THE FOURTH OF JULY

[Jacob]

The Greens or LibDems are the usual alternative destination.

The lettuce inevitably leads to the former as best choice - worthy, decent, environmentally sound, politically neutral, well intentioned with almost no chance of forming the next government. You can confidently assert you did not vote for the government, no matter who wins or how bad.

LibDems have a small core of support and attract dissatisfied Tory and Labour voters who can't bring thenselves to vote for the other side.

Might end up with minority govt and minor parties having more influence.

 

[DrPhill]

The right wing economic theory always sounds to me like something out of the Bible:
“For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath”

 

[Richard_C]

It leaves voters with a choice of a plan which probably won't work, or no plan at all

If you look at the Rwanda costs, like many policies, the numbers are so big they are hard to comprehend.

To put it in simple terms, take the total home office estimated cost per head, multiply by the number you get on a plane, divide by the number of UK working taxpayers and you end up with it costing every one of us £10 for every plane full. I believe it is a cruel way to do things, but even if you support the idea do you really want to spend your money that way?

There is also the logical fallacy: Rwanda is a safe country and they will treat asylum seekers properly (according to legislation) vs the declared purpose of the policy is to be a deterrent. One, but not both, can be true.

If Terry is right, I would rather have no plan than a plan that doesn't work and costs me £10 a pop.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

We have a labour shortage.
This impacts on productivity on whichever area you care to look at.
This in turn disadvantages others with lack of necessary goods/services, which in turn can create unemployment.
Hence migration worldwide, has historically enriched both the migrants AND their hosts, not least because migrants tend to go where the work is (obviously) and if the work gets done others get the benefit and it creates more employment opportunities.
We have a labour shortage - we need them.
Even without a labour shortage immigration tends to increase production, especially as they tend to be young, fit and highly motivated.

This is a short term, expediency driven view, and unsustainable as a long term strategy. The young, motivated and fit ultimately grow older and need the services which they originally provided.

Since 1997 (covering Tory and Labour govts) net immigration has been ~250k pa - total ~6.5m over 26 years. Over the same period total UK population has grown by 9.7m from 58.2m to 67.9m.

• housing completions have averaged ~200k pa fairly consistently. This is broadly adequate to meet increased population but takes no account of changing needs - family breakdowns, demographic changes.
• only an increasing real supply of housing will reduce prices and rents
• similar stresses in all public service provision - healthcare, education, fire services, energy consumption, water resources etc etc
• the UK is already more densely populated than other major European nations - Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Poland.
• net immigration has been a feature of the last 30 years and there is no reason why the trend should reverse. It is entirely structural.

One option is to accept the status quo. Future planning should very explicitly make provision for this population increase. At present it does not. We also need to accept the indefinite price paid in terms of the environment, congestion, social impacts. IMHO this is not desirable.

It is similar to an individual continually spending more than they earn, covering the difference with more borrowing. This may work for many years. Ultimately there will be a reckoning - it is unsustainable. Expediency = bury head in sand and hope the problem goes away.

The alternative is planning to balance the workforce with the demands upon it through:

• training and education for those not optimising their contribution to society
• automation of services - AI, robotics etc
• improving productivity - stop that which is no longer needed (however painful)
• revising working expectations - retire later, more part time

Lip service is paid to this by both parties - it needs focus, money and resolve to make change happen. I don't see immigration as other than a short term stop gap whilst as a society we properly balance the provision of services with labour available.

 

[John Brown]

I heard(or more likely read) the phrase "performative cruelty" the other day. Totally sums up the Rwanda scheme, as far as I'm concerned. It almost certainly won't deter anybody desperate enough to attempt a small boat crossing, but strongly appeals to the mean streak in a lot of voters.

 

[Spectric]

If you want to break the cycle of the two party game of tennis then vote for Reform, they have some real common sense such as why should only a percentage of people pay income tax whilst those with the money use avoidance schemes. Make avoidance the same as evasion so we all pay income tax and we all pay less but more goes into the pot to support our essential services. In this next polical farce the conservatives cannot lose, you either get the current flavour of conservatism or another version from labour.

 

[Spectric]

which care homes close, which financial and technology firms move their activities to other countries, which hospitals go uncleaned. . Our skills training has been dire for decades, we are an ageing, sick nation, we need migrant workers and will do for the foreseeable future.

Why not employ our unemployed many of whom have chosen not to work rather than import labour. Our skills training has declined with the decline of our industries and the failing education system where having a bit of paper with a degree is seen as essential rather than accepting hand skills are more important and having a workforce that can use tools and not just pens and paper is essential.

 

[Keith Cocker]

If you want to break the cycle of the two party game of tennis then vote for Reform, they have some real common sense such as why should only a percentage of people pay income tax whilst those with the money use avoidance schemes. Make avoidance the same as evasion so we all pay income tax and we all pay less but more goes into the pot to support our essential services. In this next polical farce the conservatives cannot lose, you either get the current flavour of conservatism or another version from labour.

Reform are going to have difficulty fielding candidates as they have just had to get rid of over 100 of their candidates (quietly they hoped) who had very murky track records on racism, mysoginy and worse. They are a party of very unpleasant people.

 

[Adam W.]

There once was a scheme, where a "certain" country was legally able to deport their unwanted migrants back to their first port of entry into the EU.

Apparently it wasn't a good enough scheme, so it was decided by the greatest brains in the country that another, less travelled path towards glorious sunny uplands was the better option.

 

[John Brown]

That is a Labour argument in that you state what you don't like but don't offer a credable alternative.

Since the Rwanda scheme won't work anyway, why is a credible alternative needed?
If you said you were going to only eat unripe bananas for 5 months, and I said I thought it was a bad idea, would you expect me to come up with a credible alternative?
Regardless, here's a credible alternative. Put the resources into processing the asylum seekers promptly. That way the successful ones can start contributing to the economy, and we wouldn't have to give millions to that chap whose name I've forgotten, who's now one of the richest 350 people in the UK as a result of his housing and transporting asylum seekers in limbo.
Here's another: Make Suella Braverman the governor of Cornwall, and ship all the asylum seekers down there. If that doesn't deter them, nothing will.

 

[DerekJohn]

No, not a reference to a " Yankee Doodle Dandy" but to the upcoming polling day - which no one else seems to want to mention

The old cynic in me, thinks that Rishi might be trying to pass the parcel before its contents become too toxic. Possibly with a view to the Tories getting back in power, at a later date, when Labour also fail to deal with the issues at hand.

You are quite right - see this https://www.ruskinweb.co.uk/ where I propose a the end of party politics and a possible solution! We all agree with you!

 

[selectortone]

. Put the resources into processing the asylum seekers promptly. That way the successful ones can start contributing to the economy

Many of those who support the Rwanda scheme don't want anyone who doesn't look like them in the country, for fear of diluting our 'culture' - even though they are willing, and able, to do the menial jobs they won't, such as in hospitals, care homes, picking crops, delivering their Amazon parcels, cooking and delivering their takeaways, etc., etc.

 

[evildrome]

There has to be a better system than FPTP, though. I've spent fifty years voting for people purely to keep someone else out - that can't be right.

Fair play.

People don't like FPTP but if you have PR, you end up with an ungovernable mess (Italy, Greece) or a vaguely centre right coalition that rules in perpetuity (Germany).

FPTP can give one party a huge majority and it gets S**T done.

Ask Attlee. He managed to nationalise Coal, Steel, Rail, Water, created the NHS & Social Security and topped it off with 1m new council houses.

No way could that have been done under PR.

And it keeps the loonies out.

 

[RobinBHM]

If you want to break the cycle of the two party game of tennis then vote for Reform, they have some real common sense such as why should only a percentage of people pay income tax whilst those with the money use avoidance schemes. Make avoidance the same as evasion so we all pay income tax and we all pay less but more goes into the pot to support our essential services. In this next polical farce the conservatives cannot lose, you either get the current flavour of conservatism or another version from labour.

The beliefs / policies of Labour and Conservative are quite different.

I think it is a shame that this trope of “Labour is just aa version of Conservatism”. I believe it comes mostly from Corbyn roots.

 

[GuitardoctorW7]

I'd rather vote for a lettuce than the bunch of entitled muppets currently pretending they have a clue.

But where would it stop then? That would just be the tip of the iceberg

 

[GuitardoctorW7]

More Canute than Noah

Minus the A & E

 

[niemeyjt]

My adage is that there is no situation that a politician (of any colour) cannot make worse.

Look at most of our issues - NHS, dentistry, housing, debt - all have been made worse by the actions of politicians.

You cannot repeal the laws of physics or unintended consequences.

It looks like the next lot are about to trash the education system.

 

[RobinBHM]

Fair play.

People don't like FPTP but if you have PR, you end up with an ungovernable mess (Italy, Greece) or a vaguely centre right coalition that rules in perpetuity (Germany).

FPTP can give one party a huge majority and it gets S**T done.

Ask Attlee. He managed to nationalise Coal, Steel, Rail, Water, created the NHS & Social Security and topped it off with 1m new council houses.

No way could that have been done under PR.

And it keeps the loonies out.

I respectfully disagree with this, because the evidence shows the opposite to be true.

Western countries with FPTP have the worst levels of wealth inequality, low standards of living for the general public and badly functioning public services. USA and U.K. being prime examples.

Western countries with fairest wealth distribution, high standards of living for the majority and good public services all have PR voting systems.

You mention Attlee but that was a special period post war, I would argue the last 50 years, FPTP has kept 50 years of neo liberalism in power

It’s not just voting systems, we have billionaire media owners who favour one side and we have a weak parliament that allows the wealthy to influence policy far too much

“Proportional Representation is not just better for democracy, but has associated positive outcomes relating to equality. Links between proportional voting systems and reduced inequality have been observed in countries the world over”

https://makevotesmatter.org.uk/equality/

 

[whereistheceilidh]

Why not employ our unemployed many of whom have chosen not to work rather than import labour. Our skills training has declined with the decline of our industries and the failing education system where having a bit of paper with a degree is seen as essential rather than accepting hand skills are more important and having a workforce that can use tools and not just pens and paper is essential.

I would suggest that the failure to technically & practically train has helped precipitate industrial decline. When I was teaching many years ago the Thatcher led government encouraged the removal of woodworking & metalworking classrooms.......later Blair encouraged meaningless degrees...although they tried to broaden tertiary education ...but missed out technical education....
Other countries...Germany...have recognised the value of a practically focused education...& prospered.... When will we learn to teach properly......

 

[RobinBHM]

But where would it stop then? That would just be the tip of the iceberg

I see what you did there