HelloThere

Incase you didn’t know, Rwanda was for settled claims, not processing.

As in, they would be sent to Rwanda if they were successful in their asylum claim.

Processing asylum seekers in a country they are already in, like Albania, is significantly safer than forcing them to get in a dingy.

Now if we are taking people out of dingys in the channel, and taking them to Albania, then yes fuck that absolutely.

A full itemised breakdown is a different level of rigor than a “to the closest billion, what’s going on?” request made civil servants as part of an incoming government. Given the statements made by the OBR themselves the idea that 22bn is inaccurate or false is pure cope.

Also, the FT not actually linking to their FOI request means you cannot see exactly what they requested, and a high level of detail could well lead to other disclosure problems (eg if overspend occurs in front line military).

Good to see the FT continuing to absolutely destroy their credibility:

The response from the Treasury’s information rights unit said details would be published respecting agreed timelines “to allow the relevant officials time to complete the preparation of the information to ensure it is accurate and correct prior to publication”.

[…]

A spokesperson added the Treasury intends to provide more details of the overspending, either at the Budget or in separate spending releases.

Not exactly sure how this can be considered a refusal…hmmmmm.

Respectfully, I didn’t ignore the rest of what you said.

I agree that representatives need to explain to the electorate why they are best placed to elect them for what comes ahead.

But the key point is that we don’t actually know what comes ahead. They have a manifesto, etc, but there will always be unforeseen circumstances which arise.

In those moments in a representative democracy the representatives make the decisions. Your vote for them has allowed you to have your person at the table, but they don’t need to consult with the electorate again.

If they do, you’re moving towards direct democracy.

There are good arguments why governments should look to keep the electorate informed, explain actions, and justify decisions, but the popularity of a measure shouldn’t be the sole factor.

Simple fact, if an opinion is popular. Completely ignoring it is anti-democratic.

This is an incredibly simplistic definition which describes delegates, not representatives.

A delegate must do what they are instructed - think of them as your hands - whereas a representative is someone who makes decisions on your behalf - a second brain.

Delegates are extremely susceptible to tyranny of the majority, whereas representatives - in theory - seek to balance actions across all the people they represent, as well as their expertise and knowledge.

Populism is that thing your mum was on about where if your friends all jumped off a cliff, would you?

It might absolutely be the right decision, depending on the context, but if it isn’t then you shouldn’t do the wrong thing just because it’s popular.

There is a difference between being pro-austerity, and being pro means testing.

Do I agree with the bar being set at being in receipt of pension credit? Fuck no, that’s far too low given you’re talking about a scenario where pensioners have less than 10k/yr and would be spending over 10% of their money on heating.

But, pensioners with a full state pension, and a private / workplace pension on top, sitting in a big house they bought in the 80s to raise a family in, all of whom have since moved out, and is now worth several hundreds of thousands of pounds, really don’t need the extra cash.

So there should be a cut off, but not where it currently is. Ultimately, this shows the state pension is still too low if an extra payment is required so people don’t freeze. If the state pension was higher, to the point this payment wasn’t needed, then I think it would be a sensible place to put the limit, because pensioners with extra income (like private or workplace pensions) fundamentally shouldn’t need it, because the state pension should be the base line.

I’m fully expecting a level of wealth taxing to be announced in the budget - it really isn’t something you want to leak before hand because the ultra wealthy will move their money elsewhere, cos they’re parasites - but if Reeves doesn’t bring one in, then she and Starmer are going to have a very tough time.

And Graham fits the description very aptly.

How a trade unionist can claim authority based on 4% of the membership is beyond me. No wonder she’s so incredibly unpopular within the union.

Fwiw a 4 day week, and a 5 day week compressed in to 4 days, are different things.

The system is old cos you’ve done nothing but extract money for three decades, you fucking brass necked cunt.

What bullshit, Larry is immortal, how dare they question his glory.

Yeah, that’s definitely the case for some. Others just won’t want to pay membership dues for 4 years before the next GE, etc.

Fwiw membership always drops after an election, and especially for the party that won.

That doesn’t mean this may not be an indication of a problem, but it isn’t a smoking gun.

And this is why you can’t rely on the market to do anything. CPI+1 on literally the most hard up in society is bullshit.

I’ll try to be brief, but essentially…

• with the demographic distribution we have, we have more British-born people leaving the workforce each year than joining it. This will continue for approximately the next 20 years as boomer’s retire, and is the main reason for work visas being issued
• A combination of significantly improved productivity and immigration is required to maintain the relative strength of the UK economy, and pay for stuff like the NHS - elder care is considerably more expensive than earlier stages of life
• The failures of government to build housing, etc, is not the fault of people who apply to, and secure, jobs and choose to move to the UK
• Equally, the continued failure of capitalism to do anything other than suck up all wealth in to the top 0.01% is not their fault either
• The history of these isles is literally defined by migration and social change. We aren’t even speaking a Brittonic language to have this conversation.

I get why people can be scared by change, and that unfamiliararity breeds suspicion and can be exploited by those who seek to divide and destroy rather than unite and build.

Society, as a concept, has been undermined for a long time now, including things like both adults in a home having to work to afford the rent. This, again, is not the fault of people who want to work here, or see the UK as safe sanctuary from persecution.

Mackems. What can I say?

A grown up conversation would not be using percentages to compare figures which are separated by a literal order of magnitude.

In 2023, boat crossings and asylum applications are approximately 68k, whilst net migration was 685k, literally 10x higher. It’s the 685k figure which covers those coming to the UK on visas to work or study, both of which require an existing job or uni place to be granted.

A grown up conversation would also not start with

Has the west turned decisively against immigration? If recent reports are anything to go by, the answer is a resounding “yes”.

Because if anything, the recent election results in the UK and France have actually been a resounding fuck you towards the culture warriors who are demonising minorities.

If you follow politics you’ll also know that they are all hilariously unfit to be leader.

Which, frankly, is only a plus.

The difference with Zuckerberg is that there was a change in government shortly after. The people who benefited from Facebook’s cosy relationship became the government, and Trump was president.

My point is that given different people in charge powers which exist can be used, whether they will or not is of course what we’ll find out.

Sanctioning Musk as an individual could get very funny very quickly.

Given the idiots who are paying for checkmarks, and VAT collection, twitter has a UK subdivision (Twitter UK), which regardless of size of operation gives UK Gov jurisdiction.

If someone is compelled to speak to the Commons, it’s very very rare that they refuse because if you do - and your host country is an ally - you’ll have your government on your back too.

30p Lee, his arms wide?