Starmer being compared to Enoch Powell now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Cartman

I'd love an example of Starmer blaming immigrants for literally anything?

We have a profit generating sector that relies entirely on shipping people here on min wage to do jobs that none of us in this thread would want to do. We have a literal shit storm coming in terms of welfare spending/non-economically active adults and no real way of solving it. We have a housing crisis. Throw all these things in a pot and tell me how any serious government doesn't focus on getting net migration down and welfare spending down.

---

You seem to have been sucked in too

Instead of getting on with reducing migration starmer has pathetically tried to call back right wing voters who will never support him and his useless home secretary still isn't being specific on numbers of gang master rings they are breaking up

These are the things that will win back moderate voters ....fck the right wing

And his speech just alienates many long term labour voters

Of course with regard to welfare he's employing an SS trained head of DWP in Liz Kendal who does a great job of also pandering to the daily mail voting crew

You don't reduce the welfare bill sensibly by making it harder for genuine claimants....these chronic disabilities don't go away or improve ff sake just because the government makes it increasingly harder to jump through smaller and smaller hoops

There has been a huge backlash against these " reforms " and rightly so

Money should be heavily weighted into improving training opportunities in real work for those with disabilities and crackdowns on fraud in the other direction

Forcing everyone into tighter corners for individually what are meagre meagre amounts of money per person is utterly futile

The welfare bill is the welfare bill ...its always going to be here like the nhs , roads , policing

The cost to the country in terms of health , crime , social cohesion , the economy of not providing a base level is rarely discussed but it's staggering

So sensible and fair welfare and social provision ....which most of us will require at certain points in our lives is vital

This government is bullshitting , it's not doing that , it's scaremongering in order to cut to the bone

Asking someone with a chronic illness like rheumatoid arthritis to attend another assessment.....even after filling in all the relevant forms .....3 years after they did the last one ....is a complete waste of money and resources

If Labour want to cut the welfare bill they could start with that sort of nonsense .....they say that's going to happen but I trust starmer as much as I trust Ian Duncan Smith ......ie not one bit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Cartman

https://x.com/YouGov/status/1927299701008744781

In other news, trying to work out what/whether British people think becomes harder by the second. Starmer has terrible approval ratings and labour seem to be at low 20s maybe, yet he beats everyone in the above poll. I don't understand what to make of that. I know historically sitting PMs tend to do better than expected but this baffles me.

---

I think it's an outlier because the only person who is going to win the next election on present evidence is very sadly Nigel Farage


Since the wins at the recent local elections those who wanted a right wing party to vote for now have one and they are consistently on 28 to 30 percent

Easily enough to either form a coalition with the Tories or govern on their own

It's a shocking indictment of Labour , it was always going to be difficult but they should be polling around 30 percent

Trying to look at them from a distance I don't think any of the current labour government appear to be of any substance and they are led by a lump of wet lettuce

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

You seem to have been sucked in too

Instead of getting on with reducing migration starmer has pathetically tried to call back right wing voters who will never support him and his useless home secretary still isn't being specific on numbers of gang master rings they are breaking up

These are the things that will win back moderate voters ....fck the right wing

And his speech just alienates many long term labour voters

Of course with regard to welfare he's employing an SS trained head of DWP in Liz Kendal who does a great job of also pandering to the daily mail voting crew

You don't reduce the welfare bill sensibly by making it harder for genuine claimants....these chronic disabilities don't go away or improve ff sake just because the government makes it increasingly harder to jump through smaller and smaller hoops

There has been a huge backlash against these " reforms " and rightly so

Money should be heavily weighted into improving training opportunities in real work for those with disabilities and crackdowns on fraud in the other direction

Forcing everyone into tighter corners for individually what are meagre meagre amounts of money per person is utterly futile

The welfare bill is the welfare bill ...its always going to be here like the nhs , roads , policing

The cost to the country in terms of health , crime , social cohesion , the economy of not providing a base level is rarely discussed but it's staggering

So sensible and fair welfare and social provision ....which most of us will require at certain points in our lives is vital

This government is bullshitting , it's not doing that , it's scaremongering in order to cut to the bone

Asking someone with a chronic illness like rheumatoid arthritis to attend another assessment.....even after filling in all the relevant forms .....3 years after they did the last one ....is a complete waste of money and resources

If Labour want to cut the welfare bill they could start with that sort of nonsense .....they say that's going to happen but I trust starmer as much as I trust Ian Duncan Smith ......ie not one bit

---

This.

Starmer’s Labour tries to tell you it’s “working people” they’re backing. It’s clearly deliberate that they talk specifically about working people. Given so many of their actions so far, it appears they don’t give a flying f*ck about people who, for whatever reason, are unable to work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Cartman

Do you think Labours policy is zero/negative net-migration??

---

Blaming the migrants is succeeding in its intended purpose, masking the inequalities and shortcomings elsewhere. We need significant improvements to funding of education, the health service, national infrastructure. It would be better for us if we documented the migrant when they arrived, gave them a NINO and told they they can stay legally with all the benefits that entails as long as they work. They end end putting more into the system than they take out. After a few years we have a swift process that allows then full leave to stay if they have demonstrated they wish to contribute to our society in a positive way.

The Australian system would work for us, if only our politicians could be so bold.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

Starmer’s Labour tries to tell you it’s “working people” they’re backing. It’s clearly deliberate that they talk specifically about working people. Given so many of their actions so far, it appears they don’t give a flying f*ck about people who, for whatever reason, are unable to work.

---

I was rather hoping this outrageous drivel "those hard working people" would have been left behind with the hapless Tories.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

You seem to have been sucked in too

Instead of getting on with reducing migration starmer has pathetically tried to call back right wing voters who will never support him and his useless home secretary still isn't being specific on numbers of gang master rings they are breaking up

These are the things that will win back moderate voters ....fck the right wing

And his speech just alienates many long term labour voters

Of course with regard to welfare he's employing an SS trained head of DWP in Liz Kendal who does a great job of also pandering to the daily mail voting crew

You don't reduce the welfare bill sensibly by making it harder for genuine claimants....these chronic disabilities don't go away or improve ff sake just because the government makes it increasingly harder to jump through smaller and smaller hoops

There has been a huge backlash against these " reforms " and rightly so

Money should be heavily weighted into improving training opportunities in real work for those with disabilities and crackdowns on fraud in the other direction

Forcing everyone into tighter corners for individually what are meagre meagre amounts of money per person is utterly futile

The welfare bill is the welfare bill ...its always going to be here like the nhs , roads , policing

The cost to the country in terms of health , crime , social cohesion , the economy of not providing a base level is rarely discussed but it's staggering

So sensible and fair welfare and social provision ....which most of us will require at certain points in our lives is vital

This government is bullshitting , it's not doing that , it's scaremongering in order to cut to the bone

Asking someone with a chronic illness like rheumatoid arthritis to attend another assessment.....even after filling in all the relevant forms .....3 years after they did the last one ....is a complete waste of money and resources

If Labour want to cut the welfare bill they could start with that sort of nonsense .....they say that's going to happen but I trust starmer as much as I trust Ian Duncan Smith ......ie not one bit

---

Firstly, I appreciate you trying to focus on policy.

Secondly, they are pumping money into skills/opportunity training to help get people who can work, that's literally part of the welfare bill. It's also worth noting that because of the unique situation Britain are in (rising economic inactivity amongst working age people) these cuts still result in an increasing welfare bill, just less than it would have been.

They are also ending reassessments for people who have chronic conditions and will never be able to work.

The bottom line for me (as someone who works with SEND data) is that the average person has no idea what is coming down the road in terms of welfare spending, summed up by:

'The number of people receiving one of the main types of health and disability benefit, Personal Independence Payments (PIP), has also risen rapidly and is becoming unsustainable.

Since the pandemic, the number of working-age people receiving PIP has more than doubled from 15,300 to 35,100 a month. The number of young people (16-24) receiving PIP per month has also skyrocketed from 2,967 to 7,857 a month. Over the next five years, if no action is taken, the number of working age people claiming PIP is expected to increase from 2 million in 2021 to 4.3 million'

And herein lies the uncomfortable truth for anybody of a left leaning perspective, you can't be ideologically attached to a point of view just because it hurts to agree with the other side occasionally and in specific circumstances.

Migration is good, net migration of a million isn't

A proper robust safety net is good, a high percentage of working age adults being on some kind of disability benefit isn't.

That doesn't mean you hate migrants or 'scroungers', it doesn't mean you have been 'sucked in', it means you are being objective and using the information available to you.

What level of net migration would be make things difficult for the country to improve services/outcomes for people who already live here? Number or % of current population.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

This.

---

Same question to you as sludge then. What level of net migration would make it harder to improve services/outcomes for people who already live here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Cartman

Firstly, I appreciate you trying to focus on policy.

Secondly, they are pumping money into skills/opportunity training to help get people who can work, that's literally part of the welfare bill. It's also worth noting that because of the unique situation Britain are in (rising economic inactivity amongst working age people) these cuts still result in an increasing welfare bill, just less than it would have been.

They are also ending reassessments for people who have chronic conditions and will never be able to work.

The bottom line for me (as someone who works with SEND data) is that the average person has no idea what is coming down the road in terms of welfare spending, summed up by:

'The number of people receiving one of the main types of health and disability benefit, Personal Independence Payments (PIP), has also risen rapidly and is becoming unsustainable.

Since the pandemic, the number of working-age people receiving PIP has more than doubled from 15,300 to 35,100 a month. The number of young people (16-24) receiving PIP per month has also skyrocketed from 2,967 to 7,857 a month. Over the next five years, if no action is taken, the number of working age people claiming PIP is expected to increase from 2 million in 2021 to 4.3 million'

And herein lies the uncomfortable truth for anybody of a left leaning perspective, you can't be ideologically attached to a point of view just because it hurts to agree with the other side occasionally and in specific circumstances.

Migration is good, net migration of a million isn't

A proper robust safety net is good, a high percentage of working age adults being on some kind of disability benefit isn't.

That doesn't mean you hate migrants or 'scroungers', it doesn't mean you have been 'sucked in', it means you are being objective and using the information available to you.

What level of net migration would be make things difficult for the country to improve services/outcomes for people who already live here? Number or % of current population.

---

Who decides who has a chronic illness which is not going to improve ?

Well that should of course be the medical profession

But it isn't, it's going to increasingly be the likes of Liz Kendal

If you believe that she and her departments are genuinely going to increase training and opportunities for disabled people then you are deluded , that's all hogwash

Making disabled people fight harder and harder to prove they are ...disabled ..and entitled to support ......is not progressive .......its just about slashing the welfare budget

That's what it's all about , that's the bottom line

Cutting back on fraud is easily dealt with by employing more fraud teams not discriminating against everyone else

This is pathetic and you are just repeating the same old line that's gone before

You have thrown in the usual oh a proper safety net is fine etc etc

The problem here is that someone who is in a wheelchair and has been for 20 years isn't suddenly " ok " this week because they have failed tests which are harder and harder to pass .....ff sake .....

Who are you to support such utter madness ?

This isn't a sensible reform of welfare in the same way starmer crying out about strangers is a sensible policy towards migration

It's no wonder that 15 percent of the labour vote has vanished

You seem to be still clinging on so good luck

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Cartman

Same question to you as sludge then. What level of net migration would make it harder to improve services/outcomes for people who already live here?

---

The Labour Party have had nearly a year to start facing the questions regarding migration

The other day the utterly hopeless Yvette Cooper was nailed to the floor by Victoria Derbyshire for dodging the questions regarding numbers , policies etc

It was embarrassing to watch

If she can't come up with specifics to start to deal with people who want fair and reasonable immigration policy and starmer is acting like Norman Tebbit then it's a waste of time you asking ordinary folk on here isn't it ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

Labour didn't win with 23 percent of the vote , it was higher than that , at least 33 I think

The Tories often won with a low vote percentage in the past but of course we never heard much about that

It happens when in those days the left vote was split between Labour and liberals

At the last election the reverse happened .....a low ish Labour vote won because the Tories and reform were splitting the right wing vote

At present the Labour vote IS around 23 percent .....10 points down on the election which is very bad news for them

The reform vote has increased to around 28 percent ....and on that they would either win outright or form a coalition because they would win the most seats

I personally thing Labour are dead

That doesn't mean people who are left or middle ground liberal are .....a new party needs to emerge in the same for them way reform has provided a home for right wing voters

A Labour, liberal , green coalition would easily get enough votes to keep the Tories and reform out of government

That's the only future really

Because starmer and the liberals and the rest have to accept that that 20 percent is now lost to reform and by trying to play their game with regard to immigration or crime or tax you are talking to people who are not going to listen to facts or reasonable arguments, these people have been desperate for a right wing party waving union jacks for years and now they have it

I was listening to farage speak today and he's a bullshitter and a salesman but he's got charisma and no other leader in the UK has that at the moment ....certainly not starmer , the liberal boss , that tory woman

Getting rid of starmer by Labour is essential but if they don't then they need to merge with the liberals , greens and the rest or its curtains

---

Yeah 33% of the votes cast but I think it was the lowest ever turnout for an election, which is not surprising. Only 23% of the population of the country voted for these idiots, one shitshow to another, different coloured tie or whatever. This country is broken. Meanwhile in Norway ( a country that seemingly cares nothing about net zero) their sovereign wealth fund managed by their government is the biggest in the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Cartman

Same question to you as sludge then. What level of net migration would make it harder to improve services/outcomes for people who already live here?

---

You usually talk sense, Eric - even if I sometimes disagree with the conclusions you draw. But that question is nonsense.

Are you talking economically active or inactive migrants? Migrants who contribute more than they take out or the opposite? Migrants who provide essential public services, or become indispensable to agriculture or the 'hospitality' industry? Migrants who bring skills to the health service or to tech companies? Or migrants who do none of those things?

I don't know what the capacity of the UK is for population growth through inward migration. It is not a simple numbers game. There is clearly pressure on schools, the health service, the transport infrastructure, water and power and other things, but migrants can and do contribute to those services and infrastructure.

If the argument on immigration can be re-directed to economic impacts (pro and con), to the benefits of diversity and moral obligations to families or victims of oppression, to the way we can re-shape our ageing and less productive society and ensure this rich country uses its collective resources to manage progressive and positive changes, then great.

But the argument, the debate, is often around false numbers, cultural conservatism, red top scaremongering and at the fringes outright xenophobia and racism. Starmer has decided to feed that fire - because he is an unprincipled political coward and has no vision or compass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goats

Yeah 33% of the votes cast but I think it was the lowest ever turnout for an election, which is not surprising. Only 23% of the population of the country voted for these idiots, one shitshow to another, different coloured tie or whatever. This country is broken. Meanwhile in Norway ( a country that seemingly cares nothing about net zero) their sovereign wealth fund managed by their government is the biggest in the world.

---

There have been several low turnouts at elections

The last one was at 60 percent the lowest since 2001 which was 59 percent

You would think with the country not doing well for 14 years under the Tories people would have got out to vote but it didn't happen

I think that showed how crap Starmer was in appealing to the population to back him and he's certainly proving they were wise to doubt him

Interesting to note that they didn't automatically turn to Reform either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goats

Yeah 33% of the votes cast but I think it was the lowest ever turnout for an election, which is not surprising. Only 23% of the population of the country voted for these idiots, one shitshow to another, different coloured tie or whatever. This country is broken. Meanwhile in Norway ( a country that seemingly cares nothing about net zero) their sovereign wealth fund managed by their government is the biggest in the world.

---

Norway that aims to achieve net zero by 2050; to be carbon neutral by 2030; for all new cars to be zero emission from this year?

Many of Norways targets, whilst public, are not set into law - but their 'low emission society' objective is central to their 2017 Climate Change Act. Government policy is to meet the Paris Accords targets and to outperform the EU on carbon and emissions.

This whilst managing the downslope of oil and gas production from the North Sea.

The way they set up and managed their Sovereign Wealth Fund (as I know from watching every episode of The State Of Happiness) put the UK to shame!

The pressure on Starmer from the left is growing as he goes chasing voters drawn to the right!

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...john-mcdonnell

This alongside developments from the Greens and independents to build a broader and deeper grass roots movement, and one that is capable of challenging Labour in elections.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stevo

Interesting to note that they didn't automatically turn to Reform either.

---

Part of the reason is that they weren't likely to win seats. The same with the Greens and to a lesser extent Lib Dems, Plaid etc.

I think the other thing is that people understandably wanted to give Labour a go. They are now realizing - so far at least - that it doesn't make much difference if you don't solve the core problems at hand.

So I think those two things have changed since the last General Election.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Cartman

Firstly, I appreciate you trying to focus on policy.

Secondly, they are pumping money into skills/opportunity training to help get people who can work, that's literally part of the welfare bill. It's also worth noting that because of the unique situation Britain are in (rising economic inactivity amongst working age people) these cuts still result in an increasing welfare bill, just less than it would have been.

They are also ending reassessments for people who have chronic conditions and will never be able to work.

The bottom line for me (as someone who works with SEND data) is that the average person has no idea what is coming down the road in terms of welfare spending, summed up by:

'The number of people receiving one of the main types of health and disability benefit, Personal Independence Payments (PIP), has also risen rapidly and is becoming unsustainable.

Since the pandemic, the number of working-age people receiving PIP has more than doubled from 15,300 to 35,100 a month. The number of young people (16-24) receiving PIP per month has also skyrocketed from 2,967 to 7,857 a month. Over the next five years, if no action is taken, the number of working age people claiming PIP is expected to increase from 2 million in 2021 to 4.3 million'

And herein lies the uncomfortable truth for anybody of a left leaning perspective, you can't be ideologically attached to a point of view just because it hurts to agree with the other side occasionally and in specific circumstances.

Migration is good, net migration of a million isn't

A proper robust safety net is good, a high percentage of working age adults being on some kind of disability benefit isn't.

That doesn't mean you hate migrants or 'scroungers', it doesn't mean you have been 'sucked in', it means you are being objective and using the information available to you.

What level of net migration would be make things difficult for the country to improve services/outcomes for people who already live here? Number or % of current population.

---

This is a great post Eric and a very reasonable position and it's refreshing to hear from someone talking with professional experience.

The situation in several regards since the pandemic is wholly unsustainable. In terms of net immigration its been wholly unsustainable for years before then too. Things need to change and people really need to recognise that or the change will happen anyway and you'll have no influence over it.

I'm the only one in my immediate family who isn't on benefits (dad on disability, mum on housing, kids mum on UC) so this isn't an anti benefit thing at all. Quite the opposite, it's about making one of the most important parts of our civilised society work properly.

I have more professional experience from the housing side, but the situation is absolutely dire. It's really very serious and as you say; migration is good. Migration of half a million a year isn't.

500,000 moved to the UK as part of the windrush generation over a quarter of a century. In the last couple of years that figure was reached in about 9 months.

The way to look at it is that half a million people is a city the size of Bristol. That comes with 300,000 odd dwellings, 40 miles of motorway, 250 parks, 150 odd schools, 200 odd doctors surgeries, 2-3 large hospitals, 50 libraries, 20 train stations and all the rest of it. All these things we need to make living standards what they are.

All of that needs to be provided every single year and that's just to keep treading water and many of us don't want to tread water. It can't be done. It's as simple as that. It cannot be done.

There are costs and benefits to everything but the benefits of migration, which others have outlined and I am happy to endorse, are being rapidly overtaken unfortunately and that's not a good or sustainable position to be in, especially for those who don't already own their own homes.

As things stand, irrespective of Labour or Tories, we are in big trouble. Credit to Starmer, at least he's seen the data and he knows he has to act.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

This is a great post Eric and a very reasonable position and it's refreshing to hear from someone talking with professional experience.

The situation in several regards since the pandemic is wholly unsustainable. In terms of net immigration its been wholly unsustainable for years before then too. Things need to change and people really need to recognise that or the change will happen anyway and you'll have no influence over it.

I'm the only one in my immediate family who isn't on benefits (dad on disability, mum on housing, kids mum on UC) so this isn't an anti benefit thing at all. Quite the opposite, it's about making one of the most important parts of our civilised society work properly.

I have more professional experience from the housing side, but the situation is absolutely dire. It's really very serious and as you say; migration is good. Migration of half a million a year isn't.

500,000 moved to the UK as part of the windrush generation over a quarter of a century. In the last couple of years that figure was reached in about 9 months.

The way to look at it is that half a million people is a city the size of Bristol. That comes with 300,000 odd dwellings, 40 miles of motorway, 250 parks, 150 odd schools, 200 odd doctors surgeries, 2-3 large hospitals, 50 libraries, 20 train stations and all the rest of it. All these things we need to make living standards what they are.

All of that needs to be provided every single year and that's just to keep treading water and many of us don't want to tread water. It can't be done. It's as simple as that. It cannot be done.

There are costs and benefits to everything but the benefits of migration, which others have outlined and I am happy to endorse, are being rapidly overtaken unfortunately and that's not a good or sustainable position to be in, especially for those who don't already own their own homes.

As things stand, irrespective of Labour or Tories, we are in big trouble. Credit to Starmer, at least he's seen the data and he knows he has to act.

---

So if your old man is found to be " OK " despite the doctors and everyone else knowing he is disabled ...that's what's going to increasingly happen as the eligibility for the welfare system is tightened .......how is he going to live ?

Forget about family or savings

Don't say oh he's so disabled he obviously can't work or its obvious he requires extra living costs , everyone can see that ....

No , it doesn't matter .....he could be left without what helps him to have an existence ....however basic that might be .....

Simply because those that make the law have reduced the amount of people who can access support .....not just financial support .......and clearly playing to your tune will continue to do so ....as you are singing the same song and obviously support that

It's like a turkey voting for Christmas

Maybe you can explain to him and others who are likely to be cut adrift that it's a tough decision but it's been made in the best interests of the " rest " of the country

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

Norway that aims to achieve net zero by 2050; to be carbon neutral by 2030; for all new cars to be zero emission from this year?

Many of Norways targets, whilst public, are not set into law - but their 'low emission society' objective is central to their 2017 Climate Change Act. Government policy is to meet the Paris Accords targets and to outperform the EU on carbon and emissions.

This whilst managing the downslope of oil and gas production from the North Sea.

The way they set up and managed their Sovereign Wealth Fund (as I know from watching every episode of The State Of Happiness) put the UK to shame!

---

Maybe it’s easier for them with such a small population over a vast area? Was interesting to see what was said on the Simon reeve documentary the other day by Norwegians, they weren’t bothered by it at all….its quite a fascinating country, far more advanced than us.
I was working there in 1999 for a while, stupidly turned down a decent job with lots of benefits, one of my biggest regrets looking back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Cartman

https://x.com/YouGov/status/1927299701008744781

In other news, trying to work out what/whether British people think becomes harder by the second. Starmer has terrible approval ratings and labour seem to be at low 20s maybe, yet he beats everyone in the above poll. I don't understand what to make of that. I know historically sitting PMs tend to do better than expected but this baffles me.

---

Not an expert, but to me that suggests there might be a natural limit to how far Farage can go

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

The Labour Party have had nearly a year to start facing the questions regarding migration

The other day the utterly hopeless Yvette Cooper was nailed to the floor by Victoria Derbyshire for dodging the questions regarding numbers , policies etc

It was embarrassing to watch

If she can't come up with specifics to start to deal with people who want fair and reasonable immigration policy and starmer is acting like Norman Tebbit then it's a waste of time you asking ordinary folk on here isn't it ?

---

So 2 million? 5 million? I am not asking for you to become home secretary, I am just asking you a simple question, at what point would you decide 'hmmm that many people appearing at once isn't going to work'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

You usually talk sense, Eric - even if I sometimes disagree with the conclusions you draw. But that question is nonsense.

Are you talking economically active or inactive migrants? Migrants who contribute more than they take out or the opposite? Migrants who provide essential public services, or become indispensable to agriculture or the 'hospitality' industry? Migrants who bring skills to the health service or to tech companies? Or migrants who do none of those things?

I don't know what the capacity of the UK is for population growth through inward migration. It is not a simple numbers game. There is clearly pressure on schools, the health service, the transport infrastructure, water and power and other things, but migrants can and do contribute to those services and infrastructure.

If the argument on immigration can be re-directed to economic impacts (pro and con), to the benefits of diversity and moral obligations to families or victims of oppression, to the way we can re-shape our ageing and less productive society and ensure this rich country uses its collective resources to manage progressive and positive changes, then great.

But the argument, the debate, is often around false numbers, cultural conservatism, red top scaremongering and at the fringes outright xenophobia and racism. Starmer has decided to feed that fire - because he is an unprincipled political coward and has no vision or compass.

---

Appreciate the objectivity Jon. My whole outlook is built upon the simple fact that life is getting shitter in the UK because fixed costs are too high, the largest being housing. I don't really care about the housing ladder, In this sense I only care about the fixed cost of putting a roof over your head. The implications of people having less money to spend spread across the entire economy and eventually society (mental health because of constant worries etc.)

Labour are doing (slowly as the parliamentary system rolls along) some things to address this but not enough imo. To answer your question though, whether economically active or inactive, if you have net migration of a million a year, building 1.5 million houses over 5 years is using a cup to bail water out of your sinking boat. If a doctor turns up or an asylum seeker turns up, they still need somewhere to live.

Completely agree with you that the other death spiral awaiting us is the aging population, which is essentially saying the ratio of working people to those who aren't working is not be enough to sustain existing programs. That is only going to made worse by more and more newly working age people not working which is why the numbers of kids on pip and neet (not my area but we touch upon it) are so alarming. Migration can be an answer to that in specific circumstances but it can't be used to prop up companies paying shit wages and whole sectors can't be reliant on it, it doesn't make us a resilient country.

Completely agree Eric.

I didn't mention housing in my post - but I spent most of my working life managing Council housing in Sheffield and it is the most critical factor in ensuring that society - with its ebbs and flows, incomings and outgoings - works.

We need to build and refurbish more homes. We need to stop the regressive Right To Buy system (loading debt on tenants, bleeding resources out of improvement and new build budgets, and creating concentrations of deprivation), stop second homes purchases, and limit the spread of Airbnb. The last two kill communities in rural Britain and ensure that there is no where for workers to live even if we can find workers for farms, restaurants and hotels in the first place. Unjoined-up thinking of the worst type that with the Brexit impacts and Covid disruptions has created social and economic chaos in many places.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Cartman

So 2 million? 5 million? I am not asking for you to become home secretary, I am just asking you a simple question, at what point would you decide 'hmmm that many people appearing at once isn't going to work'.

---

Make something up and I will agree with you

The situation is that Labour are in power and when asked questions as to what they are realistically trying to do regarding immigration and for numbers of crime gangs smashed their main governor isn't able to answer

That's the problem and instead of trying to appeal to farage voters and right wing Labour voters like you they should simply be providing evidence they are doing something

People like you can talk about 200k off the figures till you send everyone to sleep but until starmer can start saying he's presiding over a fair and robust immigration policy it's a waste of everyone's time

So let's say 250 k net migration in 3 years

I have made that up but it sounds OK I suppose