The Labour Government

[Chippy_boy]

Give it a fucking rest Chippy. Not good for your health. You're in clover with fuck all to worry about really.

Thanks for the advice, but I was only asking. The thing is, i've worked my arse off all my life doing some really shitty jobs, highly stressed. Not being funny but most people I think would not have been able to put up with it and would have quit citing "stress". Now I have got myself to a position where I can just about afford a relatively comfortable retirement. Not excessive, just enough. If returns on investments take a tumble, it will be squeaky bum. If not, I shoudl just about be OK. I have no "spare" money.

So funnily enough I am rather paranoid about some **** in No. 11 deciding well done, you've amassed a few bob so we will take it off you to pay for the lazy twats who DID quit their jobs citing stress.

 

[Vic]

Gate prices are up not down, generally they fluctuate but the trend is around up 45% over the last 5 years.

On top of that there are the processing and distribution costs before it gets to the supermarket shelf.

I’m sure you have a point worth investigating around supermarket profits but that was a bad example to use.

I'm not talking about the last 5 years. I took the increase in the retail price of milk to mean just this month, when the farmgate prices are down.

 

[Vic]

Haha, so you're happy for someone to come on a boat who has contributed nothing to get well looked after but a person who has worked all their lives in the uk and paid tax and ni to get nowt because they choose to live out their retirement somewhere warmer.

Also the big difference with immigrants from the uk who choose to live abroad aren't a burden on the country they choose to live in unlike all these cookers coming over in boats.

An 18-year-old coming on a boat has cost us nothing. A UK-born 18-year-old has already had 18 years of free health care and free education. (And before anyone says it, the tax their parents have paid has probably not met the cost of all the "benefits" they've had in that time.)

 

[Vic]

In the parallel universe you seem to inhabit, then perhaps all of the above is true. The fact the country is in the state it's in, rather neatly demonstrates that we don't actually live in your parallel universe. We are not the Netherlands, or the Nordics and we will never be like them. I constantly hear you lot saying "why can't we be like e.g. Sweden or Finland or Norway". Well no shit Sherlock, because 1,000 years of history has made us not like the Swedes, Fins or Norwegians. That's the reality you lot don't seem to be able to suck up. We are intrinsically less socialist, less left wing, more like the US than we are like many in the EU.

The last person I heard say, "Why can't we be like Norway?" was Farage in the referendum campaign.

 

[tweety]

An 18-year-old coming on a boat has cost us nothing. A UK-born 18-year-old has already had 18 years of free health care and free education. (And before anyone says it, the tax their parents have paid has probably not met the cost of all the "benefits" they've had in that time.)

You can put him up in your spare bedroom then.

 

[Vic]

While true, in America not being 'religious or believing in god' is a vote loser in some states.In the UK most people couldn't care less when they are voting.

It seems younger American women are turning away from the right wing evangelical churches run by men who (a) don't think women should be in positions of leadership - in the church, or in business, or politics - and (b) love the rapist in the White House.

 

[Vic]

I agree but that's driven by the whole "god, country, family" type thing. Religion there is just part and parcel of what is really an organised version of nationalism.

The US is actually a weird country which lacks a distinct dominant form of Christianity like in Europe. That's probably because the majority don't actually practice a distinct form but they identify with it because that's just what you do. Politicians exploit that for what it's worth indeed purely to win votes.

Here in the UK we do/did have a dominant form of Christianity but then that's only because the crown used to persecute and kill anybody who opposed it... Again another form of nationalism.

We have actually now got a revival of "Christians" who want to persecute, chanting "Jesus is King" and attacking mosques.

 

[west didsblue]

We have actually now got a revival of "Christians" who want to persecute, chanting "Trump is King" and attacking mosques.

Corrected

 

[Chippy_boy]

The last person I heard say, "Why can't we be like Norway?" was Farage in the referendum campaign.

And your point is?

 

[BlueHammer85]

we have a good PM and a stable government at long last.
shame we have a constant tidal wave of negativity, scrutiny and outrage no matter what they do led by the media and tech giants.

 

[Blue Maverick]

An 18-year-old coming on a boat has cost us nothing. A UK-born 18-year-old has already had 18 years of free health care and free education. (And before anyone says it, the tax their parents have paid has probably not met the cost of all the "benefits" they've had in that time.)

Then we should stop having kids then and just import people over the age of 18, that’ll sort everything.

 

[maxwellblue]

An 18-year-old coming on a boat has cost us nothing. A UK-born 18-year-old has already had 18 years of free health care and free education. (And before anyone says it, the tax their parents have paid has probably not met the cost of all the "benefits" they've had in that time.)

It's cost at least a portion of the amount we are giving to the French and whatever the border force costs to bring them ashore. So there is a cost before they land. The UK born 18 year old costs may or may not have been met by the parent's tax contributions but the important point you make there is 'UK born' as a nation its a given that we support our own before work and after they retire which I am more than happy to do. I and the majority of the British public have no wish to fund illegal immigration.

 

[metalblue]

I'm not talking about the last 5 years. I took the increase in the retail price of milk to mean just this month, when the farmgate prices are down.

They’re up 4.7% not down.

 

[metalblue]

An 18-year-old coming on a boat has cost us nothing. A UK-born 18-year-old has already had 18 years of free health care and free education. (And before anyone says it, the tax their parents have paid has probably not met the cost of all the "benefits" they've had in that time.)

I’m of the opinion anyone coming over should pay more in tax (ie reduce their tax free allowance) to offset the cost - it’s a bit fairer than taking assets off them. I’d also let them work from day 1.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

Maybe? I don't know. But what does that mean exactly? I mean if someone cannot support themselves or becomes ill, we don't just let them die by the roadside.

There are certain benefits that are not included basically. So...

• universal credit
• housing benefit
• working/child tax credit
• child benefit
• income-related jobseeker's allowance
• a few other minor things (e.g. winter fuel payments)

They are typically entitled to:

• the NHS (and refugees don't have to pay the surcharge that other immigrants do)
• schooling for their kids
• contribution-based benefits (e.g. those linked to NI payments)
• a few other things that might be categorised as not public funds depending on the local authority (some housing things)

But as for your main question, I'd say having to wait 20 years instead of 5 is a massive disincentive, and highlights what the government sees the asylum system as - a temporary safe haven while your home country is dangerous. The present system is effectively a system where if you're granted asylum in the UK, you are basically allowed to stay forever, because you get an automatic 5 years, and after 5 years of continuous residency, you are allowed to apply for indefinite leave to remain. In theory, if the country is now significantly safer, then the ILR application can be denied, but it's unclear how often they are denied (but 91% have settled status in 10 years). And let's face it, how often are these things cleared up in 5 years?

But it also creates a shitload more work for a department that already has a huge backlog. They'll presumably be counting on a reduced number of applicants balancing it out, because at the moment, they're creating a system where cases need to be reviewed twice as often, which by my maths, would double the workload per applicant.

 

[WRicko]

So in order to get settled status early you need to have no debt. Does that include mortgage and student loans ?

Seems odd

Debt doesn’t necessarily mean your a burden on the state

 

[WRicko]

It's cost at least a portion of the amount we are giving to the French and whatever the border force costs to bring them ashore. So there is a cost before they land. The UK born 18 year old costs may or may not have been met by the parent's tax contributions but the important point you make there is 'UK born' as a nation its a given that we support our own before work and after they retire which I am more than happy to do. I and the majority of the British public have no wish to fund illegal immigration.

Except refugees basically have to be illegal according according to UK law. Note they are never arrested because it’s not actually illegal and because they are illegal and how we set up the system they have to cost us a bit of money for a brief period. Perhaps we should change the system ?

 

[Chippy_boy]

There are certain benefits that are not included basically. So...

• universal credit
• housing benefit
• working/child tax credit
• child benefit
• income-related jobseeker's allowance
• a few other minor things (e.g. winter fuel payments)

They are typically entitled to:

• the NHS (and refugees don't have to pay the surcharge that other immigrants do)
• schooling for their kids
• contribution-based benefits (e.g. those linked to NI payments)
• a few other things that might be categorised as not public funds depending on the local authority (some housing things)

But as for your main question, I'd say having to wait 20 years instead of 5 is a massive disincentive, and highlights what the government sees the asylum system as - a temporary safe haven while your home country is dangerous. The present system is effectively a system where if you're granted asylum in the UK, you are basically allowed to stay forever, because you get an automatic 5 years, and after 5 years of continuous residency, you are allowed to apply for indefinite leave to remain. In theory, if the country is now significantly safer, then the ILR application can be denied, but it's unclear how often they are denied (but 91% have settled status in 10 years). And let's face it, how often are these things cleared up in 5 years?

But it also creates a shitload more work for a department that already has a huge backlog. They'll presumably be counting on a reduced number of applicants balancing it out, because at the moment, they're creating a system where cases need to be reviewed twice as often, which by my maths, would double the workload per applicant.

Thanks. Fingers crossed it has some impact because we cannot carry on inexorably as we are.

 

[ballbag]

Crazy how Labour, who haven't been great, are still absolutely miles better than anything else on offer.

 

[blueish swede]

In the parallel universe you seem to inhabit, then perhaps all of the above is true. The fact the country is in the state it's in, rather neatly demonstrates that we don't actually live in your parallel universe. We are not the Netherlands, or the Nordics and we will never be like them. I constantly hear you lot saying "why can't we be like e.g. Sweden or Finland or Norway". Well no shit Sherlock, because 1,000 years of history has made us not like the Swedes, Fins or Norwegians. That's the reality you lot don't seem to be able to suck up. We are intrinsically less socialist, less left wing, more like the US than we are like many in the EU.

Thanks for the advice, but I was only asking. The thing is, i've worked my arse off all my life doing some really shitty jobs, highly stressed. Not being funny but most people I think would not have been able to put up with it and would have quit citing "stress". Now I have got myself to a position where I can just about afford a relatively comfortable retirement. Not excessive, just enough. If returns on investments take a tumble, it will be squeaky bum. If not, I shoudl just about be OK. I have no "spare" money.

So funnily enough I am rather paranoid about some **** in No. 11 deciding well done, you've amassed a few bob so we will take it off you to pay for the lazy twats who DID quit their jobs citing stress.

I don't think it's a left-right thing. It's more about being willing to act in unpopular ways for the long term benefit of the country, which successive British Governments have been unwilling to do. And you can´t really blame them, look at the WFA palaver. Although not brilliantly managed, the reasoning was correct, and people who can afford to pay for themselves, should.

Also other countrie have "agreed" long term strategies that all parties abide by. In Sweden, for example, Government borrowing is restricted by praxis so the country has to live within it's means i.e. a chancellor can't spend more than they take in revenue. There are exceptions, large scale building projects, for example, that are payed off over 75-100 years. You can spend in the boom years, but not in a recession. It's understood by everyone.

The same with benefits, although nobody starves, a life on benefits isn't an option here, it is a subsistence level of aid. On the other hand, childbenefits, parental leave, disability alowance and care are at a much higher level.

Now I have got myself to a position where I can just about afford a relatively comfortable retirement...
As of 1st January Sweden will abolish the retirement age and instead each individual will get advice on when it is "financially sustainable" for them to retire. It's a huge change, but it's clear the current system will be unsustainable in the future, so something has to be done.