The Labour Government

Churchlawtonblue said:
The PM seems to think it's worth making a big fuss about it doesn't he?
Click to expand...
If you mean he wants to stop people crossing the channel, it's one of the priorities. He's gone very quiet on providing "safe and legal routes" (which has been a bit of a mantra for Labour MPs) so that's probably going to be an internal battle. Even Yvette Cooper is reduced to talking about "controlled and managed but safe routes for children who have family in the UK" rather than a more general (or generous) way to apply for asylum here.
 
It's not just population, it's the age of the population.

Currently, we have a higher percentage of retired folk than we had traditionally, and fewer babies being born. The proportion of retired is growing every year, and will until the boomer generation passes over. So the population is skewed towards the older age groups. Immigration partly redressed this. The only other 'solution' is to make people work longer. But many jobs are unsuited to those over 60. Builders, especially roofers and the like. Police. Fire. Arguably doctors and nurses. You want a surgeon with a shaky hand? You want a bloke of 74 driving your train at 125 mph? Or your bus at 30, for that matter?

With a restructure of society, we could put over-60s on 'light duties' and ask them to work longer. But such jobs are nowhere near as common as they used to be. Routine clerical jobs, for example, are a dying institution. Most have already gone. Bear in mind also that in a free market state it's very hard to restructure in this way, No mechanism exists.

Housing is squeezed because objectively we haven't built enough for decades. Thatcher smashed public sector housing as she imagined it would free up resources for the private sector. So it did, and that's why you get profitable 5 and 6-bedroom executive houses being built instead of what young families and single people need.

There are more single households because that's how society has evolved, like it or not. There are more divorces, and even many 'couples' live in separate houses because they don't want a closer relationship with the financial entanglement that involves. Again, a more aged society means more widows/widowers. It's OK saying downsize. If you can put all your possessions in one box it's easy. When you have a lifetime's accumulated possessions and you're on your tod, it isn't. It's also costly to move. I estimate 15k and upwards. I wouldn't do that just so I could live in a shoebox. I'd live on blind hash and baked beans first.
 
Mr Kobayashi said:
Those people should be taxed or incentivised out of occupying homes designed for families.
Click to expand...
What a ridiculous comment, there's around 3 million widows/widowers who occupy their homes they shared with their spouses/partners, in the majority of cases there will be no kids there either.

My Dad lived for over 3 years after my Mum died, all his memories were in that house and he had great neighbours who watched out for him, you'd have taxed him for living on his his own? Fuck me you post some shite but that takes the biscuit.
 
hammocity said:
What a ridiculous comment, there's around 3 million widows/widowers who occupy their homes they shared with their spouses/partners, in the majority of cases there will be no kids there either.

My Dad lived for over 3 years after my Mum died, all his memories were in that house and he had great neighbours who watched out for him, you'd have taxed him for living on his his own? Fuck me you post some shite but that takes the biscuit.
Click to expand...
Shite is way to nice a description
 
hammocity said:
What a ridiculous comment, there's around 3 million widows/widowers who occupy their homes they shared with their spouses/partners, in the majority of cases there will be no kids there either.

My Dad lived for over 3 years after my Mum died, all his memories were in that house and he had great neighbours who watched out for him, you'd have taxed him for living on his his own? Fuck me you post some shite but that takes the biscuit.
Click to expand...

Do you think the increase in single person households is due to widows and widowers or spinsters and bachelors?
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
Ah, the old two wrongs make a right argument!
Click to expand...
Who says Lammy and Johnson were wrong?
They might have been unwise saying those things in the light of what happened last week but they were certainly not wrong with the content of their comments.

Never thought I’d ever say Johnson got something right but there you go.
 
Vic said:
If you mean he wants to stop people crossing the channel, it's one of the priorities. He's gone very quiet on providing "safe and legal routes" (which has been a bit of a mantra for Labour MPs) so that's probably going to be an internal battle. Even Yvette Cooper is reduced to talking about "controlled and managed but safe routes for children who have family in the UK" rather than a more general (or generous) way to apply for asylum here.
Click to expand...
That's probably because the electorate doesn't want safe and legal routes and it would destroy them in terms of opening the door to the Tories or Reform. No such safe route exists anywhere in the world. How many safe routes has Europe implemented to stop further people drowning in the Med? None.

Nobody has done this because asylum cannot be claimed from a foreign country and so countries have no obligation to facilitate that migration. Our position is that those migrants do not exist until they exist once they arrive and I don't see why we should change that. I'd understand if somebody was fleeing war but they're not, they're in France.

146,000 people have made the crossing so far since 2018 and that's 146,000 who decided an extremely dangerous journey was a risk worth taking. So how many will come once there is a 'legal' route?

We spend billions per year feeding and housing those that come now so how could we possibly resource for an additional X number of people? And for what reason, because migrants fancy the UK and not France or Europe?
 
west didsblue said:
Who says Lammy and Johnson were wrong?
They might have been unwise saying those things in the light of what happened last week but they were certainly not wrong with the content of their comments.

Never thought I’d ever say Johnson got something right but there you go.
Click to expand...
Right in what they said clearly wrong to say it in the position they were in or might be in future. Naive in the extreme.
 
inbetween said:
That's probably because the electorate doesn't want safe and legal routes and it would destroy them in terms of opening the door to the Tories or Reform. No such safe route exists anywhere in the world. How many safe routes has Europe implemented to stop further people drowning in the Med? None.

Nobody has done this because asylum cannot be claimed from a foreign country and so countries have no obligation to facilitate that migration. Our position is that those migrants do not exist until they exist once they arrive and I don't see why we should change that. I'd understand if somebody was fleeing war but they're not, they're in France.

146,000 people have made the crossing so far since 2018 and that's 146,000 who decided an extremely dangerous journey was a risk worth taking. So how many will come once there is a 'legal' route?

We spend billions per year feeding and housing those that come now so how could we possibly resource for an additional X number of people? And for what reason, because migrants fancy the UK and not France or Europe?
Click to expand...
Big advantage I can see is that we only allow in those who qualify to settle it would have to be accompanied with an agreement with France to automatically return any using the boat route.
 
west didsblue said:
Who says Lammy and Johnson were wrong?
They might have been unwise saying those things in the light of what happened last week but they were certainly not wrong with the content of their comments.

Never thought I’d ever say Johnson got something right but there you go.
Click to expand...

What is most interesting is that all those on here decrying Lammy and conveniently overlooking Johnsons "misspeaking" about Trump plus all those reporters, commentators, news outlets and opposition politicians are "free speech" warriors - who want the right to say whatever they want to about any subject they want to with no repercussions but if anyone said something they see as hurty against someone they like and admire its "pearls to clutch mode" on the dashboard and major whining. I think we know why.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top