Do you want to discuss boring politics? (22 Viewers)

[Mucca Mad Boys]

“We’re not starving the patient, we gave him a piece of toast only yesterday!”

What a silly thing to say when your graph shows the funding wasn’t cut at all and spending increases slowed down.

Important context here was there was a global recession too.

The country will have a wider conversation about it funds the NHS in our lifetime because its funding model isn’t sustainable.

 

---

[SBT]

Canada’s wages are stagnating, hasn’t recovered to pre-pandemic levels. Coincidentally, at the same point net migration has reached its highest point.

Canada has a higher immigration population% and higher average annual incomes than the UK, as well as a comprehensive welfare state. Norway’s the same. You were seeming to suggest this was impossible?

You’re desperate to frame our country’s problems as a binary choice between mass immigration or a welfare state. Our country has urgent issues with both, but your fixation on immigrants as this one easy trick to fix our economy is a completely false choice.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

You say this with a straight face despite the fact that the coalition never cut NHS spending.

‘Real term’ cuts aren’t cuts, you can’t run a business (or a healthcare system) like that.

Besides, this government has increased the NHS budget above ‘real terms’ and we’ll see how they get stuck into waiting lists. Also in the news this weekend that the amount of people going abroad for treatments has grown again to 500k.

I was talking about education, not the NHS.

 

[Grendel]

What a silly thing to say when your graph shows the funding wasn’t cut at all and spending increases slowed down.

Important context here was there was a global recession too.

The country will have a wider conversation about it funds the NHS in our lifetime because its funding model isn’t sustainable.

The spending did peak under Labour when the economy was booming. People conveniently forget that the 2008 banking crises effectively collapsed the economy and our spending was not sustainable

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

I listen to a fair bit of Canadian radio to get hockey news. Its quite funny to hear them talking about the collapse of public services and then talking about having to wait a couple of hours in the ER. If only we had their 'problems'

Canada’s healthcare system is an insurance based system, ironically. We’ll skirt over that fact.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

The spending did peak under Labour when the economy was booming. People conveniently forget that the 2008 banking crises effectively collapsed the economy and our spending was not sustainable

It’s quite funny that @SBT doesn’t seem to see that the spending averages out for the period.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Canada has a higher immigration population% and higher average annual incomes than the UK, as well as a comprehensive welfare state. Norway’s the same. You were seeming to suggest this was impossible?

You’re desperate to frame our country’s problems as a binary choice between mass immigration or a welfare state. Our country has urgent issues with both, but your fixation on immigrants as this one easy trick to fix our economy is a completely false choice.

Norway doesn’t have mass migration. Their peak was 28k net migration. High for that population, yes but that country has immediately rowed back on this.

As for Canada, there’s similarities with the UK and public opinion is turning sharply against immigration. What you omit is that Canada has a points based system and their emphasis has been on high skilled workers. The UK’s make up of migrants, particularly non-EEA, is low skilled.

I’ve never said fixing immigration fixes the economy. We have fundamental economic issues that need to be addressed. That is another subject matter altogether.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Norway doesn’t have mass migration. Their peak was 28k net migration. High for that population, yes but that country has immediately rowed back on this.

As for Canada, there’s similarities with the UK and public opinion is turning sharply against immigration. What you omit is that Canada has a points based system and their emphasis has been on high skilled workers. The UK’s make up of migrants, particularly non-EEA, is low skilled.

I’ve never said fixing immigration fixes the economy. We have fundamental economic issues that need to be addressed. That is another subject matter altogether.

He is right about one thing, you do talk about immigration like it's a silver bullet and the issue that undercuts all the others. At least that's how it comes across.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

He is right about one thing, you do talk about immigration like it's a silver bullet and the issue that undercuts all the others. At least that's how it comes across.

In my view, it’s become the most important issue facing the country atm. There’s a reason Reform is leading in the polls. It’s probably the easiest issue to fix because all it entails is introducing and enforcing controls. Restricting dependents alone is credited with reducing net migration by nearly 300k.

The reason for that is simple, there is so much underlying anger that if governments continue to fail on this, bad things will happen. We’ve already seen Tommy Robinson rehabilitated in some quarters.

Welfare and public service reform are much more difficult. These are much more difficult policy areas to ‘fix’ and this Labour government is quickly finding out it can’t just solve issues by chucking money at the problem.

With respect, you and others on here are guilty of your own mantras on policy areas. Pre-election a few posters more or less dumbed down fixing public services to ‘just spend more’ and all evils lead to ‘14 years’.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

In my view, it’s become the most important issue facing the country atm. There’s a reason Reform is leading in the polls. It’s probably the easiest issue to fix because all it entails is introducing and enforcing controls. Restricting dependents alone is credited with reducing net migration by nearly 300k.

The reason for that is simple, there is so much underlying anger that if governments continue to fail on this, bad things will happen. We’ve already seen Tommy Robinson rehabilitated in some quarters.

Welfare and public service reform are much more difficult. These are much more difficult policy areas to ‘fix’ and this Labour government is quickly finding out it can’t just solve issues by chucking money at the problem.

With respect, you and others on here are guilty of your own mantras on policy areas. Pre-election a few posters more or less dumbed down fixing public services to ‘just spend more’ and all evils lead to ‘14 years’.

Of course we are. I’m happy to admit for me it’s the cost of living and standard of public services in that order which matter the most.

If immigration were that easy to fix, the hardliners of the last Tory governments would have cut it drastically. It went up. Why?

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Of course we are. I’m happy to admit for me it’s the cost of living and standard of public services in that order which matter the most.

If immigration were that easy to fix, the hardliners of the last Tory governments would have cut it drastically. It went up. Why?

Why? Johnson wanted migration to increase. That’s the accusation Dominic Cummings has levelled and imo, it’s credible.

There are reports picked up that the ‘Boriswave’ was allowed to crush inflationary wage increases.

The points system introduced by Johnson’s government is actually the basis of the immigration system the public voted for. You need to think of a points system like a tap, you can shut on/off. For example, what constitutes a ‘skilled worker’, you’ve had examples where people working in your local takeaway get visas as ‘chefs’.

The only significant change post-Sunak and now Starmer is that withdrawing from the ECHR has become an increasingly mainstream opinion. Something I didn’t support initially, but like many people, have lost faith in the existing frameworks to cope with the challenges Europe faces.

 

[CCFCSteve]

Of course we are. I’m happy to admit for me it’s the cost of living and standard of public services in that order which matter the most.

If immigration were that easy to fix, the hardliners of the last Tory governments would have cut it drastically. It went up. Why?

Poor quality people in senior government roles (Johnson, Bravermann etc) focussing solely on ‘illegal immigration’ taking eye off the ball intentionally or otherwise on visas* etc. No plan or strategy around the requirements and management of needs in the wider economy and public services. Also by the looks those bbc articles a home office that culturally appeared unwilling to deliver any meaningful change in this area

*the shambles of tens of thousands of dependents coming over with student visa applicants and others gaming the system sums this up. It was pathetic mismanagement.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Poor quality people in senior government roles (Johnson, Bravermann etc) focussing solely on ‘illegal immigration’ taking eye off the ball intentionally or otherwise on visas* etc. No plan or strategy around the requirements and management of needs in the wider economy and public services. Also by the looks those bbc articles a home office that culturally appeared unwilling to deliver any meaningful change in this area

*the shambles of tens of thousands of dependents coming over with student visa applicants and others gaming the system sums this up. It was pathetic mismanagement.

I’ve used this example before, but when the social care visa was introduced, there was an average of 9 dependents per Zimbabwean applicant.

Bearing in mind each successful applicant will be in low paid work and therefore, a net drain on the treasury… 9 dependents increases the cost of admitting entry to those individuals.

In polling, the public are happy for immigrants to come and work in the NHS but not happy for those workers to bring their whole families.

 

[SBT]

I’ve never said fixing immigration fixes the economy.

???

What’s more important to you; The welfare state or mass migration?

 

[chiefdave]

In polling, the public are happy for immigrants to come and work in the NHS but not happy for those workers to bring their whole families.

So people want an option that doesn't exist, how do you make that work?

We saw when this was applied to the care sector within weeks the care system was on the verge of collapse and the changes had to be reversed.

What do you do if you need workers but the workers won't come on the terms you want to enforce?

 

[chiefdave]

I have increasingly thought about whether we should start considering a working week much lower than FT which people can get buy on. Work-life balance is increasingly important and could help mental health in this country (and the problems caused by it) no end.

It would also increase the number of people in employment as you could effectively have 2 PT workers instead of 1 FT and many people who don't want to feel their life is literally get up, go to work, come home, go to bed, repeat could be tempted. Of course it does increase costs on employers as you have extra costs involved with training more people etc. but I think it would improve productivity and reduce absenteeism enough to not be an issue.

Of course you'll have the usual lot saying people can't afford to or that those people are just lazy and work-shy, but frankly prices have to be set at a level that is affordable enough for people to buy them.

All the evidence points this way but those at the top can't / won't accept it. Covid and WFH is the biggest indication of that. The number of people I know that have been told to come back to the office despite every available metric showing better results when people are working from home is ridiculous.

When those at the top won't accept something that obvious, with so much evidence behind it, you've got no chance with things like the 4 day week or anything else that could be see as a more radical change.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

In polling, the public are happy for immigrants to come and work in the NHS but not happy for those workers to bring their whole families.

'Help, I need a doctor! But only if his wife and children aren't in the country.'

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

So people want an option that doesn't exist, how do you make that work?

We saw when this was applied to the care sector within weeks the care system was on the verge of collapse and the changes had to be reversed.

What do you do if you need workers but the workers won't come on the terms you want to enforce?

Is it collapsing now that restrictions are in place? No.

On the social care visa route, there’s widespread fraud (fake companies and fake job offers) and many people who gain entry using this route do not go into the social care sector. The amount visas granted far exceeds the vacancies which is a huge red flag of abuse. Recalling from memory here, the initial take up was 200k plus visas from an expected 40-50k uptake. We both know there are not 200k vacancies in the social care sector.

The key thing is enforcement. People in violation of their visa should be deported, this is a basic principle.

When you have as many people out of work as we do in the UK, the first port of call is how we reverse this and get people to retrain into sectors we need. This is where tax policy comes into play here because here are many instances where households can be just as, if not slightly better off being on UC than working.

After all, if I could get 80-100% of my salary package on UC, it’d be tempted and that is the rational economic decision a lot of people make.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

'Help, I need a doctor! But only if his wife and children aren't in the country.'

Gendered language there BSB, v unexpected. Try the following:

'Help, I need a doctor! But only if their spouse, children, parents, aunties, uncles and cousins aren't in the country.'

The example given was 9 dependents (on average).

 

[rob9872]

'Help, I need a doctor! But only if his wife and children aren't in the country.'

"Help I need a doctor"
"but they're all busy because of the 9 dependents they bring"
"that's ok, bring another doctor and 9 more dependents in then who can look after me"

Where does it end?

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Gendered language there BSB, v unexpected. Try the following:

You and your textbooks again eh!

 

[Grendel]

???

That’s desperate even for you.

 

[SBT]

That’s desperate even for you.

So you don’t think he’s suggesting there’s a choice to be made between the two? In the preceding sentence he said that mass immigration and a comprehensive welfare state are “contradictory” priorities!

 

[Grendel]

So you don’t think he’s suggesting there’s a choice to be made between the two? In the preceding sentence he said that mass immigration and a comprehensive welfare state are “contradictory” priorities!

No - I think he did asked you something on your NHS graph as well which you failed to respond to?

 

[SBT]

No - I think he did asked you something on your NHS graph as well which you failed to respond to?

He hasn’t asked me anything about it

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

???

The welfare state isn’t the economy…

The impact of mass migration has, in fact, had an impact on the welfare state. Right now, 1 in 6 people on welfare is foreign born and in relation to social housing, in major cities foreign born people are massively over represented (47% in London alone).

Then there’s the NHS and pensions. The reason that the OBR is now picking up the hidden costs of mass migration is because young migrants eventually get old and will need to use the NHS and of course, be eligible for the pension. So yeah, the more low-income migrants you let in, it has massive financial repercussions down the line. The OBR’s specific number was £150k per migrant below media wage who arrives U25.

Given that the pension is already unsustainable, one of the v justifications for mass migration, the lack of social housing and indeed NHS waiting lists… it’s fair to say that mass immigration stresses the welfare state.

You talk about funding for the NHS being the root of all evils, but one thing that’s also happened is that population has grown significantly. You almost definitely won’t admit is the NHS has to cope with serving more people and that strains things too.

The underlying assumptions around immigration probably didn’t plan for the extra investment in infrastructure and public services to keep up with importing populations the size of Coventry every year as a minimum.

What don’t help is that when this gets raised, you and others use innuendo to imply there’s something dark at the heart of it. When I laid out my conditions of entry to anyone, but specifically people who are liberal orleft wing (e.g. @Brighton Sky Blue) they actually don’t have any qualms.

 

[fernandopartridge]

The welfare state isn’t the economy…

The impact of mass migration has, in fact, had an impact on the welfare state. Right now, 1 in 6 people on welfare is foreign born and in relation to social housing, in major cities foreign born people are massively over represented (47% in London alone).

Then there’s the NHS and pensions. The reason that the OBR is now picking up the hidden costs of mass migration is because young migrants eventually get old and will need to use the NHS and of course, be eligible for the pension. So yeah, the more low-income migrants you let in, it has massive financial repercussions down the line. The OBR’s specific number was £150k per migrant below media wage who arrives U25.

Given that the pension is already unsustainable, one of the v justifications for mass migration, the lack of social housing and indeed NHS waiting lists… it’s fair to say that mass immigration stresses the welfare state.

You talk about funding for the NHS being the root of all evils, but one thing that’s also happened is that population has grown significantly. You almost definitely won’t admit is the NHS has to cope with serving more people and that strains things too.

The underlying assumptions around immigration probably didn’t plan for the extra investment in infrastructure and public services to keep up with importing populations the size of Coventry every year as a minimum.

What don’t help is that when this gets raised, you and others use innuendo to imply there’s something dark at the heart of it. When I laid out my conditions of entry to anyone, but specifically people who are liberal orleft wing (e.g. @Brighton Sky Blue) they actually don’t have any qualms.

What is 'welfare'?

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

The welfare state isn’t the economy…

The impact of mass migration has, in fact, had an impact on the welfare state. Right now, 1 in 6 people on welfare is foreign born and in relation to social housing, in major cities foreign born people are massively over represented (47% in London alone).

Then there’s the NHS and pensions. The reason that the OBR is now picking up the hidden costs of mass migration is because young migrants eventually get old and will need to use the NHS and of course, be eligible for the pension. So yeah, the more low-income migrants you let in, it has massive financial repercussions down the line. The OBR’s specific number was £150k per migrant below media wage who arrives U25.

Given that the pension is already unsustainable, one of the v justifications for mass migration, the lack of social housing and indeed NHS waiting lists… it’s fair to say that mass immigration stresses the welfare state.

You talk about funding for the NHS being the root of all evils, but one thing that’s also happened is that population has grown significantly. You almost definitely won’t admit is the NHS has to cope with serving more people and that strains things too.

The underlying assumptions around immigration probably didn’t plan for the extra investment in infrastructure and public services to keep up with importing populations the size of Coventry every year as a minimum.

What don’t help is that when this gets raised, you and others use innuendo to imply there’s something dark at the heart of it. When I laid out my conditions of entry to anyone, but specifically people who are liberal orleft wing (e.g. @Brighton Sky Blue) they actually don’t have any qualms.

That's too many facts for this thread.

You'll most likely be called a racist, asked to define some terminology or process, or deflect into something else irrelvent before it becomes obvious that there isn't much in the way of counter arguments.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

The welfare state isn’t the economy…

The impact of mass migration has, in fact, had an impact on the welfare state. Right now, 1 in 6 people on welfare is foreign born and in relation to social housing, in major cities foreign born people are massively over represented (47% in London alone).

Then there’s the NHS and pensions. The reason that the OBR is now picking up the hidden costs of mass migration is because young migrants eventually get old and will need to use the NHS and of course, be eligible for the pension. So yeah, the more low-income migrants you let in, it has massive financial repercussions down the line. The OBR’s specific number was £150k per migrant below media wage who arrives U25.

Given that the pension is already unsustainable, one of the v justifications for mass migration, the lack of social housing and indeed NHS waiting lists… it’s fair to say that mass immigration stresses the welfare state.

You talk about funding for the NHS being the root of all evils, but one thing that’s also happened is that population has grown significantly. You almost definitely won’t admit is the NHS has to cope with serving more people and that strains things too.

The underlying assumptions around immigration probably didn’t plan for the extra investment in infrastructure and public services to keep up with importing populations the size of Coventry every year as a minimum.

What don’t help is that when this gets raised, you and others use innuendo to imply there’s something dark at the heart of it. When I laid out my conditions of entry to anyone, but specifically people who are liberal orleft wing (e.g. @Brighton Sky Blue) they actually don’t have any qualms.

That last part is quite correct with the caveat that I’m not convinced by applying an earnings threshold at a time when immigrants are the only ones willing to accept certain low paid or otherwise undesirable work. Very happy for both of those to be improved of course.

 

[SBT]

The welfare state isn’t the economy…

It’s 10% of GDP and a quarter of all government spending!

You talk about funding for the NHS being the root of all evils

Where?

 

[fernandopartridge]

The welfare state isn’t the economy…

The impact of mass migration has, in fact, had an impact on the welfare state. Right now, 1 in 6 people on welfare is foreign born and in relation to social housing, in major cities foreign born people are massively over represented (47% in London alone).

Then there’s the NHS and pensions. The reason that the OBR is now picking up the hidden costs of mass migration is because young migrants eventually get old and will need to use the NHS and of course, be eligible for the pension. So yeah, the more low-income migrants you let in, it has massive financial repercussions down the line. The OBR’s specific number was £150k per migrant below media wage who arrives U25.

Given that the pension is already unsustainable, one of the v justifications for mass migration, the lack of social housing and indeed NHS waiting lists… it’s fair to say that mass immigration stresses the welfare state.

You talk about funding for the NHS being the root of all evils, but one thing that’s also happened is that population has grown significantly. You almost definitely won’t admit is the NHS has to cope with serving more people and that strains things too.

The underlying assumptions around immigration probably didn’t plan for the extra investment in infrastructure and public services to keep up with importing populations the size of Coventry every year as a minimum.

What don’t help is that when this gets raised, you and others use innuendo to imply there’s something dark at the heart of it. When I laid out my conditions of entry to anyone, but specifically people who are liberal orleft wing (e.g. @Brighton Sky Blue) they actually don’t have any qualms.

Where have you got that stat on London's social housing population?

Social Housing

Questions to the Mayor: 92% of social housing tenants were from the UK or Ireland as of December 2022. Do you agree that the Government’s new proposal of ‘British homes for British Workers’ does nothing to solve the housing crisis and instead stokes division?

www.london.gov.uk

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

Weirdly, this has not been covered in this thread, but it is pretty interesting given the upset regarding Palestine Action. There are also some videos floating around of this counter protest and lots of people in masks. One clip from a poor guy trying to offer his support really is awkward:

UKIP banned from protesting in Tower Hamlets over disorder fears

Police say any UKIP members assembling in the area, which has a high Muslim population, face arrest.

www.bbc.com

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Weirdly, this has not been covered in this thread, but it is pretty interesting given the upset regarding Palestine Action. There are also some videos floating around of this counter protest and lots of people in masks. One clip from a poor guy trying to offer his support really is awkward:

UKIP banned from protesting in Tower Hamlets over disorder fears

Police say any UKIP members assembling in the area, which has a high Muslim population, face arrest.

www.bbc.com

'Yes, 'bruv'?'
'Two jars of lager and a Guinness'

 

[rob9872]

'Yes, 'bruv'?'
'Two jars of lager and a Guinness'

Bret Clement?

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Where have you got that stat on London's social housing population?

Social Housing

Questions to the Mayor: 92% of social housing tenants were from the UK or Ireland as of December 2022. Do you agree that the Government’s new proposal of ‘British homes for British Workers’ does nothing to solve the housing crisis and instead stokes division?

www.london.gov.uk

Reuters did a fact check and its caveat is that 2/3rds of the 47% have UK passports. Which you can qualify for after 5 years (3 if married to UK citizen). The reason there’s a conversation to reform indefinite leave to remain because this is the point you get full access to the welfare state i.e. UC and other benefits (this defines ‘welfare’ to answer your other quote).

https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/fact-check-foreign-born-people-not-necessarily-foreigners-occupy-48-londons-2025-03-24/

That last part is quite correct with the caveat that I’m not convinced by applying an earnings threshold at a time when immigrants are the only ones willing to accept certain low paid or otherwise undesirable work. Very happy for both of those to be improved of course.

The government needs to find other ways to resolve issues in the long term. Being flexible with wage thresholds for some sectors with shortages is rational as a temporary measure. That isn’t happening in the UK, in some cases (like the NHS), it’s created a dependency on imported labour by not having any medium to long term planning.

Take social care, there’s a huge level of staff turnover in that industry and once you admit entry to people, it’s a laborious and costly task removing them if they’re in violation of their visa conditions. With this visa route specifically in mind, the numbers do not add up and there is fraud and thousands of people living in the UK in violation of their visa conditions.

On a broader scale, the purpose of an immigration system to be selective of desirable characteristics, to be clear, net tax contributors. If people are going to be in low income work, get ILR after 5 years (and eligible for welfare) and be eligible a UK pension, that isn’t desirable for the UK taxpayer.

Following on my reply to Fernando, the receipts to ‘foreign-born’ households has nearly doubled from 2022 and this is without the ‘Boriswave’ migrants, yet to receive ILR.