UK Politics

(there is - at times - a luscious* touch and smell to this rose) * highly pleasing to the taste or smell or touch.

Britain drops its challenge to ICC arrest warrants for Israeli leaders​

Labour government announces its biggest step yet in overhauling the UK’s approach to the Middle East

 
Last edited:
UK didn't spend that money on migrants. That money goes to propping up big insititutions, landlords and MP's + House of Lords, who have vested interest in supporting those migrants in terms of housing and services.

This is the whole shenanigans. Migrants are just a smoke screen. Same as giving money to Ukraine, it comes back to UK defence industries.

This is what the joe public don't freaking get.

The wealthy schmucks spend their rental incomes on holidays, fast cars and other non-productive investments like managing shit damp properties for the poor sausages and migrants.

It is the circle of income. So quoting all those statistics is a red rag to dumb joe public who gets hot under the collar blaming migrants and foreign labour. My local hospital is full of hard working nurses and doctors from India and Phillipines. Very few white English doctors and nurses. Go figure.

UK then goes shit stirring and bombing with the US, all over the world creating more refugees.

Nigel Farage blames the EU and migrants for our poor productivity and economic growth. That one trick pony. When will sad fookers wake up and change the language. Some tosser of a police officer kicks a lasered guy in the face when he is flat down ans stamps on his head, and Reform (Nigel's party) MPs support the action saying officers should be given a medal. That is a lot of hate in those words before anyone knows what took place.

UK is turning into a very empty vessel of a sad state. Foreign students turning away from British universities. Universities now crying for funds. UK crying out for more brains.

Since Brexit water companies just dumping sewage into rivers. No obligation to keep coastlines clean either.

Just one issue after another.

Heard a very funny comment on the radio. Farage should put him self forward to lead the Conservatives. I think he should. Guy hasn't done anything but destroy goodness and value. Let's see how deep into the sewage he can lead the UK.


Carrying on by attacking migrant labour seeking work, will further lead UK to fall behind.
 
Last edited:
. . . Carrying on by attacking migrant labour seeking work, will further lead UK to fall behind.
Hi At',
As always, you make interesting points, but I'm far from convinced by your views on immigration. That said, as always, I remain open minded but, as things stand, I'm inclined to agree with Simon Webb (owner and host of 'History Debunked' YouTube channel). In the video below, he asserts that the U.K.s immigration policy is essentially a Ponzi scheme which will necessarily result in ever larger numbers of migrants coming to our shores. His reasoning strikes me as being pretty sound! Enjoy . . .

 
New Manchester Airport footage shows man 'punch two female police officers to the ground' - moments before cop 'kicked man in the head' sparking protests
 
UK didn't spend that money on migrants. That money goes to propping up big insititutions, landlords and MP's + House of Lords, who have vested interest in supporting those migrants in terms of housing and services.

This is the whole shenanigans. Migrants are just a smoke screen. Same as giving money to Ukraine, it comes back to UK defence industries.

This is what the joe public don't freaking get.

The wealthy schmucks spend their rental incomes on holidays, fast cars and other non-productive investments like managing shit damp properties for the poor sausages and migrants.

It is the circle of income. So quoting all those statistics is a red rag to dumb joe public who gets hot under the collar blaming migrants and foreign labour. My local hospital is full of hard working nurses and doctors from India and Phillipines. Very few white English doctors and nurses. Go figure.

UK then goes shit stirring and bombing with the US, all over the world creating more refugees.

Nigel Farage blames the EU and migrants for our poor productivity and economic growth. That one trick pony. When will sad fookers wake up and change the language. Some tosser of a police officer kicks a lasered guy in the face when he is flat down ans stamps on his head, and Reform (Nigel's party) MPs support the action saying officers should be given a medal. That is a lot of hate in those words before anyone knows what took place.

UK is turning into a very empty vessel of a sad state. Foreign students turning away from British universities. Universities now crying for funds. UK crying out for more brains.

Since Brexit water companies just dumping sewage into rivers. No obligation to keep coastlines clean either.

Just one issue after another.

Heard a very funny comment on the radio. Farage should put him self forward to lead the Conservatives. I think he should. Guy hasn't done anything but destroy goodness and value. Let's see how deep into the sewage he can lead the UK.


Carrying on by attacking migrant labour seeking work, will further lead UK to fall behind.
A wish-wash of opinion and conjecture comprising zero statically research and credibility.
 
Hi At',
As always, you make interesting points, but I'm far from convinced by your views on immigration. That said, as always, I remain open minded but, as things stand, I'm inclined to agree with Simon Webb (owner and host of 'History Debunked' YouTube channel). In the video below, he asserts that the U.K.s immigration policy is essentially a Ponzi scheme which will necessarily result in ever larger numbers of migrants coming to our shores. His reasoning strikes me as being pretty sound! Enjoy . . .


Have you questioned any of his assertions or thought about them. Let's have a go.

1. In 2015 - net migration was 315K. I in 2023 - net migration increased to 600-700K post Brexit. So who is to blame for that?

As I say the British Lords, asset holders in land and property as well as businesses up and down the country all use migrant labour. Roofers and builders always have a Polish or Albanian or other nationals on their payroll. Some they don't even pay National Insurance on. Pay peanuts.

2. Two thirds of all nurses in Britain, since 2019 are foreigners recruited from abroad he says? Why on Earth should that be the case - he asks.

His answer is Immigration fuels immigration a vicious cirlce. REALLY? So it is not about:

a) training more nurses in the UK because Conservatives have removed burseries or
b) poor numeration of nurses

3. To explain how he reaches this immigration fuels immigration conclusion he looks at 600 overseas students who fund our University courses because even British students can not afford these course. Anyhow, he goes on to say they would need to register with their GP.

His mathematics and assumptions are well skewed here. UK average maybe 1700 patients per GP in the UK based on ONS. However, Students are young people who don't need as many visits to GP as retirees or one needs to ask what the average age distribution of those 1700 patients per GP is. So the fact that the old fart ignores this basic consideration renders his numbers absolutely useless.

He suggest recruiting GPs will need additional Doctors ie consultants for the NHS and nurses. Well once his basic premise is wrong his conclusion about the number of doctors and nurses for students is way off.

This old fool then goes on to say the 43736 nurses and doctors arriving here need to register with GP and NHS and require even more nurses as if they will need the same level of service as the British baby boomer retiring and aging living longer.

Yes migrant labour needs houses and GP care too but not half as much as national population.

Look at population of many other countries and they are considerably higher than ours. Higher populations when well trained, educated and fed lead to a superior and better functioning societies, richer in diversity, creativity, work and all the other good things in life.

This is the whole issue with people and economics. It is sooo easy to blame other people who do not look like us for our problems. Armchair pundits jump on the Reform and Farage speel about it all and those nit twits lend credibility to wrong conclusions.

Read on a blog that Boris Johnson and Liz Truss went to speak in the Republican Congress and the room was full of empty chairs. Other than half a dozen journalists nobody turned up to listen to them. Irrellevant politicians who have effed up the UK in a big way. Where are all these wonderful people who knew our troubles and could get us out by reducing immigration and with Brexit taking control of our borders.


The problem is far more complex and embedded in a work shy Britain, managed by the aristocracy and the elite who merely look after their own interests.

People are quite prepared to die for the country in national duty and pride. Ask them to get educated, go to work, earn a bit of money and pay some tax and they turn hell upside down in lamenting about how dissapointed they are with the foreign migrant working population when they see them doing better.

He doesn't say how the politicians should train more doctors or students or finance the university courses. What's his answer to that then when we stop all migrants and students from coming in?

Answers on a postcard...
 
. . . Answers on a postcard...
Thanks At', although I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this issue. :)

To my mind, it's basic common sense that if we import a city the size of Birmingham every two years (I may have got the city and and time span wrong - but it's something in that order of magnitude), then in addition to the housing, we also need the infrastructure to support all these people: transport, education and, in the example given by Simon Webb in the video I posted, healthcare services. The more that come, then the more infrastructure will be needed. How can it be otherwise? As it is, the people are coming, but the infrastructure isn't keeping pace, with the consequence that everyone's quality of life is diluted. Too much traffic on poorly maintained roads, standing room only on trains, classroom sizes too big and having to wait weeks for a doctors' appointment etc. Indeed, this morning, Rachael Reeves has announced that she's cutting - yes cutting £billions in expenditure on infrastructure projects. Crazy! But I'll wager that immigration numbers won't fall.

The big mistake that almost everyone makes who is very keen on mass immigration is to assume that those of us who think it creates waaaaaaay more problems than it solves are all racists. There will be a few, certainly. But most - and I include myself in this latter category - are not racists at all and agree that sustainable levels of immigration can be very beneficial. I have a sister-in-law who is from the Philippines, a lovely neighbour who is from Sri Lanka and a good friend who is from Iraq. All three women (coincidentally) are fantastic people and enrich the lives of everyone who knows them. They are all fully integrated into British society and contribute to it immeasurably. No one - least of all me - think that they shouldn't be here. As for the colour of their skin, that's completely irrelevant. If every one of the 600k+ coming into the U.K. each year were all white people from the U.S., Canada and Australia - I'd say exactly the same thing! Uncontrolled mass immigration will lead to ever higher numbers of people coming here, with the inevitable result that an already bad situation will get a whole lot worse.
Tim.
 

Labour raids 10MILLION pensioners... and tax hikes ARE coming: Reeves strips most OAPs of winter fuel payments and flags 'difficult decisions' in Budget as she blames Tories for £22bn hole in public finances - but still hands junior doctors 22% pay rise​


'Working Families Will Never Forgive Rachel Reeves' Jeremy Hunt on Labours Budget​

 
Last edited:
....... Ask them to get educated, go to work, earn a bit of money and pay some tax ...........................................................................................................................................and they turn hell upside down in lamenting about how dissapointed they are with the foreign migra
A statement of universal scope and merit. Closer to bone - rather amusing. 🥹
 
Last edited:

Sex Gangs of Britain (True Crime Documentary) | Real Stories​

What do we know about the ethnicity of sexual abuse gangs?​

Types of sexual abuse by groups​

In 2013, CEOP published a study looking at “contact sexual offending against children by non-related adults”. They found that there are two types of group-based abuse.
  • “Type 1” group abuse involves targeting a victim, or victims, based on their vulnerability.
CEOP says: “The focus here appears to be on the sexual abuse of teenagers and young adults on the basis of their vulnerability, rather than as a result of a specific preferential sexual interest in children […] CEOP assesses that type 1 offenders are unlikely to identify themselves as having a sexual interest in children, but molest children because they are vulnerable to sexual exploitation.”
  • “Type 2” group abusers are defined as having “a longstanding sexual interest in children”.
Type 2 groups operate in a way that’s often characterised as a paedophile “ring”. In other words, these offenders are not simply targeting children because they are vulnerable, but because they are children.

What do we know about the ethnicity of group abusers?​

The latest data we have on this is from the 2013 CEOP study. It reports 57 cases of Type 1 group abuse in 2012, and police provided ethnicity data on 52 of these.

Half of those Type 1 cases involved all-Asian groups. 21 per cent were all-white groups, and 17 per cent were groups containing multiple ethnicities.

75 per cent of recorded Type 1 group abusers, who target victims based on their vulnerability, were Asian. The Office for National Statistics estimates that 7.5 per cent of the UK’s population are Asian.

17 per cent of Type 1 offenders were white, compared to 86 per cent of the UK population.

There were six recorded cases of Type 2 group abuse.

100 per cent of recorded Type 2 group offenders, who abuse children because of long-standing paedophilic interest, are white.
 
Last edited:

Rachel Reeves announces public spending cuts in Commons statement​

 
Last edited:

Islamic hate preacher Anjem Choudary who ran terror cell Al-Muhajiroun that inspired spate of attacks including London Bridge and Fishmongers' Hall atrocities is jailed for life with a minimum term of 28 years​

 
Thanks At', although I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this issue. :)

To my mind, it's basic common sense that if we import a city the size of Birmingham every two years (I may have got the city and and time span wrong - but it's something in that order of magnitude), then in addition to the housing, we also need the infrastructure to support all these people: transport, education and, in the example given by Simon Webb in the video I posted, healthcare services. The more that come, then the more infrastructure will be needed. How can it be otherwise? As it is, the people are coming, but the infrastructure isn't keeping pace, with the consequence that everyone's quality of life is diluted. Too much traffic on poorly maintained roads, standing room only on trains, classroom sizes too big and having to wait weeks for a doctors' appointment etc. Indeed, this morning, Rachael Reeves has announced that she's cutting - yes cutting £billions in expenditure on infrastructure projects. Crazy! But I'll wager that immigration numbers won't fall.

The big mistake that almost everyone makes who is very keen on mass immigration is to assume that those of us who think it creates waaaaaaay more problems than it solves are all racists. There will be a few, certainly. But most - and I include myself in this latter category - are not racists at all and agree that sustainable levels of immigration can be very beneficial. I have a sister-in-law who is from the Philippines, a lovely neighbour who is from Sri Lanka and a good friend who is from Iraq. All three women (coincidentally) are fantastic people and enrich the lives of everyone who knows them. They are all fully integrated into British society and contribute to it immeasurably. No one - least of all me - think that they shouldn't be here. As for the colour of their skin, that's completely irrelevant. If every one of the 600k+ coming into the U.K. each year were all white people from the U.S., Canada and Australia - I'd say exactly the same thing! Uncontrolled mass immigration will lead to ever higher numbers of people coming here, with the inevitable result that an already bad situation will get a whole lot worse.
Tim.

Hi Tim,

Bare facts are that the Tories have serially being telling us they will be tough on migration and cut down numbers and neither they or Labour have done anything about it. Why not?


If you cut migration down to ZERO the UK would have population decline. With an aging population and a falling birth-rate the tax burden would rise considerably.

Economic growth would further fall along with productivity. There is no escaping this fact.

Illegal boat crossings are the issue. Simply pay them money to go back home and stop bombing the shit out of their countries.

Most migration is absolutely necessary and contribute towards the British economy, helping put off wage inflation, improve productivity and fill the brain gap which the UK is severely lacking in.

Yes young people who do come across illegally on boat crossing are suspect, have a high risk appetite, more desperate and obviously less skilled and less intelligent for having to do so. However, the fact that Nigel Farage and the far right of UK are hell bent on talking it up as if it is the single issue facing the UK and even making it the one trick pony that got us Brexit should tell you enough.

Yes population growth does require additional services and facilities but that is what generates growth and income. There are many other countries with populations over 150m and the whole economy and infrastructure expands naturally to accommodate. Bigger population and an active economy building generates more wealth and opportunities.

Issue with the UK is they do not invest on infrastructure or services. Run down the country which is very poorly managed. Quite a few EU labourers have left. I know from several experiences we've had to look for IT skills from abroad. Foreign recruits are better trained, work for less and take pride in their work and development.

Whole country is obsessed with migrants at the mo. Hate is rising as numpties stoke the fire.

It's a little like you basing your Brexit decision on fisheries and £30m trade whilts ignoring the £billions of benefits from the EU membership. Are British fisherman happi-er now they are out of the EU? Last I heard they weren't particularly happy with all forms they now have to fill in.

People are so easy to rile up with mis-direction to hate migrants that they forget everything else.
 
Last edited:

Rachel Reeves announces public spending cuts in Commons statement​

Rebuttal: ALEX BRUMMER​

With her dogmatic and dishonest spin, Rachel Reeves is in danger of pounding her growth agenda to rubble, writes ALEX BRUMMER​

Labour’s mask has slipped. And the voters who gave Sir Keir Starmer such a generous majority have been confronted with the ugly face of cheap politics – skewed priorities and partisan giveaways.

How can a huge £9.4 billion payout to Labour-supporting state-sector unions be judged as anything but cynical?

And why is a government that promised to rebuild Britain for all its citizens, protecting the billions we spend on asylum seekers instead of our own pensioners?

Yet the very worst aspect of the hollow political theatre we saw on Monday with Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ ‘spending audit’ has barely earned a mention – and that’s the betrayal of the productivity and prosperity that Britain so desperately needs.

The new government claims that its core mission is ‘restoring growth’ – as it should be. The nation would be delighted if Britain’s first female Chancellor were to succeed.

Miserable

But instead of speaking to the country in a spirit of optimism, Reeves was needlessly and destructively miserable.

She claimed, for example, that she had inherited the weakest economy since 1945, which is plainly untrue. She found a Tory cover-up when there has been no such thing. As for the stable and expanding economy bequeathed to her by former Conservative Chancellor Jeremy Hunt . . . not a word.

Reeves has chosen to pretend that our improving economic picture is a mirage. But as Hunt, now shadow chancellor, has reminded us, Britain returned to growth in the first two quarters of the year. After a difficult spell, the economy is rebounding.

Only yesterday, Lloyds Bank reported that business confidence has hit a seven-year high. Inflation has returned to the 2 per cent target set by the Treasury – a remarkable achievement given where we were. Government borrowing is on a downward trajectory and UK debt levels – at below 100 per cent of national income – are lower than those of the U.S., Japan, France and Italy.

Baked-in Tory tax increases stretching well into the future, together with Starmer’s election victory, had already delivered the stability which the City traders (and, in particular, the bond markets) so crave.

The public finances are by no means disastrous. Yet Reeves is obsessed with what she calls ‘fixing the foundations’. It shows that the new occupant of Number 11 is no more than a fiscal obsessive living in fear of financial markets, which is why she has chosen to axe key infrastructure projects and hammer savers – an attack on two key engines of future prosperity.

The faux catastrophe ‘discovered’ by Reeves is simply an excuse for raising taxes still further – taxes which already soak up 37 per cent of national income – in order to buy peace with Labour’s trade union paymasters.

The risk is that by showing such generosity, especially to the troublesome junior doctors, the Chancellor will simply store up competing demands from other colleagues in the NHS.

One of the most bewildering things is that Reeves’s gloomy audit flies in the face of the pro-growth promises outlined by the Government in its first three weeks.

On her first working day at the Treasury, for example, Reeves gathered leading figures in business and the City to tell them Labour would drive a coach and horses through Britain’s planning system to build 1.2 million homes. A new ‘National Wealth Fund’, designed by former Bank of England governor Mark Carney, would unlock private sector cash and investment. Ed Miliband’s Great British Energy would create a green industrial revolution.

I now fear that such initiatives will be side-lined, thanks to Reeves’s misplaced determination to be an Iron Chancellor – and be seen as such.

Already, the signs are far from encouraging. Among the keys to expanding Britain’s economy, for example, is a drive to improve our infrastructure so that, among other things, people and goods can move more efficiently.

It is, then, an act of sabotage to cut the very projects which could break Britain’s cycle of feeble productivity.

Reeves has moved to cancel several imaginative transport schemes, including the controversial but much-needed A303 Stonehenge tunnel — a serious blow to the struggling economy in the South-West.

Also cancelled is an important bypass on the A27, a key route to the valuable port of Southampton. Funds to restore previously axed and abandoned railway lines have been scrapped.

And there is no mention of what the Government plans to do about connecting the stump of the HS2 high-speed link to Birmingham from where it ends at present — a station at Old Oak Common, west of London — to the centre of the capital, where people wish to go.

If we are to take Reeves’s £22 billion budget gap seriously then the £5.5 billion of cuts in the 2024-25 fiscal year announced this week, plus the £8.12 billion of reduced outlays projected for 2025-26 cannot be enough

Sabotage​

Labour’s manifesto promised not to raise VAT, income tax or national insurance — but taxes will inevitably rise all the same.

Reeves has already begun consultations on ending what remains of non-dom status, and is proposing to raise taxes on Britain’s booming private equity industry.

Higher capital gains and inheritance taxes are also thought to be in prospect. These would hit ordinary middle-income households. The Chancellor is also considering removing some tax relief from pension savings.

Attacks on the wealthy, who have accumulated capital as a result of big rises in asset prices (property and stocks and shares) in recent times, will be popular with Labour’s socialist base.

But how will such policies help growth?

Starmer and Reeves claim they want to galvanise investment in Britain’s brilliant AI, tech, gaming and life-sciences industries and reinvigorate the London stock market.

Yet taxes on the richest in society will only drive capital overseas and make it even harder for the new government to unlock the private sector money it seeks for its green revolution — not to mention the new National Wealth Fund established to finance innovation and pioneering technologies.

There is one potential ray of hope to come from Reeves’s former employers at the independent Bank of England.

Doubt

Today, the Monetary Policy Committee headed by Governor Andrew Bailey begins a meeting which could cut interest rates from 5.25 per cent, now that inflation is back under control.

A rate reduction would be a boost for struggling businesses, help households with mortgages and cut the cost of servicing Britain’s national debt. It would be a huge boost to Britain’s output.

Now, though, Reeves has sown seeds of doubt in the City. The concern is that her inflation-busting pay deal for public sector employees will lead to demands from other groups of workers.

A cautious Bank of England, fearful of a ‘wage spiral’, could pull back from a knife-edge decision. Prolonging a period of higher borrowing costs would, among other things, do immense damage to the Government’s ambitious house-building plans.
Reeves has forgotten that the speediest and best way to deal with borrowing overshoots is to expand the economy, which in turn increases revenues for the Exchequer —and cuts welfare payments.
The whole growth agenda on which the new government was elected is being crushed by the Chancellor’s dogmatic and dishonest spin.
She is in danger not of fixing the foundations, but pounding them to rubble.

-------------------------------------------------------
Conservative Party chairman Richard Holden called on Labour's Shadow Chancellor to 'correct the record' after she claimed that the economy was expected to be £40billion smaller in 2027 than was forecast in March.

Mr Holden said figures from the Office for Budget Responsibility this week showed that the economy was expected to be 0.6 per cent bigger in 2027 than had been predicted earlier this year – equal to an improvement of around £15billion.

In a letter to the Shadow Chancellor last night, Mr Holden said there appeared to be 'a £55billion gap between what you say and reality'.
He said Ms Reeves appeared to have failed 'either deliberately or recklessly' to take account of a major upward revision to the UK's past growth rates by the Office for National Statistics, which showed the UK had recovered from the pandemic quicker than either France or Germany.

Mr Holden wrote: 'At every opportunity the Labour Party resorts to scaremongering and defeatism – instead of celebrating the resilience of our economy and the strength of British businesses up and down the country.'

 
Last edited:
Hi At',
As always, you make interesting points, but I'm far from convinced by your views on immigration. That said, as always, I remain open minded but, as things stand, I'm inclined to agree with Simon Webb (owner and host of 'History Debunked' YouTube channel). In the video below, he asserts that the U.K.s immigration policy is essentially a Ponzi scheme which will necessarily result in ever larger numbers of migrants coming to our shores. His reasoning strikes me as being pretty sound! Enjoy . . .

To understand the cost of illegal immigration on our society and our finances, we must first understand the scale of the issue in hand—a task that, by its very nature, is problematic. To again cite the House of Commons Library report prepared for this debate,

“The most recent robust estimates of the size of the unauthorised resident population in the UK put it at around 400,000-600,000 in the early 2000s…More recent but less robust estimates have put the population at between 800,000 and 1.2 million in 2017…It is likely none of these estimates accurately captures the situation in 2024.”

I would be pleased to hear from the Minister on that point. That is equivalent to a city with a population 20% larger than Birmingham, or three times the size of Manchester, living in the UK illegally, utilising the many public-funded services that are available to them, regardless of a person’s immigration status—and it could be far more.

Public services available to illegal migrants include state education, NHS services, including A&E treatment and primary care such as GPs and dentistry appointments, compulsory psychiatric treatment, legal aid, and various local authority support. I receive hundreds of emails a month from constituents telling me that they cannot get a GP appointment, are struggling to find a dentist, and cannot get their first choice school place or a decent roof over their heads. Is there any wonder?

The Government’s impact assessment of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 estimated that the total cost of providing public services to a UK national is around £12,000 per person. Even the most basic calculations put the economic burden on the British taxpayer of an illegal migration population of 1.2 million at £14.4 billion. That is just shy of 10% of NHS England’s budget for this year. Imagine that cash injection on frontline services or to help people who are struggling with the cost of living.

There is not just an economic cost; indirect consequences of illegal migration are inevitable, including wage suppression. Those without permission to work legally in Britain must find a way to support themselves and they end up working in the gig economy for unscrupulous business owners, who offer lower wages that are accepted, because illegal workers will take what they can get—for which we cannot blame them.

In addition, the Home Office expects to spend £482 million on immigration enforcements this year alone, and the costs related to the Rwanda scheme continue to pile up to an eyewatering amount. It is important to note that none of the costs mentioned so far takes into account those associated with our broken asylum system, such as the nearly £8 million a day currently used to house asylum applicants. Home Office figures cited by the Financial Times in August last year showed that the annual asylum cost reached £3.96 billion in the year up to 2023—double that of the previous year and six times higher than 2018. Yet, despite that astronomical cost, we continue to increase handouts to France to stop the boats. I would like to hear what the Minister thinks of our agreement with France; to those on the outside it looks like it is not working, and taxpayers’ money is being wasted.

A House of Commons Library report showed that the UK Government gave a combined £232 million to the French authorities for border control in their own country, between 2014 to the end of the 2022-23 financial year. Under the joint leaders’ declaration agreed in March that year, we have committed to give more than double that—£476 million over the next two financial years. I think we should demand a refund from France. The economic costs are endless. It is simply impossible to quantify the true impact of this issue on the public purse. It is clear to me, and a vast majority of the British public, that this is a totally unacceptable state of affairs.

source: https://hansard.parliament.uk/commo...t basic calculations,million at £14.4 billion.
 
Hi Tim,

Bare facts are that the Tories have serially being telling us they will be tough on migration and cut down numbers and neither they or Labour have done anything about it. Why not?


If you cut migration down to ZERO the UK would have population decline. With an aging population and a falling birth-rate the tax burden would rise considerably.

Economic growth would further fall along with productivity. There is no escaping this fact.

Illegal boat crossings are the issue. Simply pay them money to go back home and stop bombing the shit out of their countries.

Most migration is absolutely necessary and contribute towards the British economy, helping put off wage inflation, improve productivity and fill the brain gap which the UK is severely lacking in.

Yes young people who do come across illegally on boat crossing are suspect, have a high risk appetite, more desperate and obviously less skilled and less intelligent for having to do so. However, the fact that Nigel Farage and the far right of UK are hell bent on talking it up as if it is the single issue facing the UK and even making it the one trick pony that got us Brexit should tell you enough.

Yes population growth does require additional services and facilities but that is what generates growth and income. There are many other countries with populations over 150m and the whole economy and infrastructure expands naturally to accommodate. Bigger population and an active economy building generates more wealth and opportunities.

Issue with the UK is they do not invest on infrastructure or services. Run down the country which is very poorly managed. Quite a few EU labourers have left. I know from several experiences we've had to look for IT skills from abroad. Foreign recruits are better trained, work for less and take pride in their work and development.

Whole country is obsessed with migrants at the mo. Hate is rising as numpties stoke the fire.

It's a little like you basing your Brexit decision on fisheries and £30m trade whilts ignoring the £billions of benefits from the EU membership. Are British fisherman happi-er now they are out of the EU? Last I heard they weren't particularly happy with all forms they now have to fill in.

People are so easy to rile up with mis-direction to hate migrants that they forget everything else.

Migration to UK has failed to boost economic growth, warns report​

According to a new study from the Centre for Policy Studies, migration to the UK is putting pressure on housing, public services and infrastructure. However, other countries take a different stance, with some viewing migration as beneficial for their economies.

High levels of immigration have failed to enhance the economy and have worsened the housing crisis in the UK, according to a new report from the Centre for Policy Studies (CPS).

The study by the centre-right think-tank was co-authored by former immigration minister Robert Jenrick. It argues that about 89% of the 1.34 million rise in England's housing deficit over the last decade has been due to net migration.

Additionally, 67% of private rented households in London are headed by individuals born overseas, as were 33% of new social housing placements in the London borough of Brent in 2022/23.

"Large-scale migration has not delivered the economic benefits its defenders argue it should – with the era of mass migration coinciding with a significant slowdown in GDP per capita growth," former Conservative minister and co-author of the report, MP Neil O’Brien, said.

And he stressed, "It has also put significant strain on public services and infrastructure: migrants may bring skills with them but they cannot bring additional roads, school places, or GP surgeries. Unprecedented levels of migration have put upward pressure on rents and house prices."

The report calls on the Government to implement limits on legal immigration to alleviate excessive pressure on British infrastructure and public services. It argues that this could be done by adjusting salary requirements for visa eligibility to match inflation and imposing an immediate cap on health & care visas at 30,000, similar to the level seen in 2021.

"The changes we propose today would finally return numbers to the historical norm and deliver the highly-selective, highly-skilled immigration system voters were promised," Mr Jenrick said.

"These policies could be implemented immediately and would consign low-skilled mass migration to the past."

However, other European countries, including Germany, take a different line, according to a recent study by the Institute for Employment Research (IAB) in Nuremberg.

As reported by Euronews last week, among those who arrived in the country in 2015, 64% were employed in 2022, compared to 77% of the broader German population.

IAB reported that 90% of workers in this group paid social security contributions, and the median gross hourly wage for arrivals in 2015 was €13.70, despite any difficulties that might arise at the beginning.

"Due to institutional and individual hurdles, particularly at the beginning of the refugees' stay, employment rates are still low at less than 10% in the first year after arrival," noted the IAB, referring to the refugee population as a whole.

"However, employment rates rise significantly as the length of stay increases: On average, they reach 57% six years after immigration, 63% seven years after immigration and 68% for stays of eight years or more."

source: https://www.euronews.com/business/2...-failed-to-boost-economic-growth-warns-report

A new report from the Centre for Policy Studies, written by former Immigration Minister Robert Jenrick MP, former minister Neil O’Brien MP, and CPS Research Director Karl Williams argues that the scale and composition of recent migration have failed to deliver the significant economic and fiscal benefits its advocates promised, while putting enormous pressure on housing, public services and infrastructure.
The analysis argues:
  • Large-scale migration has not delivered significant growth in GDP per capita, and has increased the strain on our capital stock, from roads and GP surgeries to housing
  • Net migration accounts for around 89% of the 1.34 million increase in England’s housing deficit (the amount of homes we have underbuilt by) in the last 10 years
  • Pressure has been added to rental markets, as well as affecting home ownership. For example, 67% of private rented households in London are headed by someone born overseas, as were 33% of new social housing lets in Brent in 2022/23
  • Between 2001 and 2021, the share of people in England and Wales born outside the UK increased from 9% to 17%, but this rate of change is set to accelerate
  • On the current trajectory, net migration will amount to annual population growth of over 0.6% across the 2020s – double the rate of the last three decades, and six times the rate of the 1990s
  • Migrants from the Middle East, North Africa and Turkey aged 25-64 are almost twice as likely to be economically inactive as someone born in the UK
  • Earnings, and therefore tax contributions, also vary enormously, for example Spanish migrants typically earn around 40% more than migrants from Pakistan or Bangladesh, but roughly 35% less than migrants from France or America. Migrants from countries such as Canada, Singapore and Australia pay between four and nine times as much income tax as migrants from Somalia or Pakistan
The full report includes over thirty recommendations, the vast majority of which can be implemented within the remainder of this parliament. Recommendations include:
  • Abolishing the Graduate route, instead giving foreign students who want to stay in the UK should need to find graduate-level jobs that meet the salary threshold within six months of the end of their studies
  • Substantially revising the International Education Strategy (IES), ending the arbitrary 600,000 a year target for the number on international students
  • Accepting the Migration Advisory Committee’s recommendation to retire the Shortage Occupation List (SOL) altogether, rather than just creating a new, opaque Immigration Salary List (ISL)
  • Setting the salary threshold for health & care visas above the National Living Wage, while raising the minimum hourly wage in the care sector by 20-40p to boost domestic recruitment
  • Creating time-limited exceptions to visa limits for NHS workers, until the NHS Long Term Workforce Plan ramps up
  • Imposing an immediate cap on health & care visas at c.30,000, roughly the level seen in 2021
  • Indexing salary thresholds for visa routes in line with inflation, to prevent automatic liberalisation
  • A Whitehall-wide examination of data recording and transparency to allow comprehensive analysis of the impact of migration on everything from housing and public spending to crime and productivity, led by the Migration Advisory Committee
  • Splitting up the Home Office to create a new Department of Border Security and Immigration Control, with the rest of the department forming a Department for Policing and National Security
As reported on Sunday 28 April, the report also calls for:
  • Reaffirming a national commitment to return net migration to the historical norm of the tens of thousands
  • Instituting an annual cap on each individual visa route, voted on by Parliament as part of a ‘Migration Budget’
  • The preparation of a ‘Migration Book’, akin to the Treasury’s Red Book, which should pull together data from across all relevant departments, looking at the demographic and fiscal footprint of migration forecasts, as well as the net impact on housing, infrastructure and access to public services
source: https://cps.org.uk/media/post/2024/...sed-economic-benefits-say-jenrick-and-obrien/
 
Last edited:
This is the opposite way of saying the lack of investment to build infrastructure and support services is to do with maintaining population.

It doesn't answer the basic question, UK has a declining birth rate and aging population with a shrinking tax base.

The working population is now 75% of the population and it has fallen from a historic of 80%

So given the poor productivity and economic growth, without migration taxes will have to rise considerably.

The sums are like 2 + 2 = 4.

ANY ONE who doesn't see this glaring fundamental issue is a numpty to say the least.


Report does say "However, other countries take a different stance, with some viewing migration as beneficial for their economies." And they build and invest for it.


What we have here is the same British desease. I'll just name two industries; ship building and car manufacturing. Two strategically important and significant industries for any world leading nations.

Shipbuilding was the best in the world and UK was a naval power to be reckoned with. Ended with the German's over taking and the sinking of the Titanic as they competed on who could cross the Atlantic fastest. Moreover, management failed to invest in new methods and ship yards, preferring to compete on price and keeping labour wages poor. Then blamed unions. It was primarily elite toffs making wrong judgement calls and not investing.

Same with British Leyland and car manufacturing. British management competed on price and not investign in new automation, mechanisation of assembly lines, coupled with poor design and piss poor investment. Pressure was to keep wages low compete on pricing poor cars. Thatcher cut subsidies and the whole car manufacturing dies.

Same with Housing, Schools, Police and Hospitals. Coming to your awareness soon enough British universities with foreign students picking other locations but the UK. Piss poor investment. Tories telling you taxes will fall when the medicine for UK is quite the opposite.


Once again we have a report from the FAR FREAKING RIGHT telling us it's the little hard working migrants who are the cause of our ills taking up valuable space that should accommodate lazy work shy highly tattooed under skilled fookers with beer cans in their hands.


UK needs a migration policy based on something like what the Australians have, scoring skills, aptitude age and wealth etc. Shouldn't be beyond the ability of our elite toffs to contrive something a little better than Rawanda.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Top