c4countdown

Posted: **Fri Jun 17, 2022 7:29 am**

Yes they are.
Yes they are.
Yes they are.
Yes they are.
Yes they are.
Yes they are.
Yes they are.
Yes they are.

That ruling, based on a loophole of the difference “arrival” and “entry”, has been superceded by the Nationality and Borders Act.

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3023/stages

Posted: **Fri Jun 17, 2022 7:43 am**

When the M25 was built it was immediately full to capacity. When it was decided that a new road should be built it was planned on the basis of existing traffic levels. No account was taken of the traffic that would be created by the new road.

I think it's pretty clear that it's difficult, dangerous and expensive for many people to get to the UK even though they have a legal right to do so. If you make it easier, more people will attempt it. Are there any figures for how many people would have a legitimate claim to be allowed into this country if they could get here? I'm all in favour of immigration and the rule of law, but is it fanciful to suggest that there might be literally hundreds of millions of people applying to stay in this country if they could only get here?

Posted: **Fri Jun 17, 2022 8:10 am**

David Williams wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 7:43 am When the M25 was built it was immediately full to capacity. When it was decided that a new road should be built it was planned on the basis of existing traffic levels. No account was taken of the traffic that would be created by the new road.

I think it's pretty clear that it's difficult, dangerous and expensive for many people to get to the UK even though they have a legal right to do so. If you make it easier, more people will attempt it. Are there any figures for how many people would have a legitimate claim to be allowed into this country if they could get here? I'm all in favour of immigration and the rule of law, but is it fanciful to suggest that there might be literally hundreds of millions of people applying to stay in this country if they could only get here?

How many people are applying to stay in countries in mainland Europe? Why should the UK be getting so much more than anywhere else?

Even if that is the case, I still think my solution is the best. You apply for asylum for any country in the first "safe country" you reach. Then an independent body set up by the safe countries assesses your case and decides which, if any, country you can settle in, based on your needs and also the capacities of the countries.

Posted: **Fri Jun 17, 2022 9:21 am**

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 8:10 am How many people are applying to stay in countries in mainland Europe? Why should the UK be getting so much more than anywhere else?

Brexit?

Actually, I'm not sure it's true that the UK is getting more than anywhere else. But that wasn't the question I was concerned with. It's more the possibility that billions of people could make a case that where they live is intolerable, so they have a right to live somewhere else

Posted: **Fri Jun 17, 2022 11:28 am**

David Williams wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 9:21 am
Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 8:10 am How many people are applying to stay in countries in mainland Europe? Why should the UK be getting so much more than anywhere else?
Brexit?

Actually, I'm not sure it's true that the UK is getting more than anywhere else. But that wasn't the question I was concerned with. It's more the possibility that billions of people could make a case that where they live is intolerable, so they have a right to live somewhere else

Are you suggesting that asylum seekers are attracted the UK specifcally because of Brexit? What would be the reasoning?

But anyway you seemed to be suggesting that that we'd be flooded if not for the difficult channel crossings. And since other countries don't require such a crossing, why aren't they already being flooded? Or if they are and I just don't know about it, these countries don't seem to have collapsed or anything under the strain, so I'm not sure I would lose any sleep over the possibility of channel crossings being made easier.

Posted: **Fri Jun 17, 2022 11:44 am**

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 7:29 am has been superceded by the Nationality and Borders Act

You haven't highlighted what specific part of the Act backs up your point, and much of it isn't in force yet, but even giving you maximum benefit of doubt, I think the most that can be said is that crossings could now theoretically be criminalised but under provisions which are themselves contrary to international law.

Posted: **Fri Jun 17, 2022 5:11 pm**

David Williams wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 7:43 am Are there any figures for how many people would have a legitimate claim... is it fanciful to suggest that there might be literally hundreds of millions?

I've had similar thoughts before - if you added everyone at risk of FGM, forced marriage, homophobic violence, etc... I don't know if that would add up to hundreds of millions, but either way, I'd say a number like that is still fanciful, practically speaking. Maybe we could get that many if we set up processing centres in literally every town and village in every low-income country, but not otherwise.

As far as I know, "just" being in grinding poverty doesn't qualify one for asylum, and a large majority of migrants who crossed the Channel last year were from five or six specific countries, all of which contained recognisable war zones.

I think this article/visualisation is quite insightful:

https://thecorrespondent.com/664/how-ma ... t-migrants

Posted: **Fri Jun 17, 2022 5:12 pm**

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 11:28 am
... asylum seekers attracted because of Brexit? What would be the reasoning?

I'm guessing that bit might have been tongue-in-cheek.

Posted: **Fri Jun 17, 2022 7:27 pm**

I'm simply seeking information, which seems to be in short supply.

I'm sure I've seen reports of major problems in countries in Eastern Europe with large numbers of refugees being repelled by barricades. Just because it ceases to be news in the UK doesn't mean it still doesn't happen. (Does it?) And other countries not being flooded doesn't really prove much. If you live in Afghanistan (population nearly 40 million), for example, I think you would have a pretty good case, but it's an impossible dream - for now.

Posted: **Sat Jun 18, 2022 1:09 am**

Rhys, would you be in favour of shipping Ukrainian refugees to Rwanda?

Posted: **Sat Jun 18, 2022 7:58 am**

David Williams wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 7:27 pm I'm simply seeking information, which seems to be in short supply.

I normally quite enjoy your posts by the way, but unless I'm misreading, I don't know what it is you find lacking in my and/or Gev's replies. Nobody on this thread seems to be expert on the topic as such, and neither he nor I apparently have a ready figure for the number of people theoretically eligible for asylum, but... well, neither do you, and I'm not complaining about the fact you don't.

I think it's legitimate though to question what the relevance of that figure would be - "making it easier" for people to reach the UK could mean a range of things, but even if we actively tried to maximise the numbers, some would prefer not to uproot themselves despite the dangers of staying, some would choose to go to their neighbouring countries or other European countries, and so on. Most of the previous posts had been referring more to people who had already reached Calais.

David Williams wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 7:27 pm I'm sure I've seen reports of major problems in countries in Eastern Europe with large numbers of refugees being repelled by barricades.

How large were these numbers compared to the entire populations of these countries? And using barricades sounds both morally and legally questionable, to say the least - would that not be more of a 'problem' than the presence of refugees?

Posted: **Sat Jun 18, 2022 2:09 pm**

Phil H wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 11:44 am
Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 7:29 am has been superceded by the Nationality and Borders Act
You haven't highlighted what specific part of the Act backs up your point, and much of it isn't in force yet, but even giving you maximum benefit of doubt, I think the most that can be said is that crossings could now theoretically be criminalised but under provisions which are themselves contrary to international law.

Section 40 amends the Immigration Act 1971 to that end to the point that it becomes illegal not only to assist individuals to unlawfully enter the UK, but to be such an “assisted individual”.

Fiona T wrote: ↑Sat Jun 18, 2022 1:09 am Rhys, would you be in favour of shipping Ukrainian refugees to Rwanda?

It doesn’t really matter where people are from, but rather the means they got here by. So yes and no. Same goes for Afghanistan, if they arrived here by means of the ACRS or Op Pitting that’s fine, if they arrived here by small boat and people smuggling then they should be deported.

Isn’t the argument here from the Rwanda nay-sayers is that we simply shouldn’t deport illegal immigrants, which is a different (and disagreeable) argument?

Posted: **Sat Jun 18, 2022 3:01 pm**

https://tinyurl.com/ycxwwa3n This is the sort of thing I'm thinking of.

My point is really that simply doing the decent thing by anyone in a camp in Calais today would surely mean that even more people would turn up in Calais. And personally I don't see the current numbers trying to get into the UK as being a problem, but I do suspect there's potentially a massive global problem in the offing. You'd like to think that Governments the world over would be looking at the big picture long-term, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence of it.

Posted: **Sat Jun 18, 2022 6:51 pm**

David Williams wrote: ↑Sat Jun 18, 2022 3:01 pmMy point is really that simply doing the decent thing by anyone in a camp in Calais today would surely mean that even more people would turn up in Calais.

Aye. David Cameron in 2015 said that we would only take in refugees from Syria (rather than via Europe) so that they wouldn’t be encouraged to make those dangerous journeys into Europe in the first place.

Posted: **Sun Jun 19, 2022 12:20 am**

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Sat Jun 18, 2022 2:09 pm Isn’t the argument here from the Rwanda nay-sayers is that we simply shouldn’t deport illegal immigrants, which is a different (and disagreeable) argument?

No. If someone arrives in this country, legally or otherwise, and claims asylum, we should assess their claim and house them while this claim is processed.

If their asylum claim is successful, then they are recognised as a refugee and given the associated rights, such as the right to live in the UK.

If their asylum claim is not successful, then it follows that it must be safe for them to return to their home country, so they should be returned there.

My argument is that in neither case is it acceptable for us to deport them to some other random country which they don't want to go to and have no connection with, just because it's politically convenient for the government of the day. Do any other countries treat asylum seekers like that? What's so special about the UK that deserves it to be exempted from its internationally-agreed obligations to those in need of help?

Posted: **Sun Jun 19, 2022 1:45 am**

Graeme Cole wrote: ↑Sun Jun 19, 2022 12:20 am Do any other countries treat asylum seekers like that?

Australia has processed illegal migrants trying to enter their country offshore since 2012. It has cross party support, and has been deemed a success.

Graeme Cole wrote: ↑Sun Jun 19, 2022 12:20 am What's so special about the UK that deserves it to be exempted from its internationally-agreed obligations to those in need of help?

It's not about shirking obligations. There is no internationally agreed obligation to have a porous border.

Posted: **Sun Jun 19, 2022 10:06 pm**

Paul Worsley wrote: ↑Sun Jun 19, 2022 1:45 am
Graeme Cole wrote: ↑Sun Jun 19, 2022 12:20 am Do any other countries treat asylum seekers like that?
Australia has processed illegal migrants trying to enter their country offshore since 2012. It has cross party support, and has been deemed a success.

I didn't know about this before, but you're referring to this, I don't agree with that either.

Paul Worsley wrote: ↑Sun Jun 19, 2022 1:45 am
Graeme Cole wrote: ↑Sun Jun 19, 2022 12:20 am What's so special about the UK that deserves it to be exempted from its internationally-agreed obligations to those in need of help?
It's not about shirking obligations. There is no internationally agreed obligation to have a porous border.

No, but there is an internationally agreed obligation on countries to properly assess claims for asylum, not punish asylum seekers for entering the country illegally, and if someone is granted refugee status, to protect them and give them the relevant rights.

Posted: **Mon Jun 20, 2022 2:51 pm**

Not to punish illegal entry into a country?

[citation needed]

Posted: **Mon Jun 20, 2022 5:42 pm**

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Mon Jun 20, 2022 2:51 pm Not to punish illegal entry into a country?

[citation needed]

Article 31 of the 1951 UN Refugee Convention...

Posted: **Mon Jun 20, 2022 6:04 pm**

Graeme Cole wrote: ↑Sun Jun 19, 2022 12:20 am
Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Sat Jun 18, 2022 2:09 pm Isn’t the argument here from the Rwanda nay-sayers is that we simply shouldn’t deport illegal immigrants, which is a different (and disagreeable) argument?
No. If someone arrives in this country, legally or otherwise, and claims asylum, we should assess their claim and house them while this claim is processed.

If their asylum claim is successful, then they are recognised as a refugee and given the associated rights, such as the right to live in the UK.

If their asylum claim is not successful, then it follows that it must be safe for them to return to their home country, so they should be returned there.

My argument is that in neither case is it acceptable for us to deport them to some other random country which they don't want to go to and have no connection with, just because it's politically convenient for the government of the day. Do any other countries treat asylum seekers like that? What's so special about the UK that deserves it to be exempted from its internationally-agreed obligations to those in need of help?

Denmark and Israel have embarked on similar policies to that of the UK in the past.

Posted: **Mon Jun 20, 2022 6:25 pm**

I wonder if what Israel deported people from was actually Israel.

Posted: **Mon Jun 20, 2022 6:37 pm**

It's also worth asking how far the Rwanda policy succeeds according to its own stated objectives:

- the UK paid Rwanda £500,000 for the planned flight last week alone; this would have been the same whether 30-40, 1 or 0 migrants had left on it.
- further domestic legal challenges are to come, meaning that even if all 30-40 had gone as intended, they might have been the last 30-40.
- UK plans to receive a certain number of people from Rwanda in return as part of the deal.
- all indications are that the numbers who go to Rwanda will only ever be a small portion of annual channel arrivals. So perhaps, instead of the UK processing 30,000, we get the UK processing 29,000 and Rwanda 1,000. If you were monitoring UK birth or death rates, would you think a change of that size worthy of note? Will this "break the model" of smuggling?

Overall I think it reasonable to suspect that last week's flight was scheduled largely with an eye on the approaching by-elections, given that anti-immigration messaging is one of the main things they know to have worked for them previously.

Posted: **Mon Jun 20, 2022 6:40 pm**

[double]

Posted: **Mon Jun 20, 2022 6:57 pm**

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Mon Jun 20, 2022 6:25 pm I wonder if what Israel deported people from was actually Israel.

Point taken.

Posted: **Thu Jul 07, 2022 9:41 am**

Levelling Up secretary Michael Gove has been sacked. He put all his XP into sorcery when Johnson actually wanted a dex/strength melee build.

Posted: **Wed Jul 13, 2022 9:40 am**

I am sad that Boris has gone although it was the right time for him to stand down.

As a voter in this election, brief views on each of the leadership candidates:

Kemi Badenoch:

“I’m the Prime Minister and I’m offended by unisex / gender neutral toilets” is bonkers. I’m not overly keen on net zero either but pledging to abolish it is a golden ticket for Labour and Greens and puts us on the wrong side of history.

Suella Braverman:

When you’ve been outschooled by Sebastian Vettel on Question Time your comms cannot possibly lead us into a General Election. You’re also nuts on trans issues and the pink press will be smearing us for another 50 years if you’re elected.

Jeremy Hunt:

More bitter than most lagers, what does he actually stand for these days? My 2019 criticism of “Theresa May in trousers” still stands and his positions on lockdowns are frightening. They should be a last resort, not a first resort.

Penny Morduant:

The timing feels strange and it does feel a little early for her. However, her policy positions appear to be the most sound although I am concerned about her U-turn on trans issues and some dirt that was given to me today about her (but it is fairly minor).

Rishi Sunak:

Have lost a lot of respect for him. Boris gave him almost complete autonomy over economic policy and we have not been Right enough. A tax cut would have been better than the energy bills rebate and NI hike hits the wrong audience at the wrong time.

Liz Truss:

Does she have the gravitas to be PM? Her cheese speech still lingers in my memory and she is ridiculous gaffe-prone but without the charm that Boris had for him to get away with it. Mogg/Dorries endorsement awfully cynical too.

Tom Tugendhat:

Too critical of Boris before Partygate although I like his tough stance on China and his plans to cut taxes.

Nadhim Zahawi:

Again, trans issues are the red flag here. An S28-style policy would be nuts and we would be failing to learn from our mistakes as a party. We cannot set one group against the other unnecessarily.

Summary: probably Mordaunt, Truss, or Tugendhat for me. But absolutely not the others.

Posted: **Wed Jul 13, 2022 11:56 am**

They're probably all psychopaths, but Rishi Sunak stands out as the one who doesn't want to cut tax - and therefore all our services, benefits etc. But these people are not just psychopaths; they're charmless psychopaths. I'm not sure what the Daily Mail etc. could realistically do to make them electable in the general election. Just telling people that they don't know what Keir Starmer stands for enough times so that they believe it and start parroting it back will have long since worn thin by then. It should be an open goal, and yet I still really worry that something will go wrong.

But if I was a Tory that wasn't merely looking for as many poor people to die as possible but actually wanted a victory in the next general election, I'd be supporting Sunak.

Edit - I wonder what horrific location you'd end up at if you put TUG END HAT into whatthreewords.

Posted: **Wed Jul 13, 2022 12:05 pm**

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Wed Jul 13, 2022 9:40 am A tax cut would have been better than the energy bills rebate and NI hike hits the wrong audience at the wrong time.

This reads oddly to me. It gives me the impression that you'd prefer a tax cut as a performative measure rather than a rebate that has more chance of reaching the people who need it most (not that I'm saying the rebate was the best way of doing it).

My point being that a large portion of people being hammered by energy bills don't pay income tax in the first place, therefore they can't be helped by a tax cut. You may have been referring to VAT? A large cut here would help, but only marginally.

Posted: **Wed Jul 13, 2022 1:31 pm**

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Wed Jul 13, 2022 11:56 am Edit - I wonder what horrific location you'd end up at if you put TUG END HAT into whatthreewords.

The closest I can get is tugs.tend.that or tugs.send.that - the former is in the middle of the Australian desert and the latter is a cabin in the woods in North Carolina.

Posted: **Wed Jul 13, 2022 1:32 pm**

Favourite what3words: credit.card.denied is in Ontario, Canada - where median house prices are now reaching into the millions.

Posted: **Wed Jul 13, 2022 9:26 pm**

Looking at Oddschecker, it would appear that Penny Mordaunt is odds on favourite to win the leadership "race". However, having heard her awful Paul McCartney comment earlier, I don't think she's going to win the next general election.

Posted: **Thu Jul 14, 2022 6:35 am**

I thought it was a good analogy though.
Maybe she should have used Slipknot instead as the tories greatest hits ruined things for the working class socialists.
In fact most of the tories greatest hits was under Thatcher.

Posted: **Thu Jul 14, 2022 7:14 am**

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Thu Jul 14, 2022 6:35 am Maybe she should have used Slipknot instead as the tories greatest hits ruined things for the working class socialists.

Are socialists particularly into early noughties metal?

Posted: **Thu Jul 14, 2022 9:49 am**

Ian Volante wrote: ↑Thu Jul 14, 2022 7:14 am
Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Thu Jul 14, 2022 6:35 am Maybe she should have used Slipknot instead as the tories greatest hits ruined things for the working class socialists.
Are socialists particularly into early noughties metal?

No but, not Slipknot are not universally liked like Macca

Posted: **Fri Jul 15, 2022 6:49 pm**

Ian Volante wrote: ↑Wed Jul 13, 2022 12:05 pm
Rhys Benjamin wrote: A tax cut would have been better than the energy bills rebate and NI hike hits the wrong audience at the wrong time.
This reads oddly to me. It gives me the impression that you'd prefer a tax cut as a performative measure rather than a rebate that has more chance of reaching the people who need it most (not that I'm saying the rebate was the best way of doing it).

My point being that a large portion of people being hammered by energy bills don't pay income tax in the first place therefore they can't be helped by a tax cut. You may have been referring to VAT? A large cut here would help, but only marginally.

You could still have a giveaway for non-taxpayers (ie those earning under £12,500) but we have taxed more AND spent more, which is Labour’s solution. Cut out the middle man here. We have taken money away in NI hikes and given it back to them in a state handout. That’s the Leftie solution.

Upon further reflection, I’m #PM4PM

Posted: **Fri Jul 15, 2022 6:59 pm**

I've some sympathy with reducing the role of the state. However, the state has a powerful position, especially at the moment, in smoothing turbulent economic waters. To my mind, there's way too much rhetoric, and very little cogent policy-making, and I don't see that changing any time soon.

Personal responsibility is great, but getting on one's bike is much easier a: when you can afford one, and b: when you've enough food to fuel yourself in the first place.

Posted: **Fri Jul 15, 2022 7:11 pm**

And c: when the roads are safe and suitable for it.

Posted: **Tue Jul 19, 2022 4:10 pm**

The transparently corrupt Johnson regime has removed the party whip from Tobias Ellwood, who was unable to vote in the confidence motion in the government due to being in Moldova in his role as chair of the Commons Defence Committee. Ellwood is supporting Penny Mordaunt in the leadership contest, whereas the regime is supporting Liz Truss.

Here is Chris Bryant in the confidence debate destroying the government.

Posted: **Tue Jul 19, 2022 5:13 pm**

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Tue Jul 19, 2022 4:10 pm The transparently corrupt Johnson regime has removed the party whip from Tobias Ellwood, who was unable to vote in the confidence motion in the government due to being in Moldova in his role as chair of the Commons Defence Committee. Ellwood is supporting Penny Mordaunt in the leadership contest, whereas the regime is supporting Liz Truss.

Here is Chris Bryant in the confidence debate destroying the government.

All the Tory MPs who I seem to think are alright keep getting booted out

decent rant from the Rt Hon Jonathan Pie MP.

Posted: **Wed Jul 20, 2022 12:43 pm**

https://unherd.com/2022/07/kemi-badenoc ... he-tories/

Posted: **Thu Jul 21, 2022 7:44 am**

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Fri Jul 15, 2022 6:49 pm
Ian Volante wrote: ↑Wed Jul 13, 2022 12:05 pm
Rhys Benjamin wrote: A tax cut would have been better than the energy bills rebate and NI hike hits the wrong audience at the wrong time.
This reads oddly to me. It gives me the impression that you'd prefer a tax cut as a performative measure rather than a rebate that has more chance of reaching the people who need it most (not that I'm saying the rebate was the best way of doing it).

My point being that a large portion of people being hammered by energy bills don't pay income tax in the first place therefore they can't be helped by a tax cut. You may have been referring to VAT? A large cut here would help, but only marginally.
You could still have a giveaway for non-taxpayers (ie those earning under £12,500) but we have taxed more AND spent more, which is Labour’s solution. Cut out the middle man here. We have taken money away in NI hikes and given it back to them in a state handout. That’s the Leftie solution.

Upon further reflection, I’m #PM4PM

Still don't see where this helps people who aren't paying income tax, unless you're actually proponing the 'leftie' solution.

Posted: **Sun Jul 24, 2022 7:38 pm**

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Wed Jul 13, 2022 9:40 am I am sad that Boris has gone although it was the right time for him to stand down.

As a voter in this election, brief views on each of the leadership candidates:

Kemi Badenoch:

“I’m the Prime Minister and I’m offended by unisex / gender neutral toilets” is bonkers. I’m not overly keen on net zero either but pledging to abolish it is a golden ticket for Labour and Greens and puts us on the wrong side of history.

Suella Braverman:

When you’ve been outschooled by Sebastian Vettel on Question Time your comms cannot possibly lead us into a General Election. You’re also nuts on trans issues and the pink press will be smearing us for another 50 years if you’re elected.

Jeremy Hunt:

More bitter than most lagers, what does he actually stand for these days? My 2019 criticism of “Theresa May in trousers” still stands and his positions on lockdowns are frightening. They should be a last resort, not a first resort.

Penny Morduant:

The timing feels strange and it does feel a little early for her. However, her policy positions appear to be the most sound although I am concerned about her U-turn on trans issues and some dirt that was given to me today about her (but it is fairly minor).

Rishi Sunak:

Have lost a lot of respect for him. Boris gave him almost complete autonomy over economic policy and we have not been Right enough. A tax cut would have been better than the energy bills rebate and NI hike hits the wrong audience at the wrong time.

Liz Truss:

Does she have the gravitas to be PM? Her cheese speech still lingers in my memory and she is ridiculous gaffe-prone but without the charm that Boris had for him to get away with it. Mogg/Dorries endorsement awfully cynical too.

Tom Tugendhat:

Too critical of Boris before Partygate although I like his tough stance on China and his plans to cut taxes.

Nadhim Zahawi:

Again, trans issues are the red flag here. An S28-style policy would be nuts and we would be failing to learn from our mistakes as a party. We cannot set one group against the other unnecessarily.

Summary: probably Mordaunt, Truss, or Tugendhat for me. But absolutely not the others.

Hi Rhys,

As a fellow member of the conservative and unionist party i am very open about the fact that in the members vote i, like you, will be voting for Liz Truss:

1) Rishi is an absolute snob. The dodgy stuff with his wife was out of order and he should have resigned then. My first choice would have been Tom Tugendhat (despite point 2) as i would have preffered a clean break from Boris for now, but i have met Liz a number of times (due to point 2) and she she strikes me as a generally lovely person who genuinely cares about the people.
2) She's my MP and i'm one of her constituents that elected her.

Jack

Posted: **Mon Jul 25, 2022 1:17 pm**

She won 3 elections because of a lack of credible opposition.
Foot and Kinnock were no palatable to the average SU. Reader and like it or not the media did and to a lesser extent now still does have a huge say in who runs the country.
Its no coincidence that Tory lite Tony Blair curried favour with Murdoch to ensure he got backing.
As for the miners strike, Arthur Scargill was the joke not Callahan, admittedly the unions had Labour in their pocket back then.
Thatcher had a plan to destroy the unions power regardless of how it affected the country pitting family against family.
She privatised everything she could making everyone potential share owners, allowed tenants to buy council homes, thus creating millions of new tory voters.
No thought was put into the future of social housing.
Oh and The Falklands conflict was a political vote winner with little regard to human life and strategy.

History is indeed written by the victors but some people that actually lived through it are still alive to question some of the shit that some people spout.
In 1979 there was around a million and a half unemployed, by the mid eighties there were 3 million +

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-22070491

Posted: **Mon Jul 25, 2022 7:11 pm**

Using this poll me and my partner decided to sit down and analyse the results scaled to the 2019 election: https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com ... july-2022/

If an election was held today the according to the said poll we'd be way behind labour!

Seats 2019 Seat per vote percentage 2019 Predicted Seats
Labour 202 6 272
Tory 365 8 308
Lib Dem 11 1 14
SNP 48 12 50
Green 1 0.33 2
Other N/A N/A 4
650

I blame bodgejob Boris!

Posted: **Wed Jul 27, 2022 8:04 am**

So the obvious question then. Was this staged to make Liz Truss look like the sympathetic caring candidate?

Posted: **Wed Jul 27, 2022 11:27 am**

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Wed Jul 27, 2022 8:04 am So the obvious question then. Was this staged to make Liz Truss look like the sympathetic caring candidate?

She looked more scared than sympathetic

Posted: **Wed Jul 27, 2022 2:49 pm**

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Wed Jul 27, 2022 11:27 am
Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Wed Jul 27, 2022 8:04 am So the obvious question then. Was this staged to make Liz Truss look like the sympathetic caring candidate?
She looked more scared than sympathetic

Yeah if that was the intention, it failed.

Posted: **Wed Aug 03, 2022 3:53 pm**

In other news, America is continuing in its self-appointed role as the world's police force, judge, jury and executioner with the assassination of Ayman al-Zawahiri, the head of al-Qaeda. It's completely pointless anyway. Getting rid of one individual does nothing to eliminate the ideology, and he can be easily replaced. It's ridiculous they don't get more stick for this.

Posted: **Wed Aug 03, 2022 3:56 pm**

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu Mar 10, 2022 3:17 pm When did TikTok become "acceptable"? When it was first getting big, there was a lot of controversy abut it being this scary Chinese product that the Chinese government were presumably using to spy on everyone. Now it's everywhere, and you get the BBC going on about these viral TikTok videos with no reference to what they used to say about it.

The UK Parliament has closed its account on the Chinese government website, also known as TikTok. Start with a c4c account, and expand from there. Don't go straight in with such a hardcore site.

Posted: **Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:02 am**

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu Mar 10, 2022 3:17 pm When did TikTok become "acceptable"? When it was first getting big, there was a lot of controversy abut it being this scary Chinese product that the Chinese government were presumably using to spy on everyone.

Probably because most people don't care about bullshit racist scaremongering?

Posted: **Fri Aug 05, 2022 9:16 am**

L'oisleatch McGraw wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:02 am
Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu Mar 10, 2022 3:17 pm When did TikTok become "acceptable"? When it was first getting big, there was a lot of controversy abut it being this scary Chinese product that the Chinese government were presumably using to spy on everyone.
Probably because most people don't care about bullshit racist scaremongering?

Maybe but it doesn't explain the flip-flopping narrative in the media.

"Don't use TikTok because the Chinese government will use it to take over your brain!"

Then the next day:

"Ooh, look at these fluffy kittens on TikTok."

Posted: **Fri Aug 05, 2022 9:43 am**

Yeah the public perception of TikTok seemed to shift dramatically overnight, with no obvious transition or explanation why.

Posted: **Fri Aug 05, 2022 10:19 am**

Because it makes money.

Posted: **Sun Aug 07, 2022 9:12 am**

Ian Volante wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 7:44 am
Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Fri Jul 15, 2022 6:49 pm
Ian Volante wrote: ↑Wed Jul 13, 2022 12:05 pm

This reads oddly to me. It gives me the impression that you'd prefer a tax cut as a performative measure rather than a rebate that has more chance of reaching the people who need it most (not that I'm saying the rebate was the best way of doing it).

My point being that a large portion of people being hammered by energy bills don't pay income tax in the first place therefore they can't be helped by a tax cut. You may have been referring to VAT? A large cut here would help, but only marginally.
You could still have a giveaway for non-taxpayers (ie those earning under £12,500) but we have taxed more AND spent more, which is Labour’s solution. Cut out the middle man here. We have taken money away in NI hikes and given it back to them in a state handout. That’s the Leftie solution.

Upon further reflection, I’m #PM4PM
Still don't see where this helps people who aren't paying income tax, unless you're actually proponing the 'leftie' solution.

I’m not talking about those people. They’re already being given more than the £550 most people are getting, as the Government is providing an extra £650 to those on low incomes and benefits.

I’m talking about the flat rate of £400 for everyone and the £150 for most people. Take 2p off the base rate of income tax for the 22-23 financial year and reverse the NI increase. That’s a better way of supporting people.

(I personally would simplify the tax system by abolishing NI and Council Tax and merging them into income tax. But that’s another story.)

Posted: **Sun Aug 07, 2022 10:14 am**

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Sun Aug 07, 2022 9:12 am
(I personally would simplify the tax system by abolishing NI and Council Tax and merging them into income tax. But that’s another story.)

Absolutely - but will never happen or people would suddenly realise just how much tax they are paying - employers NI is invisible to most employees

Posted: **Mon Aug 08, 2022 11:31 am**

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Sun Aug 07, 2022 9:12 am
I’m talking about the flat rate of £400 for everyone and the £150 for most people. Take 2p off the base rate of income tax for the 22-23 financial year and reverse the NI increase. That’s a better way of supporting people.

(I personally would simplify the tax system by abolishing NI and Council Tax and merging them into income tax. But that’s another story.)

I've some sympathy with such ideas, although before stuffing up finances by dropping income tax, I'd be very tempted to bump up corporation tax and/or introduce a Tobin tax or similar. A lot of the money flows, such as dividends, have it too easy and end up taken away from the areas where they were generated, much as relevant companies may protest about their levels of investment.

As for combining taxes, NI, yes. Council tax, not sure. I don't like the additional centralisation implied by such a move.

Posted: **Mon Aug 08, 2022 12:29 pm**

I would also combine income tax and income tax II (sometimes referred to as National Insurance). I would actually combine council tax as well. There is the thing Ian said about centralisation, but I'm not sure I'm too bothered about that. I don't think there's too much leeway in what councils can charge. It's not like one you pay some amount in one council district and double that in an adjacent one or anything. I think it generally makes more sense to simplifiy the tax system.

I'd combine TV licence as well, so people don't need to buy an actual licence. It's a pretty mental system when you actually think about it. But being against the TV licence is generally seen as a right wing thing so it wouldn't normally get questioned by most of the lefties that I and probably most of you would normally encounter. However, it depends what direction you want it to go in. I'd get rid of in but move it into taxation, whereas the righties would make the BBC a subscription service or something along those lines.

Posted: **Mon Aug 08, 2022 4:30 pm**

I suspect the reason that income tax and national insurance have never been combined is that however you do it, it's a massive vote loser. Simply increase the basic rate, and lose the vote of every pensioner in the country? Or only increase the basic rate for the working population, and bring it home to them that the richest age group in society pays so little tax? At the moment at least there is some (largely fictitious) logic that national insurance pays for your pension, and council tax pays for local services. I can imagine that many politicians have contemplated this and shied away very quickly.

Posted: **Fri Aug 12, 2022 8:29 am**

You could definitely sell the idea, emphasising “look how much tax you pay, it’s not fair, tax is theft, etc”.

Council tax was born out of the poll tax debacle, but the poll tax itself was part of a wider move to local government funding. It was meant to make local government more accountable as well-run councils would charge less (in Wandsworth in 1991 they charged £0). My fundamental objection to both the Community Charge and Council Tax is its postcode lottery element. Council tax has to go.

Out of your pay packet you will pay income tax, national insurance, and council tax. Even those on middle incomes such as the UK median of £26,000 will end up paying 25% of their income in direct taxation alone.

Without having the treasury in front of me, abolishing these taxes and replacing them with ONE tax payment is much better.

Posted: **Fri Aug 12, 2022 10:57 pm**

If we're reforming the tax system, I've never understood why there's so much opposition to inheritance tax. Nowadays you're probably in your sixties when your parents die, mortgage paid off, kids off your hands. If there's ever a time in your life when you can afford to pay some tax it's on an inheritance when you're 60. Yet a married couple can leave £1 million to their children tax free. Only 4% of estates actually pay inheritance tax. Why isn't there a massive groundswell in favour of increasing it?

There's a complaint that you're being taxed a second time on your money, which makes no sense. Most of that money will be from a massive profit on your house, which isn't taxed at all. And people happily pay VAT in the afternoon on money that's had PAYE and NI deducted from it in the morning - two taxes in a single day.

c4countdown

Politics in General

Re: Politics in General

Re: Politics in General

Re: Politics in General

Re: Politics in General

Re: Politics in General

Re: Politics in General

Re: Politics in General

Re: Politics in General

Re: Politics in General

Re: Politics in General

Re: Politics in General

Re: Politics in General

Re: Politics in General

Re: Politics in General

Re: Politics in General

Re: Politics in General

Re: Politics in General

Re: Politics in General

Re: Politics in General

Re: Politics in General

Re: Politics in General

Re: Politics in General

Re: Politics in General

Re: Politics in General

Re: Politics in General

Re: Politics in General

Re: Politics in General

Re: Politics in General

Re: Politics in General

Re: Politics in General

Re: Politics in General

Re: Politics in General

Re: Politics in General

Re: Politics in General

Re: Politics in General

Re: Politics in General

Re: Politics in General

Re: Politics in General

Re: Politics in General

Re: Politics in General

Re: Politics in General

Re: Politics in General

Re: Politics in General

Re: Politics in General

Re: Politics in General

Re: Politics in General

Re: Politics in General

Re: Politics in General

Re: Politics in General

Re: Politics in General

Re: Politics in General

Re: Politics in General

Re: Politics in General

Re: Politics in General

Re: Politics in General

Re: Politics in General

Re: Politics in General

Re: Politics in General

Re: Politics in General

Re: Politics in General