which is being ignored as it
doesn't sell newspapers is that there isn't going to be an election for
another 4 years, so current polls don't matter in the slightest. If, by
the time 4 years are up, Labour has actually managed to improve things
and there's any sense of optimism about the future, they'll get
re-elected. If they haven't, who knows... but my money would not be on
a Reform government, *especially* not one with a majority.
I don't think Labour can fix it; their support base won't accept what
has to be done so they will just muddle through the next 4 years (if
they last that long).
There's nothing to stop them lasting that long. It's in their own hands
when to have a general election, as long as it's within the 5 years
allowed from the last one, and it's a racing certainty they're not going
to volunteer to lose their livelihoods any sooner as many of them are
surely destined to do.
The huge majority they have means they won't ever lose a vote of no confidence in Parliament which is the only other way that would trigger
an election.
So, even if it means putting your money away for 4 years with
Paddypower, the odds on a 2029 general election seem pretty good at 4/6, which would yield a 67% tax free return over that period. Can't get
that in a Building Society or even a stocks and shares ISA.
Perhaps that's what Rachel from Accounts means when she encourages us to
take a bit more risk with our money? I don't see how it benefits the
economy personally, but that's her domain, not mine.
On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 11:37:52 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 16/07/2025 09:53, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 10:38:02 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
But of course the vital fundamental truth which is being ignored as it >>>> doesn't sell newspapers is that there isn't going to be an election for >>>> another 4 years, so current polls don't matter in the slightest. If, by >>>> the time 4 years are up, Labour has actually managed to improve things >>>> and there's any sense of optimism about the future, they'll get
re-elected. If they haven't, who knows... but my money would not be on >>>> a Reform government, *especially* not one with a majority.
I don't think Labour can fix it; their support base won't accept what
has to be done so they will just muddle through the next 4 years (if
they last that long).
There's nothing to stop them lasting that long. It's in their own hands >>when to have a general election, as long as it's within the 5 years
allowed from the last one, and it's a racing certainty they're not going
to volunteer to lose their livelihoods any sooner as many of them are >>surely destined to do.
The huge majority they have means they won't ever lose a vote of no >>confidence in Parliament which is the only other way that would trigger
an election.
I don't expect it to happen but wouldn't entirely rule out enough of
the hardline hotheads turning on the leadership and causing them trot
lose a confidence vote.
On 16/07/2025 11:37 AM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 16/07/2025 09:53, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 10:38:02 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
But of course the vital fundamental truth which is being ignored as it >>>> doesn't sell newspapers is that there isn't going to be an election for >>>> another 4 years, so current polls don't matter in the slightest. If, by >>>> the time 4 years are up, Labour has actually managed to improve things >>>> and there's any sense of optimism about the future, they'll get
re-elected. If they haven't, who knows... but my money would not be on >>>> a Reform government, *especially* not one with a majority.
I don't think Labour can fix it; their support base won't accept what
has to be done so they will just muddle through the next 4 years (if
they last that long).
There's nothing to stop them lasting that long. It's in their own hands
when to have a general election, as long as it's within the 5 years
allowed from the last one, and it's a racing certainty they're not going
to volunteer to lose their livelihoods any sooner as many of them are
surely destined to do.
The huge majority they have means they won't ever lose a vote of no
confidence in Parliament which is the only other way that would trigger
an election.
So, even if it means putting your money away for 4 years with
Paddypower, the odds on a 2029 general election seem pretty good at 4/6,
which would yield a 67% tax free return over that period. Can't get
that in a Building Society or even a stocks and shares ISA.
Perhaps that's what Rachel from Accounts means when she encourages us to
take a bit more risk with our money? I don't see how it benefits the
economy personally, but that's her domain, not mine.
A short answer is that money in a stocks ISA is "investment" while
abundant low-priced money in a building society cash ISA contributes to house-price inflation.
On 15/07/2025 03:34 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 15/07/2025 00:37, Davey wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 14:36:04 +0100
Mike Scott <usenet.16@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid> wrote:
On 14/07/2025 00:41, John wrote:
On 13/07/2025 12:20, Fredxx wrote:
On 11/07/2025 23:28, GB wrote:
I don't think a modest tax increase is anything like enough to
sort things out, whilst a huge tax increase will lead to the most >>>>>>> able people leaving. Hence, Trumponomics has some appeal.
1 or 2 % transferred from National Insurance to Income Tax would
be sufficient and not affect the average working person.
It's the same pot and goes into general taxation, so transferring
oe to the other will make no difference at all.
Actually it will.
People still at work will be unaffected. Pensioners - who don't pay
NI - will find they're paying significant extra income tax.
What was a stupid mistake imo was lowering employees national
insurance from 12% to 8% at a time when the country couldn't really
afford it.
Had Labour been brave enough they could have reversed that cut with
no detriment, but instead they backed themselve into a corner by
saying no tax increases for workers.
IIRC they have never defined "worker".
'Worker' has been defined by the PM as somebody who receives a
payslip. Landlords are specifically excluded, payslip or not.
Do MPs receive a payslip?
Periodically my pension provider sends me a document called a "payslip",
and, since I'm retired, I don't do a stroke of work.
You did the work some time ago, but were not paid for it (all) then.
On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 14:48:26 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-16, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 11:37:52 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 16/07/2025 09:53, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 10:38:02 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
But of course the vital fundamental truth which is being ignored as it >>>>>> doesn't sell newspapers is that there isn't going to be an election for >>>>>> another 4 years, so current polls don't matter in the slightest. If, by >>>>>> the time 4 years are up, Labour has actually managed to improve things >>>>>> and there's any sense of optimism about the future, they'll get
re-elected. If they haven't, who knows... but my money would not be on >>>>>> a Reform government, *especially* not one with a majority.
I don't think Labour can fix it; their support base won't accept what >>>>> has to be done so they will just muddle through the next 4 years (if >>>>> they last that long).
There's nothing to stop them lasting that long. It's in their own hands >>>>when to have a general election, as long as it's within the 5 years >>>>allowed from the last one, and it's a racing certainty they're not going >>>>to volunteer to lose their livelihoods any sooner as many of them are >>>>surely destined to do.
The huge majority they have means they won't ever lose a vote of no >>>>confidence in Parliament which is the only other way that would trigger >>>>an election.
I don't expect it to happen but wouldn't entirely rule out enough of
the hardline hotheads turning on the leadership and causing them trot
lose a confidence vote.
Lose a vote, perhaps, but losing a *confidence* vote seems extremely >>unlikely. The "hardline hotheads" aren't complete imbeciles. They're
not going to bring down a Labour government if the likely result is
a Reform or Tory or Reform+Tory government instead.
I have learned the hard way that you should never rule out
irrationality.
I know there is a debate elsewhere about the difference between the US
and the Uk but, at the end of the day, USians are humans just like us
and ~50% of them have voted Trump into power not just once but twice.
I won't mention the 50+% who voted for Brexit :)
On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 14:48:26 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-16, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 11:37:52 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 16/07/2025 09:53, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 10:38:02 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
But of course the vital fundamental truth which is being ignored as it >>>>>> doesn't sell newspapers is that there isn't going to be an election for >>>>>> another 4 years, so current polls don't matter in the slightest. If, by >>>>>> the time 4 years are up, Labour has actually managed to improve things >>>>>> and there's any sense of optimism about the future, they'll get
re-elected. If they haven't, who knows... but my money would not be on >>>>>> a Reform government, *especially* not one with a majority.
I don't think Labour can fix it; their support base won't accept what >>>>> has to be done so they will just muddle through the next 4 years (if >>>>> they last that long).
There's nothing to stop them lasting that long. It's in their own hands >>>> when to have a general election, as long as it's within the 5 years
allowed from the last one, and it's a racing certainty they're not going >>>> to volunteer to lose their livelihoods any sooner as many of them are
surely destined to do.
The huge majority they have means they won't ever lose a vote of no
confidence in Parliament which is the only other way that would trigger >>>> an election.
I don't expect it to happen but wouldn't entirely rule out enough of
the hardline hotheads turning on the leadership and causing them trot
lose a confidence vote.
Lose a vote, perhaps, but losing a *confidence* vote seems extremely
unlikely. The "hardline hotheads" aren't complete imbeciles. They're
not going to bring down a Labour government if the likely result is
a Reform or Tory or Reform+Tory government instead.
I have learned the hard way that you should never rule out
irrationality. I know there is a debate elsewhere about the difference between the US and the Uk but, at the end of the day, USians are
humans just like us and ~50% of them have voted Trump into power not
just once but twice. I won't mention the 50+% who voted for Brexit :)
On 2025-07-16, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Sure. But the Labour majority is such that you'd need an *awful lot* of irrationality to overturn it.
On 16/07/2025 14:05, JNugent wrote:
On 15/07/2025 03:34 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 15/07/2025 00:37, Davey wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 14:36:04 +0100
Mike Scott <usenet.16@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid> wrote:
On 14/07/2025 00:41, John wrote:
On 13/07/2025 12:20, Fredxx wrote:
On 11/07/2025 23:28, GB wrote:
I don't think a modest tax increase is anything like enough to >>>>>>>> sort things out, whilst a huge tax increase will lead to the most >>>>>>>> able people leaving. Hence, Trumponomics has some appeal.
1 or 2 % transferred from National Insurance to Income Tax would >>>>>>> be sufficient and not affect the average working person.
It's the same pot and goes into general taxation, so transferring
oe to the other will make no difference at all.
Actually it will.
People still at work will be unaffected. Pensioners - who don't pay
NI - will find they're paying significant extra income tax.
What was a stupid mistake imo was lowering employees national
insurance from 12% to 8% at a time when the country couldn't really >>>>>> afford it.
Had Labour been brave enough they could have reversed that cut with >>>>>> no detriment, but instead they backed themselve into a corner by
saying no tax increases for workers.
IIRC they have never defined "worker".
'Worker' has been defined by the PM as somebody who receives a
payslip. Landlords are specifically excluded, payslip or not.
Do MPs receive a payslip?
Periodically my pension provider sends me a document called a "payslip", >>> and, since I'm retired, I don't do a stroke of work.
You did the work some time ago, but were not paid for it (all) then.
Yes I was. It's a private pension, not an occupational one.
On 16/07/2025 14:09, JNugent wrote:
On 16/07/2025 11:37 AM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 16/07/2025 09:53, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 10:38:02 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
But of course the vital fundamental truth which is being ignored as it >>>>> doesn't sell newspapers is that there isn't going to be an election
for
another 4 years, so current polls don't matter in the slightest.
If, by
the time 4 years are up, Labour has actually managed to improve things >>>>> and there's any sense of optimism about the future, they'll get
re-elected. If they haven't, who knows... but my money would not be on >>>>> a Reform government, *especially* not one with a majority.
I don't think Labour can fix it; their support base won't accept what
has to be done so they will just muddle through the next 4 years (if
they last that long).
There's nothing to stop them lasting that long. It's in their own hands >>> when to have a general election, as long as it's within the 5 years
allowed from the last one, and it's a racing certainty they're not going >>> to volunteer to lose their livelihoods any sooner as many of them are
surely destined to do.
The huge majority they have means they won't ever lose a vote of no
confidence in Parliament which is the only other way that would trigger
an election.
So, even if it means putting your money away for 4 years with
Paddypower, the odds on a 2029 general election seem pretty good at 4/6, >>> which would yield a 67% tax free return over that period. Can't get
that in a Building Society or even a stocks and shares ISA.
Perhaps that's what Rachel from Accounts means when she encourages us to >>> take a bit more risk with our money? I don't see how it benefits the
economy personally, but that's her domain, not mine.
A short answer is that money in a stocks ISA is "investment" while
abundant low-priced money in a building society cash ISA contributes
to house-price inflation.
I thought it was wimmin working.
On 16/07/2025 05:56 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 16/07/2025 14:05, JNugent wrote:
On 15/07/2025 03:34 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 15/07/2025 00:37, Davey wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 14:36:04 +0100
Mike Scott <usenet.16@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid> wrote:
On 14/07/2025 00:41, John wrote:
Had Labour been brave enough they could have reversed that cut with >>>>>>> no detriment, but instead they backed themselve into a corner by >>>>>>> saying no tax increases for workers.
IIRC they have never defined "worker".
'Worker' has been defined by the PM as somebody who receives a
payslip. Landlords are specifically excluded, payslip or not.
Do MPs receive a payslip?
Periodically my pension provider sends me a document called a
"payslip", and, since I'm retired, I don't do a stroke of work.
You did the work some time ago, but were not paid for it (all) then.
Yes I was. It's a private pension, not an occupational one.
Fair enough.
But even so, what are they doing when they remit your monthly entitlement?
They are PAYING it to you!
So "payslip" seems as appropriate as it would in any other circumstance.
On 16/07/2025 05:56 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 16/07/2025 14:05, JNugent wrote:
On 15/07/2025 03:34 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 15/07/2025 00:37, Davey wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 14:36:04 +0100
Mike Scott <usenet.16@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid> wrote:
On 14/07/2025 00:41, John wrote:
On 13/07/2025 12:20, Fredxx wrote:
On 11/07/2025 23:28, GB wrote:
I don't think a modest tax increase is anything like enough to >>>>>>>>> sort things out, whilst a huge tax increase will lead to the most >>>>>>>>> able people leaving. Hence, Trumponomics has some appeal.
1 or 2 % transferred from National Insurance to Income Tax would >>>>>>>> be sufficient and not affect the average working person.
It's the same pot and goes into general taxation, so transferring >>>>>>> oe to the other will make no difference at all.
Actually it will.
People still at work will be unaffected. Pensioners - who don't pay >>>>>> NI - will find they're paying significant extra income tax.
What was a stupid mistake imo was lowering employees national
insurance from 12% to 8% at a time when the country couldn't really >>>>>>> afford it.
Had Labour been brave enough they could have reversed that cut with >>>>>>> no detriment, but instead they backed themselve into a corner by >>>>>>> saying no tax increases for workers.
IIRC they have never defined "worker".
'Worker' has been defined by the PM as somebody who receives a
payslip. Landlords are specifically excluded, payslip or not.
Do MPs receive a payslip?
Periodically my pension provider sends me a document called a
"payslip",
and, since I'm retired, I don't do a stroke of work.
You did the work some time ago, but were not paid for it (all) then.
Yes I was. It's a private pension, not an occupational one.
Fair enough.
But even so, what are they doing when they remit your monthly entitlement?
They are PAYING it to you!
So "payslip" seems as appropriate as it would in any other circumstance.
On 17/07/2025 14:19, JNugent wrote:
On 16/07/2025 05:56 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 16/07/2025 14:05, JNugent wrote:
On 15/07/2025 03:34 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 15/07/2025 00:37, Davey wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 14:36:04 +0100
Mike Scott <usenet.16@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid> wrote:
On 14/07/2025 00:41, John wrote:
Had Labour been brave enough they could have reversed that cut with >>>>>>>> no detriment, but instead they backed themselve into a corner by >>>>>>>> saying no tax increases for workers.
IIRC they have never defined "worker".
'Worker' has been defined by the PM as somebody who receives a
payslip. Landlords are specifically excluded, payslip or not.
Do MPs receive a payslip?
Periodically my pension provider sends me a document called a
"payslip", and, since I'm retired, I don't do a stroke of work.
You did the work some time ago, but were not paid for it (all) then.
Yes I was. It's a private pension, not an occupational one.
Fair enough.
But even so, what are they doing when they remit your monthly
entitlement?
They are PAYING it to you!
But not in Mr Demian's case for 'work' either directly or indirectly
after a delay. It's pure investment income.
So "payslip" seems as appropriate as it would in any other circumstance.
Not really in my view, but the term isn't exactly precise. On your interpretation it could include any interest or dividend payments from
any source. But I'm sure that nice Mr Starmer didn't intend it to, or
there wouldn't be anyone left that he can tax more.
Be grateful that there are people like Mr Demian out there who can be
taxed up to the hilt, especially if you personally fall squarely within
the group Starmer says won't be. Someone has to pay after all, and the
only rule is better someone else than you, since that is what by
definition makes it 'fair'.
But I wouldn't be surprised if the definition of 'payslip' changes
somewhat over the months ahead so as to include virtually everyone.
On 17/07/2025 14:19, JNugent wrote:
On 16/07/2025 05:56 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 16/07/2025 14:05, JNugent wrote:
On 15/07/2025 03:34 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 15/07/2025 00:37, Davey wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 14:36:04 +0100
Mike Scott <usenet.16@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid> wrote:
On 14/07/2025 00:41, John wrote:
On 13/07/2025 12:20, Fredxx wrote:
On 11/07/2025 23:28, GB wrote:
I don't think a modest tax increase is anything like enough to >>>>>>>>>> sort things out, whilst a huge tax increase will lead to the most >>>>>>>>>> able people leaving. Hence, Trumponomics has some appeal.
1 or 2 % transferred from National Insurance to Income Tax would >>>>>>>>> be sufficient and not affect the average working person.
It's the same pot and goes into general taxation, so transferring >>>>>>>> oe to the other will make no difference at all.
Actually it will.
People still at work will be unaffected. Pensioners - who don't pay >>>>>>> NI - will find they're paying significant extra income tax.
What was a stupid mistake imo was lowering employees national
insurance from 12% to 8% at a time when the country couldn't really >>>>>>>> afford it.
Had Labour been brave enough they could have reversed that cut with >>>>>>>> no detriment, but instead they backed themselve into a corner by >>>>>>>> saying no tax increases for workers.
IIRC they have never defined "worker".
'Worker' has been defined by the PM as somebody who receives a
payslip. Landlords are specifically excluded, payslip or not.
Do MPs receive a payslip?
Periodically my pension provider sends me a document called a
"payslip",
and, since I'm retired, I don't do a stroke of work.
You did the work some time ago, but were not paid for it (all) then.
Yes I was. It's a private pension, not an occupational one.
Fair enough.
But even so, what are they doing when they remit your monthly
entitlement?
They are PAYING it to you!
So "payslip" seems as appropriate as it would in any other circumstance.
It's Sir Kier Starmer who wants to restrict the term to what "workers" get.
On 17/07/2025 05:34 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 17/07/2025 14:19, JNugent wrote:
On 16/07/2025 05:56 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 16/07/2025 14:05, JNugent wrote:
On 15/07/2025 03:34 PM, Max Demian wrote:
Periodically my pension provider sends me a document called a
"payslip", and, since I'm retired, I don't do a stroke of work.
You did the work some time ago, but were not paid for it (all) then.
Yes I was. It's a private pension, not an occupational one.
Fair enough.
But even so, what are they doing when they remit your monthly
entitlement?
They are PAYING it to you!
So "payslip" seems as appropriate as it would in any other circumstance.
It's Sir Kier Starmer who wants to restrict the term to what "workers"
get.
If you are retired (I can't remember what you said on that), you are a retired worker.
On 17/07/2025 04:32 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 17/07/2025 14:19, JNugent wrote:
On 16/07/2025 05:56 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 16/07/2025 14:05, JNugent wrote:
On 15/07/2025 03:34 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 15/07/2025 00:37, Davey wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 14:36:04 +0100
Mike Scott <usenet.16@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid> wrote:
On 14/07/2025 00:41, John wrote:
Had Labour been brave enough they could have reversed that cut >>>>>>>>> with
no detriment, but instead they backed themselve into a corner by >>>>>>>>> saying no tax increases for workers.
IIRC they have never defined "worker".
'Worker' has been defined by the PM as somebody who receives a
payslip. Landlords are specifically excluded, payslip or not.
Do MPs receive a payslip?
Periodically my pension provider sends me a document called a
"payslip", and, since I'm retired, I don't do a stroke of work.
You did the work some time ago, but were not paid for it (all) then.
Yes I was. It's a private pension, not an occupational one.
Fair enough.
But even so, what are they doing when they remit your monthly
entitlement?
They are PAYING it to you!
But not in Mr Demian's case for 'work' either directly or indirectly
after a delay. It's pure investment income.
Hmmm... so receipt of a contributory occuaptional pension is
praiseworthy whilst receipt of a private pension gained with the sam contribution quantum is less worthy?
So "payslip" seems as appropriate as it would in any other circumstance.
Not really in my view, but the term isn't exactly precise. On your
interpretation it could include any interest or dividend payments from
any source. But I'm sure that nice Mr Starmer didn't intend it to, or
there wouldn't be anyone left that he can tax more.
Be grateful that there are people like Mr Demian out there who can be
taxed up to the hilt, especially if you personally fall squarely within
the group Starmer says won't be. Someone has to pay after all, and the
only rule is better someone else than you, since that is what by
definition makes it 'fair'.
But I wouldn't be surprised if the definition of 'payslip' changes
somewhat over the months ahead so as to include virtually everyone.
It would have be encapsulated within an Act or a set of regulations.
On 18/07/2025 00:53, JNugent wrote:
On 17/07/2025 05:34 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 17/07/2025 14:19, JNugent wrote:
On 16/07/2025 05:56 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 16/07/2025 14:05, JNugent wrote:
On 15/07/2025 03:34 PM, Max Demian wrote:
Yes I was. It's a private pension, not an occupational one.Periodically my pension provider sends me a document called a
"payslip", and, since I'm retired, I don't do a stroke of work.
You did the work some time ago, but were not paid for it (all) then. >>>>>
Fair enough.
But even so, what are they doing when they remit your monthly
entitlement?
They are PAYING it to you!
So "payslip" seems as appropriate as it would in any other
circumstance.
It's Sir Kier Starmer who wants to restrict the term to what
"workers" get.
If you are retired (I can't remember what you said on that), you are a
retired worker.
Which means he isn't one now and is therefore not protected by Mr
Starmer's promise, as if that means anything anyway.
On 17/07/2025 05:34 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 17/07/2025 14:19, JNugent wrote:
On 16/07/2025 05:56 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 16/07/2025 14:05, JNugent wrote:
On 15/07/2025 03:34 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 15/07/2025 00:37, Davey wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 14:36:04 +0100
Mike Scott <usenet.16@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid> wrote:
On 14/07/2025 00:41, John wrote:
On 13/07/2025 12:20, Fredxx wrote:
On 11/07/2025 23:28, GB wrote:
I don't think a modest tax increase is anything like enough to >>>>>>>>>>> sort things out, whilst a huge tax increase will lead to the >>>>>>>>>>> most1 or 2 % transferred from National Insurance to Income Tax would >>>>>>>>>> be sufficient and not affect the average working person.
able people leaving. Hence, Trumponomics has some appeal. >>>>>>>>>>
It's the same pot and goes into general taxation, so transferring >>>>>>>>> oe to the other will make no difference at all.
Actually it will.
People still at work will be unaffected. Pensioners - who don't pay >>>>>>>> NI - will find they're paying significant extra income tax.
What was a stupid mistake imo was lowering employees national >>>>>>>>> insurance from 12% to 8% at a time when the country couldn't >>>>>>>>> really
afford it.
Had Labour been brave enough they could have reversed that cut >>>>>>>>> with
no detriment, but instead they backed themselve into a corner by >>>>>>>>> saying no tax increases for workers.
IIRC they have never defined "worker".
'Worker' has been defined by the PM as somebody who receives a
payslip. Landlords are specifically excluded, payslip or not.
Do MPs receive a payslip?
Periodically my pension provider sends me a document called a
"payslip",
and, since I'm retired, I don't do a stroke of work.
You did the work some time ago, but were not paid for it (all) then.
Yes I was. It's a private pension, not an occupational one.
Fair enough.
But even so, what are they doing when they remit your monthly
entitlement?
They are PAYING it to you!
So "payslip" seems as appropriate as it would in any other circumstance.
It's Sir Kier Starmer who wants to restrict the term to what "workers"
get.
If you are retired (I can't remember what you said on that), you are a retired worker.
On 18/07/2025 00:53, JNugent wrote:
On 17/07/2025 05:34 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 17/07/2025 14:19, JNugent wrote:
On 16/07/2025 05:56 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 16/07/2025 14:05, JNugent wrote:
On 15/07/2025 03:34 PM, Max Demian wrote:Yes I was. It's a private pension, not an occupational one.
On 15/07/2025 00:37, Davey wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 14:36:04 +0100
Mike Scott <usenet.16@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid> wrote:
On 14/07/2025 00:41, John wrote:
On 13/07/2025 12:20, Fredxx wrote:
On 11/07/2025 23:28, GB wrote:
I don't think a modest tax increase is anything like enough to >>>>>>>>>>>> sort things out, whilst a huge tax increase will lead to the >>>>>>>>>>>> most1 or 2 % transferred from National Insurance to Income Tax would >>>>>>>>>>> be sufficient and not affect the average working person.
able people leaving. Hence, Trumponomics has some appeal. >>>>>>>>>>>
It's the same pot and goes into general taxation, so transferring >>>>>>>>>> oe to the other will make no difference at all.
Actually it will.
People still at work will be unaffected. Pensioners - who don't >>>>>>>>> pay
NI - will find they're paying significant extra income tax.
What was a stupid mistake imo was lowering employees national >>>>>>>>>> insurance from 12% to 8% at a time when the country couldn't >>>>>>>>>> really
afford it.
Had Labour been brave enough they could have reversed that cut >>>>>>>>>> with
no detriment, but instead they backed themselve into a corner by >>>>>>>>>> saying no tax increases for workers.
IIRC they have never defined "worker".
'Worker' has been defined by the PM as somebody who receives a >>>>>>>> payslip. Landlords are specifically excluded, payslip or not.
Do MPs receive a payslip?
Periodically my pension provider sends me a document called a
"payslip",
and, since I'm retired, I don't do a stroke of work.
You did the work some time ago, but were not paid for it (all) then. >>>>>
Fair enough.
But even so, what are they doing when they remit your monthly
entitlement?
They are PAYING it to you!
So "payslip" seems as appropriate as it would in any other
circumstance.
It's Sir Kier Starmer who wants to restrict the term to what
"workers" get.
If you are retired (I can't remember what you said on that), you are a
retired worker.
Maybe I'm a retired professional.
On 2025-07-16, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't expect it to happen but wouldn't entirely rule out enough of
the hardline hotheads turning on the leadership and causing them trot
lose a confidence vote.
Lose a vote, perhaps, but losing a *confidence* vote seems extremely unlikely. The "hardline hotheads" aren't complete imbeciles. They're
not going to bring down a Labour government if the likely result is
a Reform or Tory or Reform+Tory government instead.
On 16/07/2025 15:48, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-16, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't expect it to happen but wouldn't entirely rule out enough of
the hardline hotheads turning on the leadership and causing them trot
lose a confidence vote.
Lose a vote, perhaps, but losing a *confidence* vote seems extremely
unlikely. The "hardline hotheads" aren't complete imbeciles. They're
not going to bring down a Labour government if the likely result is
a Reform or Tory or Reform+Tory government instead.
More to the point for them is that they would lost their seats in the election.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 08:45:11 |
| Calls: | 10,388 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,835 |
| Posted today: | 1 |