Starmergeddon: They Came And Ate Us

[dpedin]

Again though, the migration we are actually experiencing *exacerbates* our dependency ratio, and so much of this analysis rests on the idea that immigrants don’t age and get ill

80+% of immigrants into UK in 2024 are between 16 and 65, more detailed breakdown difficult to source. However non EU immigrants come with more dependents than those from EU as you might expect, another bonus from EU? Of course immigrants get ill and age but immigration, particularly of younger, skilled workers might help us get over the growth in over 65 year olds in UK? Many already are, go into any care home or hospital and look at the make up of the workforce.

[dpedin]

Quite, if we just carry on as we are we just shoving an even bigger problem further down the line. In things like care and the NHS we are already in a never ending cycle of bringing in people to fill the poorly paid positions who either leave when something better comes up or stop working when their dependents follow and we have to start again.

Just with reference to SG and their stance, as has been said before it’s easy to be so positive about all aspects of immigration if you don’t really have any. Is there actually any country in the world that has successfully integrated a large number of immigrants? I’m really struggling to think of any and it’s what slightly infuriates me about the SG propaganda, let’s have lots of immigration and everything will be brilliant, but with evidence in just about every country pointing to it not being. We will be different of course

I think you are missing the point - what is the alternative if we don't have immigration into the UK/Scotland? No one is saying it is easy nor that there aren't problems in integration but what's the alternative? The SG are at least being honest about the economic implications of having a shrinking workforce and not having more immigration to fill the gaps - we won't have enough folk to work in our hospitals, care homes to take care of Granny, to fill highly skilled IT jobs or to staff our busy hospitality sector. Immigrants will fill a whole range of jobs from lowly paid to highly skilled nurses and consultants in the NHS. No one has said that Scotland won't make many of the same mistakes that other countries have with integration but with 10% of our population already composed of immigrants we haven't done too badly?

[Paddington Bear]

Again though, the migration we are actually experiencing *exacerbates* our dependency ratio, and so much of this analysis rests on the idea that immigrants don’t age and get ill

80+% of immigrants into UK in 2024 are between 16 and 65, more detailed breakdown difficult to source. However non EU immigrants come with more dependents than those from EU as you might expect, another bonus from EU? Of course immigrants get ill and age but immigration, particularly of younger, skilled workers might help us get over the growth in over 65 year olds in UK? Many already are, go into any care home or hospital and look at the make up of the workforce.

It depends, Birmingham is the youngest city in Europe yet has enormous levels of economic inactivity. Age has proven to be a very poor predictor of assistance with the dependency issue

[Slick]

Quite, if we just carry on as we are we just shoving an even bigger problem further down the line. In things like care and the NHS we are already in a never ending cycle of bringing in people to fill the poorly paid positions who either leave when something better comes up or stop working when their dependents follow and we have to start again.

Just with reference to SG and their stance, as has been said before it’s easy to be so positive about all aspects of immigration if you don’t really have any. Is there actually any country in the world that has successfully integrated a large number of immigrants? I’m really struggling to think of any and it’s what slightly infuriates me about the SG propaganda, let’s have lots of immigration and everything will be brilliant, but with evidence in just about every country pointing to it not being. We will be different of course

I think you are missing the point - what is the alternative if we don't have immigration into the UK/Scotland? No one is saying it is easy nor that there aren't problems in integration but what's the alternative? The SG are at least being honest about the economic implications of having a shrinking workforce and not having more immigration to fill the gaps - we won't have enough folk to work in our hospitals, care homes to take care of Granny, to fill highly skilled IT jobs or to staff our busy hospitality sector. Immigrants will fill a whole range of jobs from lowly paid to highly skilled nurses and consultants in the NHS. No one has said that Scotland won't make many of the same mistakes that other countries have with integration but with 10% of our population already composed of immigrants we haven't done too badly?

Agree, we have done a decent job but I think that’s probably because most of that 10% is EU and another decent chunk US

[Biffer]

Quite, if we just carry on as we are we just shoving an even bigger problem further down the line. In things like care and the NHS we are already in a never ending cycle of bringing in people to fill the poorly paid positions who either leave when something better comes up or stop working when their dependents follow and we have to start again.

Just with reference to SG and their stance, as has been said before it’s easy to be so positive about all aspects of immigration if you don’t really have any. Is there actually any country in the world that has successfully integrated a large number of immigrants? I’m really struggling to think of any and it’s what slightly infuriates me about the SG propaganda, let’s have lots of immigration and everything will be brilliant, but with evidence in just about every country pointing to it not being. We will be different of course

I think you are missing the point - what is the alternative if we don't have immigration into the UK/Scotland? No one is saying it is easy nor that there aren't problems in integration but what's the alternative? The SG are at least being honest about the economic implications of having a shrinking workforce and not having more immigration to fill the gaps - we won't have enough folk to work in our hospitals, care homes to take care of Granny, to fill highly skilled IT jobs or to staff our busy hospitality sector. Immigrants will fill a whole range of jobs from lowly paid to highly skilled nurses and consultants in the NHS. No one has said that Scotland won't make many of the same mistakes that other countries have with integration but with 10% of our population already composed of immigrants we haven't done too badly?

Agree, we have done a decent job but I think that’s probably because most of that 10% is EU and another decent chunk US

Largest is Poland, then India, then Pakistan, then USA

Poland 75k
India 37k
Pakistand 29k
USA 24k
Germany 23k
Ireland 22k
China 21k
Nigeria 21k

[dpedin]

I think you are missing the point - what is the alternative if we don't have immigration into the UK/Scotland? No one is saying it is easy nor that there aren't problems in integration but what's the alternative? The SG are at least being honest about the economic implications of having a shrinking workforce and not having more immigration to fill the gaps - we won't have enough folk to work in our hospitals, care homes to take care of Granny, to fill highly skilled IT jobs or to staff our busy hospitality sector. Immigrants will fill a whole range of jobs from lowly paid to highly skilled nurses and consultants in the NHS. No one has said that Scotland won't make many of the same mistakes that other countries have with integration but with 10% of our population already composed of immigrants we haven't done too badly?

Agree, we have done a decent job but I think that’s probably because most of that 10% is EU and another decent chunk US

Largest is Poland, then India, then Pakistan, then USA

Poland 75k
India 37k
Pakistand 29k
USA 24k
Germany 23k
Ireland 22k
China 21k
Nigeria 21k

Interesting research by Migration Observatory here:

https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/r ... mmigrants/

Looks like, once you strip out the impact of short term seasonal working and their starting salaries when they first arrive then earnings by immigrants after a few years go onto to earn the the equivalent or slightly above the average wage. This may in part be due to the entry requirements to the UK. However it does suggest the 'filling all the low paid jobs' issue is a myth?

[Paddington Bear]

Agree, we have done a decent job but I think that’s probably because most of that 10% is EU and another decent chunk US

Largest is Poland, then India, then Pakistan, then USA

Poland 75k
India 37k
Pakistand 29k
USA 24k
Germany 23k
Ireland 22k
China 21k
Nigeria 21k

Interesting research by Migration Observatory here:

https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/r ... mmigrants/

Looks like, once you strip out the impact of short term seasonal working and their starting salaries when they first arrive then earnings by immigrants after a few years go onto to earn the the equivalent or slightly above the average wage. This may in part be due to the entry requirements to the UK. However it does suggest the 'filling all the low paid jobs' issue is a myth?

‘If you strip out the people in low paid jobs’ does seem like a pretty critical ‘if’ though.

[Slick]

Yep, he is bizarre - must be isolated where he lives as immigration and all things related has been by far the biggest single voter concern in the last decade ,

It’s notable it is *often* Scottish posters leading the way on migration talking points, Scotland has not had any meaningful migration and there’s areas that could really use it. Entirely different kettle of fish to England. Glasgow has a smaller % Asian population than the small town I grew up in!

Scotland has 10% of folk born outside UK compared with 16% UK average. However the reality for Scotland is that we actually need and would welcome higher levels of immigration - our fertility rate is currently 1.3 births way below the 2.1 required to sustain our working population. Brexit hit Scotland hard with EU FoM providing a good source of young qualified workers. They have all but disappeared now. Our problem is the negative view of immigration in the rest of the UK presents us with a major economic issue for the future! We need more immigration.

Can’t post now, will later, but a new poll says 77% of Scots want immigration to decrease or stay at current levels. Looks like we also have a negative view and not quite as welcoming as stated

[dpedin]

I have no doubt if asked the simple yes/no question many Scots will say less immigration, hardly surprising given the constant negative 'news' in the mainstream media and everyone jumping on the Herr Farage bandwagon. However like PB you have avoided the obvious question I asked earlier which is what is your alternative to immigration given the falling birth rates in Scotland? If folk were asked if they wanted immigration but without it this meant a failing NHS and even longer to wait for your hip/knee replacement, lack of staff in social care to look after your Granny, failing hospitality, IT and other sectors, Universities going broke and an even poorer economic outlook and standard of living then the answer might be different? This is exactly the point I am trying to make, the consequences of no immigration has very, very negative outcomes for Scotland so whilst we need to manage immigration better it is inevitable and we might as well welcome it and get used to it! I will await your alternative to immigration with interest.

Here is an interesting article from the weekend making the same point.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... grants-dad

[Paddington Bear]

I have no doubt if asked the simple yes/no question many Scots will say less immigration, hardly surprising given the constant negative 'news' in the mainstream media and everyone jumping on the Herr Farage bandwagon. However like PB you have avoided the obvious question I asked earlier which is what is your alternative to immigration given the falling birth rates in Scotland? If folk were asked if they wanted immigration but without it this meant a failing NHS and even longer to wait for your hip/knee replacement, lack of staff in social care to look after your Granny, failing hospitality, IT and other sectors, Universities going broke and an even poorer economic outlook and standard of living then the answer might be different? This is exactly the point I am trying to make, the consequences of no immigration has very, very negative outcomes for Scotland so whilst we need to manage immigration better it is inevitable and we might as well welcome it and get used to it! I will await your alternative to immigration with interest.

Here is an interesting article from the weekend making the same point.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... grants-dad

I’ve been reasonably clear on my preferred alternative (more England centric but it broadly applies across the whole of Britain). To outline though:

1) no one here and few across the country oppose high skilled migration. People earning high salaries should find themselves actively facilitated in moving here, which is not the case currently.

2) NHS - we are an outlier compared to France/Holland/Germany (i.e. most useful comparator states) in having a health service reliant on draining talent from the developing world. This can’t be fixed overnight but we can and should double the number of places available for med students. It’s a common and fair stereotype of biomed students at our top unis that they’re failed medics - we have thousands of very bright young adults who actively want to be doctors who are stopped from doing so, we then import doctors over whom we have had no control over their training and development, often with poor language skills. It’s madness. Also, and to point out again, the NHS has more staff than pre-covid and sees 30% fewer patients, pouring in more doctors from the developing world clearly isn’t solving the issue. And, again, a tiny tiny % of total visas given out go to NHS workers, it is a total red herring.

3) I don’t accept that Brits won’t work in hospitality as I regularly go to hospitality businesses across the country and am almost always served by Brits. Central London is the exception for reasons I have already outlined. Pay staff more.

A shortage of baristas within walking distance of Bank station is not a national emergency and I am always perplexed that the decent, liberal view is that our leisure is so vital that we must exploit people from developing nations, give them below living wage jobs and forcing them to live in borderline slum conditions to facilitate that.

4) Britain is a society addicted to cheap labour and there is vast scope to automate and innovate. That’s what societies with falling birthrates have had to do since the year dot.

5) there’s no point labelling ‘immigration’ itself as a moral good. Some migration is good, from people with good levels of English, highly qualified and motivated to work. Some is bad, low skilled workers, poor English, focussed on securing ILR and with attitudes towards life very different to our own. We have a system that seems to pump in people from the latter category whilst treating the former like they’re terrorists. The system doesn’t work.

6) if immigration is so great for the economy, how come over a near 20 year period now since 2008, when we have had greater migration than at any point over the last 2000 years, we still have real wages lower than they were 20 years ago, the odd year of 2% GDP growth has been cause for celebration, and nothing seems to work? We’ve been trying large scale migration as a fix for our problems for well over a decade now, when are we going to accept that it’s failed?

[Yeeb]

Your point 3 is wrong , not just hospitality but there are plenty of industries that are not so glamorous that really struggle to fill roles that even Refry and his scabby face could do, and the roles that are filled are usually immigrants who are willing to work. Not just badly paid jobs too, but truck drivers etc as well.

There is plenty the average Brit won’t do , due to lack of skills , interest, work ethic, or even actually need or desire if they get loads of stuff for free.

[Biffer]

I get a bit confused by the whole 'high skilled immigration only' thing.

Does that mean you want your own kids cleaning the toilets and sweeping the streets? I'd rather they were trained to do the high skilled jobs, and there be an increasing choke of the numbers of high skilled immigrants to force companies to train people.

[Sandstorm]

I have no doubt if asked the simple yes/no question many Scots will say less immigration, hardly surprising given the constant negative 'news' in the mainstream media and everyone jumping on the Herr Farage bandwagon. However like PB you have avoided the obvious question I asked earlier which is what is your alternative to immigration given the falling birth rates in Scotland? If folk were asked if they wanted immigration but without it this meant a failing NHS and even longer to wait for your hip/knee replacement, lack of staff in social care to look after your Granny, failing hospitality, IT and other sectors, Universities going broke and an even poorer economic outlook and standard of living then the answer might be different? This is exactly the point I am trying to make, the consequences of no immigration has very, very negative outcomes for Scotland so whilst we need to manage immigration better it is inevitable and we might as well welcome it and get used to it! I will await your alternative to immigration with interest.

Here is an interesting article from the weekend making the same point.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... grants-dad

I’ve been reasonably clear on my preferred alternative (more England centric but it broadly applies across the whole of Britain). To outline though:

1) no one here and few across the country oppose high skilled migration. People earning high salaries should find themselves actively facilitated in moving here, which is not the case currently.

2) NHS - we are an outlier compared to France/Holland/Germany (i.e. most useful comparator states) in having a health service reliant on draining talent from the developing world. This can’t be fixed overnight but we can and should double the number of places available for med students. It’s a common and fair stereotype of biomed students at our top unis that they’re failed medics - we have thousands of very bright young adults who actively want to be doctors who are stopped from doing so, we then import doctors over whom we have had no control over their training and development, often with poor language skills. It’s madness. Also, and to point out again, the NHS has more staff than pre-covid and sees 30% fewer patients, pouring in more doctors from the developing world clearly isn’t solving the issue. And, again, a tiny tiny % of total visas given out go to NHS workers, it is a total red herring.

3) I don’t accept that Brits won’t work in hospitality as I regularly go to hospitality businesses across the country and am almost always served by Brits. Central London is the exception for reasons I have already outlined. Pay staff more.

A shortage of baristas within walking distance of Bank station is not a national emergency and I am always perplexed that the decent, liberal view is that our leisure is so vital that we must exploit people from developing nations, give them below living wage jobs and forcing them to live in borderline slum conditions to facilitate that.

4) Britain is a society addicted to cheap labour and there is vast scope to automate and innovate. That’s what societies with falling birthrates have had to do since the year dot.

5) there’s no point labelling ‘immigration’ itself as a moral good. Some migration is good, from people with good levels of English, highly qualified and motivated to work. Some is bad, low skilled workers, poor English, focussed on securing ILR and with attitudes towards life very different to our own. We have a system that seems to pump in people from the latter category whilst treating the former like they’re terrorists. The system doesn’t work.

6) if immigration is so great for the economy, how come over a near 20 year period now since 2008, when we have had greater migration than at any point over the last 2000 years, we still have real wages lower than they were 20 years ago, the odd year of 2% GDP growth has been cause for celebration, and nothing seems to work? We’ve been trying large scale migration as a fix for our problems for well over a decade now, when are we going to accept that it’s failed?

Short answer to 1, 3, 4, 5, 6: Roll back the recent National Insurance (NI) rate for employers, then raise the minimum wage to £14.00 per hour

#2 - agree 100%

[Biffer]

I have no doubt if asked the simple yes/no question many Scots will say less immigration, hardly surprising given the constant negative 'news' in the mainstream media and everyone jumping on the Herr Farage bandwagon. However like PB you have avoided the obvious question I asked earlier which is what is your alternative to immigration given the falling birth rates in Scotland? If folk were asked if they wanted immigration but without it this meant a failing NHS and even longer to wait for your hip/knee replacement, lack of staff in social care to look after your Granny, failing hospitality, IT and other sectors, Universities going broke and an even poorer economic outlook and standard of living then the answer might be different? This is exactly the point I am trying to make, the consequences of no immigration has very, very negative outcomes for Scotland so whilst we need to manage immigration better it is inevitable and we might as well welcome it and get used to it! I will await your alternative to immigration with interest.

Here is an interesting article from the weekend making the same point.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... grants-dad

I’ve been reasonably clear on my preferred alternative (more England centric but it broadly applies across the whole of Britain). To outline though:

1) no one here and few across the country oppose high skilled migration. People earning high salaries should find themselves actively facilitated in moving here, which is not the case currently.

2) NHS - we are an outlier compared to France/Holland/Germany (i.e. most useful comparator states) in having a health service reliant on draining talent from the developing world. This can’t be fixed overnight but we can and should double the number of places available for med students. It’s a common and fair stereotype of biomed students at our top unis that they’re failed medics - we have thousands of very bright young adults who actively want to be doctors who are stopped from doing so, we then import doctors over whom we have had no control over their training and development, often with poor language skills. It’s madness. Also, and to point out again, the NHS has more staff than pre-covid and sees 30% fewer patients, pouring in more doctors from the developing world clearly isn’t solving the issue. And, again, a tiny tiny % of total visas given out go to NHS workers, it is a total red herring.

3) I don’t accept that Brits won’t work in hospitality as I regularly go to hospitality businesses across the country and am almost always served by Brits. Central London is the exception for reasons I have already outlined. Pay staff more.

A shortage of baristas within walking distance of Bank station is not a national emergency and I am always perplexed that the decent, liberal view is that our leisure is so vital that we must exploit people from developing nations, give them below living wage jobs and forcing them to live in borderline slum conditions to facilitate that.

4) Britain is a society addicted to cheap labour and there is vast scope to automate and innovate. That’s what societies with falling birthrates have had to do since the year dot.

5) there’s no point labelling ‘immigration’ itself as a moral good. Some migration is good, from people with good levels of English, highly qualified and motivated to work. Some is bad, low skilled workers, poor English, focussed on securing ILR and with attitudes towards life very different to our own. We have a system that seems to pump in people from the latter category whilst treating the former like they’re terrorists. The system doesn’t work.

6) if immigration is so great for the economy, how come over a near 20 year period now since 2008, when we have had greater migration than at any point over the last 2000 years, we still have real wages lower than they were 20 years ago, the odd year of 2% GDP growth has been cause for celebration, and nothing seems to work? We’ve been trying large scale migration as a fix for our problems for well over a decade now, when are we going to accept that it’s failed?

Short answer to 1, 3, 4, 5, 6: Roll back the recent National Insurance (NI) rate for employers, then raise the minimum wage to £14.00 per hour

#2 - agree 100%

How are you paying for the NI rate discount and what do you think the effect on employers will be? What's the knock on into other wage bands - how much do you expect the overall wage bill for employers to increase becasue of this? What inflationary pressures will that cause and what will be the knock on on interest rates, business costs and business investment? And what spending are you cutting - you'll need to find £26 billion I think.

[Paddington Bear]

I get a bit confused by the whole 'high skilled immigration only' thing.

Does that mean you want your own kids cleaning the toilets and sweeping the streets? I'd rather they were trained to do the high skilled jobs, and there be an increasing choke of the numbers of high skilled immigrants to force companies to train people.

Low skilled migrants are fiscally net negative and so it would make more sense to make these higher paying jobs and/or automate where it is possible to do so. The idea that Brits can’t or won’t sweep streets or clean loos is a silly one - they clearly can and do

[Biffer]

I get a bit confused by the whole 'high skilled immigration only' thing.

Does that mean you want your own kids cleaning the toilets and sweeping the streets? I'd rather they were trained to do the high skilled jobs, and there be an increasing choke of the numbers of high skilled immigrants to force companies to train people.

Low skilled migrants are fiscally net negative and so it would make more sense to make these higher paying jobs and/or automate where it is possible to do so. The idea that Brits can’t or won’t sweep streets or clean loos is a silly one - they clearly can and do

Yeah, I'm not saying they can't - I'm saying that most parents' aspirations for their kids are probably higher. So filling the careers that they'd want their kids to do with high paid immigrants and leaving the jobs at the low skill end open for native workers might not be the most attractive policy to parents with ambitions for their kids. Unless you also create policy that makes it more likely those jobs will be filled by kids from our own school system in the future.

[robmatic]

I have no doubt if asked the simple yes/no question many Scots will say less immigration, hardly surprising given the constant negative 'news' in the mainstream media and everyone jumping on the Herr Farage bandwagon. However like PB you have avoided the obvious question I asked earlier which is what is your alternative to immigration given the falling birth rates in Scotland? If folk were asked if they wanted immigration but without it this meant a failing NHS and even longer to wait for your hip/knee replacement, lack of staff in social care to look after your Granny, failing hospitality, IT and other sectors, Universities going broke and an even poorer economic outlook and standard of living then the answer might be different? This is exactly the point I am trying to make, the consequences of no immigration has very, very negative outcomes for Scotland so whilst we need to manage immigration better it is inevitable and we might as well welcome it and get used to it! I will await your alternative to immigration with interest.

Here is an interesting article from the weekend making the same point.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... grants-dad

I’ve been reasonably clear on my preferred alternative (more England centric but it broadly applies across the whole of Britain). To outline though:

1) no one here and few across the country oppose high skilled migration. People earning high salaries should find themselves actively facilitated in moving here, which is not the case currently.

2) NHS - we are an outlier compared to France/Holland/Germany (i.e. most useful comparator states) in having a health service reliant on draining talent from the developing world. This can’t be fixed overnight but we can and should double the number of places available for med students. It’s a common and fair stereotype of biomed students at our top unis that they’re failed medics - we have thousands of very bright young adults who actively want to be doctors who are stopped from doing so, we then import doctors over whom we have had no control over their training and development, often with poor language skills. It’s madness. Also, and to point out again, the NHS has more staff than pre-covid and sees 30% fewer patients, pouring in more doctors from the developing world clearly isn’t solving the issue. And, again, a tiny tiny % of total visas given out go to NHS workers, it is a total red herring.

3) I don’t accept that Brits won’t work in hospitality as I regularly go to hospitality businesses across the country and am almost always served by Brits. Central London is the exception for reasons I have already outlined. Pay staff more.

A shortage of baristas within walking distance of Bank station is not a national emergency and I am always perplexed that the decent, liberal view is that our leisure is so vital that we must exploit people from developing nations, give them below living wage jobs and forcing them to live in borderline slum conditions to facilitate that.

4) Britain is a society addicted to cheap labour and there is vast scope to automate and innovate. That’s what societies with falling birthrates have had to do since the year dot.

5) there’s no point labelling ‘immigration’ itself as a moral good. Some migration is good, from people with good levels of English, highly qualified and motivated to work. Some is bad, low skilled workers, poor English, focussed on securing ILR and with attitudes towards life very different to our own. We have a system that seems to pump in people from the latter category whilst treating the former like they’re terrorists. The system doesn’t work.

6) if immigration is so great for the economy, how come over a near 20 year period now since 2008, when we have had greater migration than at any point over the last 2000 years, we still have real wages lower than they were 20 years ago, the odd year of 2% GDP growth has been cause for celebration, and nothing seems to work? We’ve been trying large scale migration as a fix for our problems for well over a decade now, when are we going to accept that it’s failed?

Short answer to 1, 3, 4, 5, 6: Roll back the recent National Insurance (NI) rate for employers, then raise the minimum wage to £14.00 per hour

#2 - agree 100%

Apparently there are 2.4 million people who are in work and claiming Universal Credit. Hopefully we can get the minimum wage to a position where the state isn't subsidizing employers who pay shit wages.

[Biffer]

I’ve been reasonably clear on my preferred alternative (more England centric but it broadly applies across the whole of Britain). To outline though:

1) no one here and few across the country oppose high skilled migration. People earning high salaries should find themselves actively facilitated in moving here, which is not the case currently.

2) NHS - we are an outlier compared to France/Holland/Germany (i.e. most useful comparator states) in having a health service reliant on draining talent from the developing world. This can’t be fixed overnight but we can and should double the number of places available for med students. It’s a common and fair stereotype of biomed students at our top unis that they’re failed medics - we have thousands of very bright young adults who actively want to be doctors who are stopped from doing so, we then import doctors over whom we have had no control over their training and development, often with poor language skills. It’s madness. Also, and to point out again, the NHS has more staff than pre-covid and sees 30% fewer patients, pouring in more doctors from the developing world clearly isn’t solving the issue. And, again, a tiny tiny % of total visas given out go to NHS workers, it is a total red herring.

3) I don’t accept that Brits won’t work in hospitality as I regularly go to hospitality businesses across the country and am almost always served by Brits. Central London is the exception for reasons I have already outlined. Pay staff more.

A shortage of baristas within walking distance of Bank station is not a national emergency and I am always perplexed that the decent, liberal view is that our leisure is so vital that we must exploit people from developing nations, give them below living wage jobs and forcing them to live in borderline slum conditions to facilitate that.

4) Britain is a society addicted to cheap labour and there is vast scope to automate and innovate. That’s what societies with falling birthrates have had to do since the year dot.

5) there’s no point labelling ‘immigration’ itself as a moral good. Some migration is good, from people with good levels of English, highly qualified and motivated to work. Some is bad, low skilled workers, poor English, focussed on securing ILR and with attitudes towards life very different to our own. We have a system that seems to pump in people from the latter category whilst treating the former like they’re terrorists. The system doesn’t work.

6) if immigration is so great for the economy, how come over a near 20 year period now since 2008, when we have had greater migration than at any point over the last 2000 years, we still have real wages lower than they were 20 years ago, the odd year of 2% GDP growth has been cause for celebration, and nothing seems to work? We’ve been trying large scale migration as a fix for our problems for well over a decade now, when are we going to accept that it’s failed?

Short answer to 1, 3, 4, 5, 6: Roll back the recent National Insurance (NI) rate for employers, then raise the minimum wage to £14.00 per hour

#2 - agree 100%

Apparently there are 2.4 million people who are in work and claiming Universal Credit. Hopefully we can get the minimum wage to a position where the state isn't subsidizing employers who pay shit wages.

I agree with that, but the kind of blanket approach set out above is probably not going to work.

[Paddington Bear]

I get a bit confused by the whole 'high skilled immigration only' thing.

Does that mean you want your own kids cleaning the toilets and sweeping the streets? I'd rather they were trained to do the high skilled jobs, and there be an increasing choke of the numbers of high skilled immigrants to force companies to train people.

Low skilled migrants are fiscally net negative and so it would make more sense to make these higher paying jobs and/or automate where it is possible to do so. The idea that Brits can’t or won’t sweep streets or clean loos is a silly one - they clearly can and do

Yeah, I'm not saying they can't - I'm saying that most parents' aspirations for their kids are probably higher. So filling the careers that they'd want their kids to do with high paid immigrants and leaving the jobs at the low skill end open for native workers might not be the most attractive policy to parents with ambitions for their kids. Unless you also create policy that makes it more likely those jobs will be filled by kids from our own school system in the future.

OK, get you. And yes I put in my post above and have mentioned before the bizarre fact we artificially limit medical places whilst importing doctors, there’s a huge swathe of British people with great grades who currently don’t make the cut as a result and changing that would seem to me to be an obvious policy change

[robmatic]

I get a bit confused by the whole 'high skilled immigration only' thing.

Does that mean you want your own kids cleaning the toilets and sweeping the streets? I'd rather they were trained to do the high skilled jobs, and there be an increasing choke of the numbers of high skilled immigrants to force companies to train people.

I think the nation would survive without either my kids or exploited immigrants working in one of the UK's 5,000 hand car wash outfits. You could probably say the same for Deliveroo's "self-employed" drivers.

[Sandstorm]

I get a bit confused by the whole 'high skilled immigration only' thing.

Does that mean you want your own kids cleaning the toilets and sweeping the streets? I'd rather they were trained to do the high skilled jobs, and there be an increasing choke of the numbers of high skilled immigrants to force companies to train people.

But don't we see companies saying "It's too expensive to recruit and train locally, so we were forced to outsource to Asia/close the business"

UK businesses are not keen to train anyone.

[dpedin]

Point number 2 about the NHS is also a bit dodgy. The UK has a long history dating back to 19th century of setting up and running medical training in Commonwealth countries, it still advises and examines in c30 countries. As a result many of these trainees come to the UK for post grad study etc, It is true we have become dependent upon this pipeline to supply medical staff to some extent more so than other EU countries.

It takes 5-6 years undergrad, 2 years Foundation training then 3 years for a GP and up to 6-7 years for a specialty Consultant to train. So 10-11 years to increase GP numbers and min of 13-14 for a consultant. Many will take time out for further study or work abroad so timescales get even longer. Not a short term fix. Numbers have been increased but it will take a long time to fix.

Numbers of applications to medical schools, although still over subscribed are falling, about 6,000 drop over last 4-5 years.

Increasing numbers of UK trainee docs from the UK are leaving and going abroad for better salaries, better working conditions and better life style options. NZ, Australia, US etc seem better options to many. They need to be replaced and the retention issues sorted out. Play is being addressed but again funding is an issue.

Also expanding training pipelines is very, very expensive. After undergraduate program mandatory trainees will leave with c£100k of student loan debt. Once they join Foundation Training then they are paid as full time employees - the means any expansion in training numbers has to be fully funded or else cash strapped Trusts (Boards in Scotland) cant employ them!

Training pipelines are very narrow, training is dependent upon existing consultants delivering training and supervising trainees and these is a limit to how many they can supervise before it eats into their routine work. Expand the trainee numbers and paradoxically output falls from consultants for a period of time, problem when we have huge backlogs. There are also practical limitations to training numbers ie in Obstetrics trainees have to deliver a specific number of babies each year, however so do trainee midwifes and with a falling birthrate then there isnt enough babies to go round!

Training more doctors ie surgeons isnt a solution if you dont have enough theatres, theatres staff, beds and hospitals to do the work. Expand the surgical workforce by 10% requires a similar expansion in the the other staff groups and estate in order to increase outputs. It would have been easier if the magical 40 new hospitals had been real! It is all very expensive. Almost all the countries you mention have many more beds and imaging equipment etc than the UK.

Output from the NHS needs to be weighted to take account of growing population and in particular the growth of elderly population who are main demand for interventions. Also the number of beds has stabilized but the underspend on the overall estate is now huge - current maintenance backlog is now £11.6 billion after 14 years of austerity - difficult to provide care in unfit buildings? Also since covid we have had significant industrial relations issues and a number of strikes that has seen elective work plummet. However interesting to note that Labour are claiming that they have met their target for and additional 2 million extra appointments in they first year in power and since ending the strikes. It this trend continues then we should see significant improvements in outputs?

The impact of new immigrants into care jobs not being allowed to bring dependents with then will decimate the care sector and therefore delayed discharges in the NHS.

[Biffer]

I get a bit confused by the whole 'high skilled immigration only' thing.

Does that mean you want your own kids cleaning the toilets and sweeping the streets? I'd rather they were trained to do the high skilled jobs, and there be an increasing choke of the numbers of high skilled immigrants to force companies to train people.

But don't we see companies saying "It's too expensive to recruit and train locally, so we were forced to outsource to Asia/close the business"

UK businesses are not keen to train anyone.

That's where government support/inducements/restraints etc come in. We have to construct skills pipelines, via collaboration between government/industry/universities/colleges/schools that work over longer timelines than next year's shareholders report or the next election.

There are ways to reward businesses for upskilling and training, and making offshoring more expensive.

Political parties and economists have forgotten that markets are a tool to be used in policy, rather than an end in themselves. Put the right rules into the labour market and training becomes more attractive.

[Yeeb]

I have no doubt if asked the simple yes/no question many Scots will say less immigration, hardly surprising given the constant negative 'news' in the mainstream media and everyone jumping on the Herr Farage bandwagon. However like PB you have avoided the obvious question I asked earlier which is what is your alternative to immigration given the falling birth rates in Scotland? If folk were asked if they wanted immigration but without it this meant a failing NHS and even longer to wait for your hip/knee replacement, lack of staff in social care to look after your Granny, failing hospitality, IT and other sectors, Universities going broke and an even poorer economic outlook and standard of living then the answer might be different? This is exactly the point I am trying to make, the consequences of no immigration has very, very negative outcomes for Scotland so whilst we need to manage immigration better it is inevitable and we might as well welcome it and get used to it! I will await your alternative to immigration with interest.

Here is an interesting article from the weekend making the same point.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... grants-dad

I’ve been reasonably clear on my preferred alternative (more England centric but it broadly applies across the whole of Britain). To outline though:

1) no one here and few across the country oppose high skilled migration. People earning high salaries should find themselves actively facilitated in moving here, which is not the case currently.

2) NHS - we are an outlier compared to France/Holland/Germany (i.e. most useful comparator states) in having a health service reliant on draining talent from the developing world. This can’t be fixed overnight but we can and should double the number of places available for med students. It’s a common and fair stereotype of biomed students at our top unis that they’re failed medics - we have thousands of very bright young adults who actively want to be doctors who are stopped from doing so, we then import doctors over whom we have had no control over their training and development, often with poor language skills. It’s madness. Also, and to point out again, the NHS has more staff than pre-covid and sees 30% fewer patients, pouring in more doctors from the developing world clearly isn’t solving the issue. And, again, a tiny tiny % of total visas given out go to NHS workers, it is a total red herring.

3) I don’t accept that Brits won’t work in hospitality as I regularly go to hospitality businesses across the country and am almost always served by Brits. Central London is the exception for reasons I have already outlined. Pay staff more.

A shortage of baristas within walking distance of Bank station is not a national emergency and I am always perplexed that the decent, liberal view is that our leisure is so vital that we must exploit people from developing nations, give them below living wage jobs and forcing them to live in borderline slum conditions to facilitate that.

4) Britain is a society addicted to cheap labour and there is vast scope to automate and innovate. That’s what societies with falling birthrates have had to do since the year dot.

5) there’s no point labelling ‘immigration’ itself as a moral good. Some migration is good, from people with good levels of English, highly qualified and motivated to work. Some is bad, low skilled workers, poor English, focussed on securing ILR and with attitudes towards life very different to our own. We have a system that seems to pump in people from the latter category whilst treating the former like they’re terrorists. The system doesn’t work.

6) if immigration is so great for the economy, how come over a near 20 year period now since 2008, when we have had greater migration than at any point over the last 2000 years, we still have real wages lower than they were 20 years ago, the odd year of 2% GDP growth has been cause for celebration, and nothing seems to work? We’ve been trying large scale migration as a fix for our problems for well over a decade now, when are we going to accept that it’s failed?

Short answer to 1, 3, 4, 5, 6: Roll back the recent National Insurance (NI) rate for employers, then raise the minimum wage to £14.00 per hour

#2 - agree 100%

Blair introduced the minimum wage - has in work poverty increased or decreased since then ? Has it increased or decreased jobs ? Taken more people out of poverty, or increases it by underpinning the minimum by statute?

Why not £17 ph ? Or £25 ?

[dpedin]

I get a bit confused by the whole 'high skilled immigration only' thing.

Does that mean you want your own kids cleaning the toilets and sweeping the streets? I'd rather they were trained to do the high skilled jobs, and there be an increasing choke of the numbers of high skilled immigrants to force companies to train people.

But don't we see companies saying "It's too expensive to recruit and train locally, so we were forced to outsource to Asia/close the business"

UK businesses are not keen to train anyone.

That's where government support/inducements/restraints etc come in. We have to construct skills pipelines, via collaboration between government/industry/universities/colleges/schools that work over longer timelines than next year's shareholders report or the next election.

There are ways to reward businesses for upskilling and training, and making offshoring more expensive.

Political parties and economists have forgotten that markets are a tool to be used in policy, rather than an end in themselves. Put the right rules into the labour market and training becomes more attractive.

100% agree with this. Investment in real training and education across industries to secure the skilled workforce we require is vital.

[Jock42]

Also, and to point out again, the NHS has more staff than pre-covid and sees 30% fewer patients,

Where are you getting these figures? Is that just England? We've more staff in my trust but we're doing more work than when I joined 11 years ago.

[Paddington Bear]

Also, and to point out again, the NHS has more staff than pre-covid and sees 30% fewer patients,

Where are you getting these figures? Is that just England? We've more staff in my trust but we're doing more work than when I joined 11 years ago.

FT, probably are the English figures

[dpedin]

Also, and to point out again, the NHS has more staff than pre-covid and sees 30% fewer patients,

Where are you getting these figures? Is that just England? We've more staff in my trust but we're doing more work than when I joined 11 years ago.

FT, probably are the English figures

Figures are available via https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-informa ... tober-2024

Workforce numbers have increased but last 6 months has seen fairly rapid growth in comparison probably due to increase in funding provided by new Labour Government? Activity data will show a lag as it takes time to onboard new staff and for them to get up to speed and increase activity levels. This is true for almost every large organization I have worked for and the NHS is no different. The recent pay settlements which has halted the strikes and the increase in staffing are probably main reasons why Labour can claim to have increased NHS appointments by c2 million? It looks like activity is now catching up with investments being made.

As I have said before it isn't only staff that are required to increase activity - crumbling estate (£13,8billion backlog) and lack of beds, ICU capacity and equipment like imaging means it is difficult to ramp up activity quickly. For much of the high tech equipment ie CT, MRI, LINACs, theatres, etc there is a maximum amount of activity you can push through them given requirements for routine maintenance, etc plus many patients won't come for a scan during the middle of the night!

[Paddington Bear]

Where are you getting these figures? Is that just England? We've more staff in my trust but we're doing more work than when I joined 11 years ago.

FT, probably are the English figures

Figures are available via https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-informa ... tober-2024

Workforce numbers have increased but last 6 months has seen fairly rapid growth in comparison probably due to increase in funding provided by new Labour Government? Activity data will show a lag as it takes time to onboard new staff and for them to get up to speed and increase activity levels. This is true for almost every large organization I have worked for and the NHS is no different. The recent pay settlements which has halted the strikes and the increase in staffing are probably main reasons why Labour can claim to have increased NHS appointments by c2 million? It looks like activity is now catching up with investments being made.

As I have said before it isn't only staff that are required to increase activity - crumbling estate (£13,8billion backlog) and lack of beds, ICU capacity and equipment like imaging means it is difficult to ramp up activity quickly. For much of the high tech equipment ie CT, MRI, LINACs, theatres, etc there is a maximum amount of activity you can push through them given requirements for routine maintenance, etc plus many patients won't come for a scan during the middle of the night!

We are fully in agreement on the need for capital expenditure as a priority

[Paddington Bear]

Times reporting that another element of Reeves’ CV was fabricated - did she think she would become Chancellor and no one would ever look into her past?

[C69]

Where are you getting these figures? Is that just England? We've more staff in my trust but we're doing more work than when I joined 11 years ago.

FT, probably are the English figures

Figures are available via https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-informa ... tober-2024

Workforce numbers have increased but last 6 months has seen fairly rapid growth in comparison probably due to increase in funding provided by new Labour Government? Activity data will show a lag as it takes time to onboard new staff and for them to get up to speed and increase activity levels. This is true for almost every large organization I have worked for and the NHS is no different. The recent pay settlements which has halted the strikes and the increase in staffing are probably main reasons why Labour can claim to have increased NHS appointments by c2 million? It looks like activity is now catching up with investments being made.

As I have said before it isn't only staff that are required to increase activity - crumbling estate (£13,8billion backlog) and lack of beds, ICU capacity and equipment like imaging means it is difficult to ramp up activity quickly. For much of the high tech equipment ie CT, MRI, LINACs, theatres, etc there is a maximum amount of activity you can push through them given requirements for routine maintenance, etc plus many patients won't come for a scan during the middle of the night!

The next NHS pay rises to be announced soon.
If the government don't give a decent rise all the progress will go down the pan.
I can't see myself working for many more years. Nothing works, the NHS is a complete basket case

[Yeeb]

FT, probably are the English figures

Figures are available via https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-informa ... tober-2024

Workforce numbers have increased but last 6 months has seen fairly rapid growth in comparison probably due to increase in funding provided by new Labour Government? Activity data will show a lag as it takes time to onboard new staff and for them to get up to speed and increase activity levels. This is true for almost every large organization I have worked for and the NHS is no different. The recent pay settlements which has halted the strikes and the increase in staffing are probably main reasons why Labour can claim to have increased NHS appointments by c2 million? It looks like activity is now catching up with investments being made.

As I have said before it isn't only staff that are required to increase activity - crumbling estate (£13,8billion backlog) and lack of beds, ICU capacity and equipment like imaging means it is difficult to ramp up activity quickly. For much of the high tech equipment ie CT, MRI, LINACs, theatres, etc there is a maximum amount of activity you can push through them given requirements for routine maintenance, etc plus many patients won't come for a scan during the middle of the night!

The next NHS pay rises to be announced soon.
If the government don't give a decent rise all the progress will go down the pan.
I can't see myself working for many more years. Nothing works, the NHS is a complete basket case

Well you guys seem to be on here 24/7 so we know it doesn’t work all that much …

[lemonhead]

I’ve been reasonably clear on my preferred alternative (more England centric but it broadly applies across the whole of Britain). To outline though:

1) no one here and few across the country oppose high skilled migration. People earning high salaries should find themselves actively facilitated in moving here, which is not the case currently.

2) NHS - we are an outlier compared to France/Holland/Germany (i.e. most useful comparator states) in having a health service reliant on draining talent from the developing world. This can’t be fixed overnight but we can and should double the number of places available for med students. It’s a common and fair stereotype of biomed students at our top unis that they’re failed medics - we have thousands of very bright young adults who actively want to be doctors who are stopped from doing so, we then import doctors over whom we have had no control over their training and development, often with poor language skills. It’s madness. Also, and to point out again, the NHS has more staff than pre-covid and sees 30% fewer patients, pouring in more doctors from the developing world clearly isn’t solving the issue. And, again, a tiny tiny % of total visas given out go to NHS workers, it is a total red herring.

3) I don’t accept that Brits won’t work in hospitality as I regularly go to hospitality businesses across the country and am almost always served by Brits. Central London is the exception for reasons I have already outlined. Pay staff more.

A shortage of baristas within walking distance of Bank station is not a national emergency and I am always perplexed that the decent, liberal view is that our leisure is so vital that we must exploit people from developing nations, give them below living wage jobs and forcing them to live in borderline slum conditions to facilitate that.

4) Britain is a society addicted to cheap labour and there is vast scope to automate and innovate. That’s what societies with falling birthrates have had to do since the year dot.

5) there’s no point labelling ‘immigration’ itself as a moral good. Some migration is good, from people with good levels of English, highly qualified and motivated to work. Some is bad, low skilled workers, poor English, focussed on securing ILR and with attitudes towards life very different to our own. We have a system that seems to pump in people from the latter category whilst treating the former like they’re terrorists. The system doesn’t work.

6) if immigration is so great for the economy, how come over a near 20 year period now since 2008, when we have had greater migration than at any point over the last 2000 years, we still have real wages lower than they were 20 years ago, the odd year of 2% GDP growth has been cause for celebration, and nothing seems to work? We’ve been trying large scale migration as a fix for our problems for well over a decade now, when are we going to accept that it’s failed?

Short answer to 1, 3, 4, 5, 6: Roll back the recent National Insurance (NI) rate for employers, then raise the minimum wage to £14.00 per hour

#2 - agree 100%

How are you paying for the NI rate discount and what do you think the effect on employers will be? What's the knock on into other wage bands - how much do you expect the overall wage bill for employers to increase becasue of this? What inflationary pressures will that cause and what will be the knock on on interest rates, business costs and business investment? And what spending are you cutting - you'll need to find £26 billion I think.

On a rough back of beermat calculation that'd push my wage bill up by around £15,000-20,000 a year. On current turnover that leaves me three realistic options:

1. Forgo my entire salary as director. Probably not viable long term, I'm already on a 37hr week plus another 4 or so admin.

2. Hike all prices by 20%. A third of my customers probably would be fine with it, another quarter probably wouldn't notice and the remainder would either trim their sails or quietly find other options as a significant number do watch their wallet. Most likely option, but might not work out either.

3. Go out of business.

[Yeeb]

The NI increase should have been applied only to jobs over say £30k as it most affected the companies least able to pay it, when my large ftse company would just tut tut and quietly reduce the bonus pool by 1.4% to pay it.
I am bot against higher bands of taxation per se but its economic illiteracy to introduce policies that will actually reduce tax harvest & jobs & growth (labour actually inherited soaring tax receipts)

[dpedin]

Interesting article in the Guardian yesterday? Lots of differences between Spain and UK obviously but many parallels as well.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/ ... dApp_Other

[Paddington Bear]

Interesting article in the Guardian yesterday? Lots of differences between Spain and UK obviously but many parallels as well.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/ ... dApp_Other

The challenge in our context is we have had very high migration and economic stagnation, so we have already been trying the same policies with worse outcomes

[dpedin]

Interesting article in the Guardian yesterday? Lots of differences between Spain and UK obviously but many parallels as well.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/ ... dApp_Other

The challenge in our context is we have had very high migration and economic stagnation, so we have already been trying the same policies with worse outcomes

As I said some differences and some parallels but it was the wider approach to economic growth, of which immigration is a key element to address low birthrate, that I was interested in. Green energy seems to be an important factor plus investment in public services and raising pensions to fuel spending rather than hoarding of wealth, and growing the economy? Whist we also have low unemployment, partly due to immigration, that alone doesn't seem to have been enough to generate economic growth in the way Spain has seen. Spain is a bit like the Biden model of growing the economy from the bottom/middle and a recognition that top down trickle down models just encourage wealth accumulation and not spending? Interesting to note some parallels with current Gov policies ie green energy, protection of triple lock, investment in public services, etc. I wonder if Labour are trying to mirror the Spanish model without saying they are mirroring the Spanish model?

[Yeeb]

Interesting article in the Guardian yesterday? Lots of differences between Spain and UK obviously but many parallels as well.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/ ... dApp_Other

The challenge in our context is we have had very high migration and economic stagnation, so we have already been trying the same policies with worse outcomes

As I said some differences and some parallels but it was the wider approach to economic growth, of which immigration is a key element to address low birthrate, that I was interested in. Green energy seems to be an important factor plus investment in public services and raising pensions to fuel spending rather than hoarding of wealth, and growing the economy? Whist we also have low unemployment, partly due to immigration, that alone doesn't seem to have been enough to generate economic growth in the way Spain has seen. Spain is a bit like the Biden model of growing the economy from the bottom/middle and a recognition that top down trickle down models just encourage wealth accumulation and not spending? Interesting to note some parallels with current Gov policies ie green energy, protection of triple lock, investment in public services, etc. I wonder if Labour are trying to mirror the Spanish model without saying they are mirroring the Spanish model?

Trickle down economics has been pretty much proven to not be a thing or work or benefit those at the bottom (aka Reaganomics) . However , the flip side of the detractors of this is that the sources of new wealth and job creation come from the Musks and Bezos of the world , and not those at the bottom. The concept of hoarding wealth is a very deep one, one persons nice fat ISA that he can pass to his kids when he dies, is another persons job in a toothpaste factory that is part funded by new equity in a FMCH company (whose shares are owned by nice fat ISA’s amongst many)

[_Os_]

"Special relationship" update in The Times (not going to link or post the whole article, it's paywalled).

Looks like the US is going to start "transacting" (aka extorting) the UK, using the commitment the UK has made to the US defence industry, which it turns out is actually a potential national security threat to the UK. Quite something that under the table American officials are warning UK counterparts of what's coming and they're better off distancing themselves from the US. Maybe a $500bn US fund the UK has pay into because the US claims it got a free ride is incoming.

As the Ministry of Defence works out how best to spend its extra billions, US government officials are warning behind the scenes that the UK should move away from buying American equipment.
Munitions, new technology, such as uncrewed systems, and fostering a closer relationship between defence and society are among the top priorities for ministers, The Times understands.
The UK government was told privately by US officials it should “recalibrate” its reliance on US equipment. This was after suggestions were allegedly raised within the Trump administration that the UK was getting equipment too cheaply, a British defence figure privy to the discussion said.
Recounting the conversation in recent weeks, the source said: “They said we shouldn’t be buying US equipment and there was a feeling in the US administration that they should be sending the UK a bill because they have got defence equipment cheaply.”
The source added: “Some think the UK got an unfairly cheap deal with Trident.”
American officials said that the UK and others should not assume they can ride out a Trump presidency because JD Vance, the vice-president, could succeed him.
“We have been trying to tell people to recalibrate. The old certainties are gone,” the officials told the defence expert, who is not a member of the UK government.
They said that a US administration could put restrictions on kit from the US and that if countries are “deemed not to be doing what you are told you will suddenly find out missiles won’t fire and planes won’t fly. You have got to be careful.”
The source said: “This is the transactional side of Trump.”

[Hal Jordan]

Starmer will poodle up to the US because he thinks that will win back Reform voters, and because he's a hollow vessel for his own ambition.