Have a feeling that Starmer won't be around in six years time.
Westminster Politics 2024-2029
- Thread starter Pexbo
- Start date
Have a feeling that Starmer won't be around in six years time.
Reeves will give dismantling it in half that time a good go.
I’ll be somewhat generous and say that an industrial economy that makes loads of stuff, with more land, should be able to wear that easier.
That we’ve turned ourselves into a services economy, doesn’t really lend itself to not being fecked over by more people joining at working age.
That’s not to say we haven’t had despicable people in charge, and a truly horrifying attitude to asylum seekers.
What a load of utter nonsense. A job is a job, why does it matter what type of job it is? We have an aging population and need more workers, just like almost everywhere else in Europe really.
Industry generates wealth through exports. A service economy relies on imports.
Nick 0208 Ldn vindicated
Jenrick is such a low rent, slimy neo-fascist.
He will say or do anything to become leader.
Correct. The simple truth is that as a country, we need to manufacture much more than we do now.
What we do manufacture is very good; just not enough of it.
They publish quarterly. Those are not the latest figures.
What's that got to do with anything? Germany gets a lot more applications than us. We approve a higher proportion of applications than Germany. We approved more applications in the last 12 months than we did in the 12 months prior.
All three statements can be true. All somebody asked was why the UK attracts so many small boat crossings. Quite why you want to argue this despite clearly knowing nothing about it is bewildering.
It attracts small boat crossings because there are very few legal ways to get here and claim asylum, because we are an island, because English is the spoken language, and because there is a lot of black market work here that the government aren't even slightly interested in cracking down on. And you know all those things, so quite why you want to pretend it's because we're a soft touch with asylum claims and benefits is not particularly bewildering, but in fact reflects poorly on your character.
Could you send me the link to the most recent figures, as this was the latest I could find.
Is there any evidence that the reason the rates are different is due to less stringent criteria for acceptance?
For instance you cite Spain but a brief glance as to the applications by country tells you why it's so low, they get huge numbers of applications from Venezuela and Colombia which they reject. The specifics of applicants matter.
We get significantly less applications than France and Germany so it's hard to believe we're a preferred destination. I expect the group who do cross simply have very strong claims otherwise why risk your life.
British media is completely fine
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-june-2024
We granted almost 100,000 arrivals via legal routes so again, nonsense.
We are not a preferred destination, that's not what I am saying. We do have a number of favourable conditions for asylum seekers which is why some people attempt to cross the Channel from the relative safety of France. There's never going to be one single reason but the asylum regime in the UK is a clear factor in the decision. It's difficult to collect stats on illegal migrants for obvious reasons but the Oxford Migration Observatory reckons the main reasons people continue on to the UK from Europe are family ties (clearly), English language, and perception of the UK as a friendly environment for asylum seekers. But the research they cite to come to that conclusion is over 20 years old so pretty much useless.
Our mix of nationalities is fairly in line with the rest of Europe with Afghanistan being the most common origin for us and Syria for Europe, of which both have a near 100% approval rate. It's Spain that's the outlier, not us.
Ministers introduce plans to remove all hereditary peers from Lords
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ans-to-remove-all-hereditary-peers-from-lords
Ministers introduce plans to remove all hereditary peers from Lords
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ans-to-remove-all-hereditary-peers-from-lords
I wonder if this creates a risk for the Lords to become a more politically relevant/powerful house?
The assumption is that those 92 are all from old money and likely conservatives but it’s not always the case, a lot of old money are so financially secure and so disconnected to the political narratives that consume common folk that they somehow transcend the partisan nature of politics and are able to view issues in a more logical or pragmatic fashion. A bit like how Prince Charles has become such an ardent champion of nature (despite also enjoying taking some of it to task with a 12 bore).
If you make them nominated members only, does it risk it becoming more of a partisan house?
The reforms in my opinion should be to make it another elected house with a limited number of seats and term limits. Work on a 10 (arbitrary) year term with elections every couple of years with nominations coming from all parties not just the sitting government.
This guy is one of most scummiest individuals around. Him being in the House of Lords is indicative of the political landscape in this country. Introduce terms for everyone in the House of Lords.
You know very well that are almost no legal routes outside of the Ukraine and Hong Kong schemes. Do you want to have a guess at how many people from Ukraine and Hong Kong went in the small boats?
You're being deliberately disingenuous to cover the fact (which you also well know) that you're a selfish person.
So you've nothing to share; opinions on how things might work out, no predictions, no forecast.... yes I see, stand on the sidelines and make derogatory remarks.A different opinion to what exactly? That was absolute gobbledegook
How about venturing one or two ideas of what would be needed to 'move the dial', whats the planning cycle/time-lag likely to be, what would likely prevent progress being made, what does Starmer have to do to get the ten years he feels are necessary.... any ideas....how might this aim might be met, or even just progressed????
What's that I hear... the sound of silence' , or is it the proverbial 'empty-vessel' being rattled
That's true, but Attlee had the Marshal plan to assist him (money wise at least) and Starmer has a lot more expectation on him.
Yes, there are similarities, but the public was recovering from a devastating war the aftermath being even worse than the Covid pandemic and in truth the expectations of what government could do were lower than to-days. I remember even in the early 50's one of my mothers top wishes was for rationing to be brought to and end and that it didn't really happen for years.
Starmer has to try to get everyone on board and given the circumstances, not just of the past 14 years, but the Wars going on in Europe and the Middle east, devastation of the public's belief in government over failures, like Grenfell, Post Office, the Blood scandal and perhaps the growing realisation we might (even now) be too late on climate changes and the growing migration crisis, around the world.
I've a terrible feeling he will get only one chance at moving the dial for ordinary people, he has to plan very carefully and despite all the 'noises off' keep to the plans his cabinet come up with.... its going to take time and a 'fair wind'.
A house stuffed full of cronies and party donors is as bad as hereditary peers.
I've no idea how they should structure a second house so it doesn't just replicate the Commons along party lines.
@Frosty
And now you're resorting to making it personal because you've nothing left to say on a topic you clearly know nothing about.
It's frustrating because the purposeful muddying of the discussion distracts from ever being able to address the real issues behind it. It's a national problem but this thread is a perfect microcosm of it.
Sorry to butt in but I've been reading your posts on this with @TwoSheds and in almost every one of them you have gone out of your way to be rude.
This is a common theme from you, it's a shame as though I disagree with you 99% of the time, it's always good to hear arguments from other perspectives, but your posts are littered with insults and rudeness. Seeing you tell someone else off for "making it personal" is funny but also shows an embarrassing lack of self awareness.
When this is the initial response to a post I'm not going to be nice, sorry.
There's a lot of that in this forum when the echo chamber gets fractured. I'm quite sure @Smores disagrees with just about everything I say but his response to my post wasn't layered with snide remarks or personal comments, and mine wasn't to him.
You continually shatter the echo chamber with your one man crusade, posting facts which get proven to be utter nonsense time and time again
A number of countries have an upper house that is partially elected and partially appointed. You could also elect a proportion of the Lords through regional lists or national PR, ensuring the constituency link is not replicated in both houses.
There's nothing wrong with appointments per se. Our system sucks. You could have for example major industries and professions allocated some seats - trades unions, doctors, nursing, transport etc etc.
You could also abolish life peerages and give peers both a mandatory retirement age and a fixed term, say 15 years, to ensure turnover. You could also limit by law the number of appointments that can be made between elections, which would place a limit on the powers of PMs.
Most importantly, we need to place the powers of the Lords on a statutory footing. Most of it is based on convention and Erskine May. Not ideal and it is not clear in some areas when and if the courts can intervene. Ensure there is a clear basis for Commons preeminence - most of the issues over Brexit came about through new situations that had no clear answer in the existing conventions.
You are the one deliberately muddying the water and you know well know it. You are in fact as you pretend, and also as deliberately biased and hypocritical as you are pretending that I am. And you have been from the start of the conversation which tells me you really don't want people to know you are as self centred as you in fact are.
What is the safe and legal route for those outside Ukraine and Hong Kong? I genuinely don’t know but would like to.
That makes a lot of sense, thanks. I was presuming both houses elected. Also interesting on precedence- so you'd keep say the parliament act, even if both houses were elected so Commons could ram stuff through?
A lot of democracies have an equivalent to the Parliament Act to enable the more powerful chamber's will to prevail. It would make sense to keep it. There is a lot that could be done to minimise abuse without involving the courts. You could have more scrutiny of bills by committees, or you could have the Lords give a formal statement of reasons for rejecting bills, allowing the Commons to amend or change legislation to enable it to pass.
The Parliament Act hasn't been used very often, and I think that is partly to do with the fact the Lords controls its own timetable. It will debate legislation for as long as it wants, which is a kind of implicit power to hold up the Government's business, which makes the Government compromise on most Bills.
If an elected Lords loses the power to control it timetable, and if that is controlled by a Government majority, then you will basically allow the Government to do what it wants and override any attempts to scrutinise legislation.
If a future Lords does not have a majority for any party, and retains a power to scrutinise as it wishes, I would support it.
The UK hopes to revive “flatlined” trade
In other "We have no idea what we are doing" news from Labour trade minister, Douglas Alexander
In other "We have no idea what we are doing" news from Labour trade minister, Douglas Alexander
Also
Mainly because they won't lessen the restrictions on foreign student visas. Madness.
That was always on the cards once they ruled out a graduate tax and increased state funding (the latter being a very sensible investment in the future economy). If tuition fees had kept up with inflation they should be at 12k. I would not be surprised if they go up more than that to pay off the deficits of institutions. Sigh.
That was always filling the financial hole created by the coalition's reforms. Either you massively increase state funding or you continue down this path and pile it on the students. International students are already massively subsidising UK students.