Starmergeddon: They Came And Ate Us

[Paddington Bear]

Germany has citizenship based on blood, the UK on soil. Blood systems are stricter, sometimes you don't acquire citizenship in those countries even if you're born there to legally resident parents (which I believe is the case in Germany). The UK ended up mostly with a soil based system to exclude a lot of colonial people from British citizenship (parts of the West Indies were colonies before the UK existed, they were colonies of England first). So citizenship ended up being mostly about residency of the UK.

I've posted before that I've completed Windrush Scheme applications for relatives. If the state tells people they're not wanted, then you'll get zero integration even from white English speakers. Quickest way to achieve maximum alienation.

That is both a gross oversimplification of British nationality law and totally irrelevant to everything we have been discussing above

It was accurate for a few sentences. It's relevant, because the system is jus soli based. Not like Germany, not like Ireland.

If the plan is to kick out the length of time to qualify for ILR and then citizenship, you then have a jus soli based system with the pitfall of a jus sanguinis system, they're terrible at integrating immigrants (see Germany). The UK would then have the worst of both systems.

If someone is on a visa for a decade until they can get ILR then another decade before citizenship. And potentially the immigration system can change again during that time to their detriment. And there's millions of other people in that situation including their family members. Obviously they're going to conclude "well fuck becoming British, because they keep telling me I'm not British".

A very stupid move to make. That alienation can last generations too. Irish Americans still exist, plenty of Irish went to Southern Africa, no one told them they didn't belong and there is no Irish community there (despite their descendants still existing there).

British nationality law is not jus soli based, it is jus sanguinis with possibility to acquire through residency etc. Jus soli was abolished what 50 years ago or so?

As for your point on ILR - it’s just nonsense to suggest that people will only integrate if offered benefits, and you don’t address our issues integrating particularly the Pakistani community despite liberal policies toward them claiming benefits and citizenship. Someone who has been here for five years is not in any meaningful sense British and it really wouldn’t be controversial to point that out to them. You’ve got the issue the wrong way round - contribute, integrate, and then we can talk about the welfare state. Welfare first is wallet inspector level politics.

Don’t get where you’re going with the Irish point, people told them they didn’t belong all the time, wherever they settled.

[Slick]

People will "hold their nose and vote Reform" amd we will get the same type of administration that's currently fucking America into third world dictatorship status as the same type of people that backed MAGA/Project 25 are backing Farage.

It can't happen here (oh yeah?)

Looking past the ridiculous hyperbole, yeah we will get an absolutely shite government. So maybe it’s time to actually accept the drivers of that?

[_Os_]

That is both a gross oversimplification of British nationality law and totally irrelevant to everything we have been discussing above

It was accurate for a few sentences. It's relevant, because the system is jus soli based. Not like Germany, not like Ireland.

If the plan is to kick out the length of time to qualify for ILR and then citizenship, you then have a jus soli based system with the pitfall of a jus sanguinis system, they're terrible at integrating immigrants (see Germany). The UK would then have the worst of both systems.

If someone is on a visa for a decade until they can get ILR then another decade before citizenship. And potentially the immigration system can change again during that time to their detriment. And there's millions of other people in that situation including their family members. Obviously they're going to conclude "well fuck becoming British, because they keep telling me I'm not British".

A very stupid move to make. That alienation can last generations too. Irish Americans still exist, plenty of Irish went to Southern Africa, no one told them they didn't belong and there is no Irish community there (despite their descendants still existing there).

British nationality law is not jus soli based, it is jus sanguinis with possibility to acquire through residency etc. Jus soli was abolished what 50 years ago or so?

As for your point on ILR - it’s just nonsense to suggest that people will only integrate if offered benefits, and you don’t address our issues integrating particularly the Pakistani community despite liberal policies toward them claiming benefits and citizenship. Someone who has been here for five years is not in any meaningful sense British and it really wouldn’t be controversial to point that out to them. You’ve got the issue the wrong way round - contribute, integrate, and then we can talk about the welfare state. Welfare first is wallet inspector level politics.

Don’t get where you’re going with the Irish point, people told them they didn’t belong all the time, wherever they settled.

The UK is a jus soli system with very limited jus sanguinis, UK nationality can be passed down one generation for those born outside the UK and a further if the child is registered in time and that's it. In a jus sanguinis system nationality is passed down indefinitely regardless of where someone is born, an Irishman can remain an Irishman for multiple generations never even seeing Ireland. In contrast UK nationality is linked to the soil and place of birth, eg even a child born outside the UK acquires nationality through their parent which is ultimately about where they're born (this was done on purpose for the reasons stated).

It's not about welfare, it's about their ability to become a citizen. If they basically cannot become a citizen in any reasonable time frame there'll be zero integration. You'll get mad stuff like someone coming to the UK as a child, living in the UK for decades and still not being British into their 30s. Good luck integrating anyone then.

My point was there's Irish communities generations later, only where they were told they didn't belong. If you want that in the UK, pushing out citizenship far over the horizon is the way to go.

[I like neeps]

People will "hold their nose and vote Reform" amd we will get the same type of administration that's currently fucking America into third world dictatorship status as the same type of people that backed MAGA/Project 25 are backing Farage.

It can't happen here (oh yeah?)

Looking past the ridiculous hyperbole, yeah we will get an absolutely shite government. So maybe it’s time to actually accept the drivers of that?

Who hasn't accepted the drivers of that?

Mass informal immigration caused by geopolitical and economic factors that not one UK politicians can do a thing about, formal immigration brought about by a failing economy, living standards declining due to a failing economy, and the driver of the failing economy being driven by policies that are popular with the key voting block and macro factors which again are out of the control of politicians are all widely accepted on here

What will be good about a Reform government is they absolutely won't cut immigration significantly because (a) short of sinking them you can't actually stop small boats and (b) the economy and welfare state does, unfortunately, rely on immigration. MPs should significantly raise the retirement age and significantly invest in skills but they won't and so immigration will be required to stop the house of cards completely collapsing.

It's much like Trump and the border, his record is actually terrible but people feel like it's good. Starmer is playing a mugs game that he won't win.

[Hal Jordan]

People will "hold their nose and vote Reform" amd we will get the same type of administration that's currently fucking America into third world dictatorship status as the same type of people that backed MAGA/Project 25 are backing Farage.

It can't happen here (oh yeah?)

Looking past the ridiculous hyperbole, yeah we will get an absolutely shite government. So maybe it’s time to actually accept the drivers of that?

Ridiculous hyperbole? Pray explain.

[_Os_]

the failing economy being driven by policies that are popular with the key voting block

Water companies must be owned and run by extractive US private equity firms. Rail companies must be run by foreign governments. Brexit can never be undone no matter the cost and the fact Leavers demonstrably haven't got lower immigration as a result. Planning can never be reformed there are no votes in it and people will complain. The British government cannot build a nuclear power plant the French and Chinese governments have to do it. The ideal economy is a London centric services economy that can only be accessed by people who live there and have a degree. Maybe the most expensive high speed rail ever constructed that somehow still doesn't really connect the biggest and second biggest city. Nearly £1bn spent planning to build a tunnel under the Thames, more than double the construction cost of the world's longest road tunnel. The seemingly generational planning war over adding a runway to an airport in London. It's good the US owns some massive proportion of the UK and sends all the profits back to the US without reinvesting in the UK, good also that UK firms delist in the UK and move the primary listing to the US. Somehow having a Green party which opposes actually constructing Green energy. Can't tax the rich, cut benefits instead, but not the winter fuel allowance making that means tested is a crime. Let the Chinese state and Indian companies own all steel production, until there's literally one steel mill left.

[Hugo]

One of the things I've wondered when you hear the "we need to import more Kazakhs to offset our elderly population" is why no-one proposes policies (economic/social) that would encourage more people to have kids.

It seems like a strangely defeatist position whereby you are coming to terms with your extinction rather than trying to build a better economy and society where people can thrive enough to have kids.

[TheNatalShark]

One of the things I've wondered when you hear the "we need to import more Kazakhs to offset our elderly population" is why no-one proposes policies (economic/social) that would encourage more people to have kids.

It seems like a strangely defeatist position whereby you are coming to terms with your extinction rather than trying to build a better economy and society where people can thrive enough to have kids.

Because the elderly population that needs to be offset, vetoes most meaningful policy that would deliver a better economy and society where people can thrive enough to have kids.


Ignoring the other drivers.

[dpedin]

One of the things I've wondered when you hear the "we need to import more Kazakhs to offset our elderly population" is why no-one proposes policies (economic/social) that would encourage more people to have kids.

It seems like a strangely defeatist position whereby you are coming to terms with your extinction rather than trying to build a better economy and society where people can thrive enough to have kids.

Because the elderly population that needs to be offset, vetoes most meaningful policy that would deliver a better economy and society where people can thrive enough to have kids.


Ignoring the other drivers.

This! Us crumblies dont want to see policies which mean we aren't so well off or rewards the young more! Even small suggested changes are met with horror and an outcry - it is often seen as them v us issue.

I had an older guy complaining to me at my golf club about us offering Young Adult fees where subs are reduced on a sliding scale up to the age of 28-30'ish. It is designed to help out and retain young folk when they are probably paying out most of their earnings in mortgage/rent, children, etc. His argument was that a particular young guy had a far higher income than him as a pensioner and that was unfair, failing to recognize that he played 5+ times a week compared to the young guy only playing once a week at most due to work commitments etc. Cost per round was far lower for the older guy. I tried explaining that he, as an older person, benefitted from his index linked work and state pensions, was able to buy his first house at 3x his income, he had paid off his mortgage, he had no university fees, got a free bus pass, etc but he was having none of it. He threatened to resign if it wasn't changed at which point he was told we would be disappointed but would accept it as there's a waiting list and someone else would take his place. He never resigned but continues to complain to this day. Miserable cunt and a small microcosm of the gerontocracy that runs our country.

[sockwithaticket]

One of the things I've wondered when you hear the "we need to import more Kazakhs to offset our elderly population" is why no-one proposes policies (economic/social) that would encourage more people to have kids.

It seems like a strangely defeatist position whereby you are coming to terms with your extinction rather than trying to build a better economy and society where people can thrive enough to have kids.

To effectively change things to make having children a more attractive prospect means fundamentally altering the rent-seeking, rip off economy that's been created for us. The people getting very rich and donating to governments don't want anything of the sort.

Now there's some date out there suggesting there's only so much you can do to try and induce people to breed (although as far as I'm aware a lot of that focuses on factors like levels of gender equality in Scandinavian countries rather than material conditions like proportion of wages eaten up by housing and utility costs), but it's better to try than simply leave the issue to fester. Especially as there are indications that migrants end up where the native population are in terms of feritlity within a couple of generations, so we're just importing more people who end up as part of the non-breeding, aging population. To which the answer is apparently 'import more people' and so on and so forth.

[I like neeps]

One of the things I've wondered when you hear the "we need to import more Kazakhs to offset our elderly population" is why no-one proposes policies (economic/social) that would encourage more people to have kids.

It seems like a strangely defeatist position whereby you are coming to terms with your extinction rather than trying to build a better economy and society where people can thrive enough to have kids.

To effectively change things to make having children a more attractive prospect means fundamentally altering the rent-seeking, rip off economy that's been created for us. The people getting very rich and donating to governments don't want anything of the sort.

Now there's some date out there suggesting there's only so much you can do to try and induce people to breed (although as far as I'm aware a lot of that focuses on factors like levels of gender equality in Scandinavian countries rather than material conditions like proportion of wages eaten up by housing and utility costs), but it's better to try than simply leave the issue to fester. Especially as there are indications that migrants end up where the native population are in terms of feritlity within a couple of generations, so we're just importing more people who end up as part of the non-breeding, aging population. To which the answer is apparently 'import more people' and so on and so forth.

Society either radically changes through immigration - cheap, or radically changes through pro nativist policies taking women out of work or massive state subsidies to make housing and childcare affordable- hugely expensive.

I know which option every government, including Reform, will chose.

[Paddington Bear]

Worth pointing out, again, on the ‘we need immigrants to work in care homes’ point that on average each care worker since 2020 has arrived with three dependents, therefore making our dependency ratio substantially worse.

[Yeeb]

There's still people emigrating from the UK, in fact that has increased (do we need more graphs?).

A labour market that is more static and skills heavy (which will always mean unionisation too), is much harder for an immigrant to move into than one which is loose/open and often more favourable for the employer than the employee. Plenty of rubbish jobs in the UK anyone can do, some so bad the workers need welfare top ups to survive.

Don't worry Yeeb, there's zero chance of this changing. Sadly for you that also means zero chance of immigration changing much either.

Feel free to go with graphs that neither prove nor disprove your absolute shambles of a thought pattern re cause and effect. There have always been rubbish jobs , you seem to pine for the unions of the 70’s or somehow think those jobs they helped terminate like mining , putting a Morris marina together etc were high skill ?

Other countries in Europe retained their car industry just fine, someone can not rock up and just start doing those jobs. Only Germany and France got high immigration out of those countries. Germany because it wanted it. France because (like the UK) it's a former large colonial power so there'll always be people that want to go there.

Here is your graph (source, Commons library) to explain why people didn't stop emigrating after Thatcher. Not the case that net migration switched from net emigration to net immigration because life was so good less people left. That is something you made up.

Tbh you are all over the place, as Slick mentioned a few posts further down. You do know we still actually make cars in the Uk yep?
You linking thatcher to events 10+ years before she got in power, and 30+ since she left, is just too much mentalist 5D chess for me so I can let you go on in your crazy beliefs & ignore all those years Labour were in power. I might start constantly blaming the Germans now for our countries woes , or perhaps William The first or julius ceasar.

[Paddington Bear]

Feel free to go with graphs that neither prove nor disprove your absolute shambles of a thought pattern re cause and effect. There have always been rubbish jobs , you seem to pine for the unions of the 70’s or somehow think those jobs they helped terminate like mining , putting a Morris marina together etc were high skill ?

Other countries in Europe retained their car industry just fine, someone can not rock up and just start doing those jobs. Only Germany and France got high immigration out of those countries. Germany because it wanted it. France because (like the UK) it's a former large colonial power so there'll always be people that want to go there.

Here is your graph (source, Commons library) to explain why people didn't stop emigrating after Thatcher. Not the case that net migration switched from net emigration to net immigration because life was so good less people left. That is something you made up.

Tbh you are all over the place, as Slick mentioned a few posts further down. You do know we still actually make cars in the Uk yep?
You linking thatcher to events 10+ years before she got in power, and 30+ since she left, is just too much mentalist 5D chess for me so I can let you go on in your crazy beliefs & ignore all those years Labour were in power. I might start constantly blaming the Germans now for our countries woes , or perhaps William The first or julius ceasar.

Talking about Thatcher’s time in office now is akin to harping on about VE day in the year she was elected. At some point people are going to have to let it go.

[robmatic]

Worth pointing out, again, on the ‘we need immigrants to work in care homes’ point that on average each care worker since 2020 has arrived with three dependents, therefore making our dependency ratio substantially worse.

Ponzi schemes are great though.

There's also something broken with the immigration system when it is easier for a care worker to bring in their spouse than it is for me to do it as a British citizen.

[robmatic]

One of the things I've wondered when you hear the "we need to import more Kazakhs to offset our elderly population" is why no-one proposes policies (economic/social) that would encourage more people to have kids.

It seems like a strangely defeatist position whereby you are coming to terms with your extinction rather than trying to build a better economy and society where people can thrive enough to have kids.

To effectively change things to make having children a more attractive prospect means fundamentally altering the rent-seeking, rip off economy that's been created for us. The people getting very rich and donating to governments don't want anything of the sort.

Now there's some date out there suggesting there's only so much you can do to try and induce people to breed (although as far as I'm aware a lot of that focuses on factors like levels of gender equality in Scandinavian countries rather than material conditions like proportion of wages eaten up by housing and utility costs), but it's better to try than simply leave the issue to fester. Especially as there are indications that migrants end up where the native population are in terms of feritlity within a couple of generations, so we're just importing more people who end up as part of the non-breeding, aging population. To which the answer is apparently 'import more people' and so on and so forth.

Society either radically changes through immigration - cheap, or radically changes through pro nativist policies taking women out of work or massive state subsidies to make housing and childcare affordable- hugely expensive.

I know which option every government, including Reform, will chose.

And both options require building large amounts of homes building, which is something that the great British public can't accept.

[Slick]

Worth pointing out, again, on the ‘we need immigrants to work in care homes’ point that on average each care worker since 2020 has arrived with three dependents, therefore making our dependency ratio substantially worse.

At the care home my dad was in they had an issue with dependents arriving and then the female staff immediately stopping working, so they would have to go through the same process over and over.

[sockwithaticket]

Worth pointing out, again, on the ‘we need immigrants to work in care homes’ point that on average each care worker since 2020 has arrived with three dependents, therefore making our dependency ratio substantially worse.

At the care home my dad was in they had an issue with dependents arriving and then the female staff immediately stopping working, so they would have to go through the same process over and over.

There's also the issue that once here, many slip off into other forms of work, which does defeat the point of having brought them over.

I am slightly encouraged that the coverage around this, even from some of the more left of centre sources I get my news from, are highlighting one of the elephants in the room:
- why don't Brits want to do the jobs? Because for the same money they can do far less demanding jobs with better hours and conditions.
- fundamentally, if you have shit jobs the remuneration needs to offset their shitness (I'm paraphrasing)

It's often been cast in the past as Brits are too lazy for the jobs, rather than the jobs are not enticing and there are alternatives.

There's also been some tangential discussion about payment of nurses/doctors and the bottleneck we've created there for training locals plus the lack of incentive we give those we have trained to stick around. That's a massive tangle of nettles that won't get any less painful to grasp.

[_Os_]

Feel free to go with graphs that neither prove nor disprove your absolute shambles of a thought pattern re cause and effect. There have always been rubbish jobs , you seem to pine for the unions of the 70’s or somehow think those jobs they helped terminate like mining , putting a Morris marina together etc were high skill ?

Other countries in Europe retained their car industry just fine, someone can not rock up and just start doing those jobs. Only Germany and France got high immigration out of those countries. Germany because it wanted it. France because (like the UK) it's a former large colonial power so there'll always be people that want to go there.

Here is your graph (source, Commons library) to explain why people didn't stop emigrating after Thatcher. Not the case that net migration switched from net emigration to net immigration because life was so good less people left. That is something you made up.

Tbh you are all over the place, as Slick mentioned a few posts further down. You do know we still actually make cars in the Uk yep?
You linking thatcher to events 10+ years before she got in power, and 30+ since she left, is just too much mentalist 5D chess for me so I can let you go on in your crazy beliefs & ignore all those years Labour were in power. I might start constantly blaming the Germans now for our countries woes , or perhaps William The first or julius ceasar.

She fundamentally changed the UK economy, not an ordinary PM at all. Of course she's going to be mentioned and matter.

How on earth is Reform going to achieve "net zero immigration" when that hasn't been the case since before Thatcher? Despite first New Labour and then the Tories pre-Big Dog doing all they could to limit immigration without tanking the economy.

The UK car industry is truly going great guns like other non-services industries, I'm sure you can find me a politican that says it's "world leading" no problem?

[Tichtheid]

Other countries in Europe retained their car industry just fine, someone can not rock up and just start doing those jobs. Only Germany and France got high immigration out of those countries. Germany because it wanted it. France because (like the UK) it's a former large colonial power so there'll always be people that want to go there.

Here is your graph (source, Commons library) to explain why people didn't stop emigrating after Thatcher. Not the case that net migration switched from net emigration to net immigration because life was so good less people left. That is something you made up.

Tbh you are all over the place, as Slick mentioned a few posts further down. You do know we still actually make cars in the Uk yep?
You linking thatcher to events 10+ years before she got in power, and 30+ since she left, is just too much mentalist 5D chess for me so I can let you go on in your crazy beliefs & ignore all those years Labour were in power. I might start constantly blaming the Germans now for our countries woes , or perhaps William The first or julius ceasar.

Talking about Thatcher’s time in office now is akin to harping on about VE day in the year she was elected. At some point people are going to have to let it go.

It might be convenient for those who think neoliberalism is a good idea to let it go, but there was a direction of travel started back then that has ended up with us having a shit and expensive train service, house prices simply unobtainable for most, literal shit in our rivers and seas, energy prices skyrocketing, people pulling their own teeth out etc, we haven't veered away from that direction of travel, if anything we've careered down that road at an accelerating rate.

[_Os_]

Worth pointing out, again, on the ‘we need immigrants to work in care homes’ point that on average each care worker since 2020 has arrived with three dependents, therefore making our dependency ratio substantially worse.

Children never grow up and work, nor do husbands ever work.

If this was an easy problem, then there would be no problem. But it's not an easy problem. The country is nearly at full employment. The country is aging.

[Biffer]

Tbh you are all over the place, as Slick mentioned a few posts further down. You do know we still actually make cars in the Uk yep?
You linking thatcher to events 10+ years before she got in power, and 30+ since she left, is just too much mentalist 5D chess for me so I can let you go on in your crazy beliefs & ignore all those years Labour were in power. I might start constantly blaming the Germans now for our countries woes , or perhaps William The first or julius ceasar.

Talking about Thatcher’s time in office now is akin to harping on about VE day in the year she was elected. At some point people are going to have to let it go.

It might be convenient for those who think neoliberalism is a good idea to let it go, but there was a direction of travel started back then that has ended up with us having a shit and expensive train service, house prices simply unobtainable for most, literal shit in our rivers and seas, energy prices skyrocketing, people pulling their own teeth out etc, we haven't veered away from that direction of travel, if anything we've careered down that road at an accelerating rate.

Yeah, we still reference the corn laws, universal suffrage, Suez, the great depression and a barrel of other significant events that changed the course of the country.

[Biffer]

One of the things I've wondered when you hear the "we need to import more Kazakhs to offset our elderly population" is why no-one proposes policies (economic/social) that would encourage more people to have kids.

It seems like a strangely defeatist position whereby you are coming to terms with your extinction rather than trying to build a better economy and society where people can thrive enough to have kids.

To effectively change things to make having children a more attractive prospect means fundamentally altering the rent-seeking, rip off economy that's been created for us. The people getting very rich and donating to governments don't want anything of the sort.

Now there's some date out there suggesting there's only so much you can do to try and induce people to breed (although as far as I'm aware a lot of that focuses on factors like levels of gender equality in Scandinavian countries rather than material conditions like proportion of wages eaten up by housing and utility costs), but it's better to try than simply leave the issue to fester. Especially as there are indications that migrants end up where the native population are in terms of feritlity within a couple of generations, so we're just importing more people who end up as part of the non-breeding, aging population. To which the answer is apparently 'import more people' and so on and so forth.

It's always men who suggest economic tools to make women have more children. And they never work.

[_Os_]

Worth pointing out, again, on the ‘we need immigrants to work in care homes’ point that on average each care worker since 2020 has arrived with three dependents, therefore making our dependency ratio substantially worse.

Ponzi schemes are great though.

There's also something broken with the immigration system when it is easier for a care worker to bring in their spouse than it is for me to do it as a British citizen.

The British immigration system makes fuck all sense. Spoken numerous times to Home Office officials on the phone that know less about the actual law than I do. They tried to put me onto the European Settlement Scheme once, that was interesting.

The reason they don't want you bringing your family. Is because they wanted to stop ethnic South Asians being able to marry spouses from South Asia whilst living in the UK. As usual this was not stated, but that was the reason. Not convinced it worked, when you have a strong family structure and a lot of family owned businesses it's not as hard meeting financial requirements.

General direction of travel looks like the system becoming even more of a mess.

[Yeeb]

Tbh you are all over the place, as Slick mentioned a few posts further down. You do know we still actually make cars in the Uk yep?
You linking thatcher to events 10+ years before she got in power, and 30+ since she left, is just too much mentalist 5D chess for me so I can let you go on in your crazy beliefs & ignore all those years Labour were in power. I might start constantly blaming the Germans now for our countries woes , or perhaps William The first or julius ceasar.

Talking about Thatcher’s time in office now is akin to harping on about VE day in the year she was elected. At some point people are going to have to let it go.

It might be convenient for those who think neoliberalism is a good idea to let it go, but there was a direction of travel started back then that has ended up with us having a shit and expensive train service, house prices simply unobtainable for most, literal shit in our rivers and seas, energy prices skyrocketing, people pulling their own teeth out etc, we haven't veered away from that direction of travel, if anything we've careered down that road at an accelerating rate.

now house prices, yes absolutely 100% you can blame Thatch for, as I’ve said previously several times. Wasn’t the selling off that was the problem, was the complete lack of replacement and doctrinal beleif Milton Friedman esque that ‘the market will always fill the gap’.

Same also to an extent to the sick dogs she put down like mining in Welsh valleys - closing uneconomic pits wasn’t the problem , not allowing for something else was.
Fairly sure trains were shit and relatively expensive before her time , and the energy prices thing from Putin is also probably not related to her directly as much as you’d think as it’s more global phenomena.
Thatcherism didn’t allow really for the concept of ‘key industries’ that should perhaps have been propped up via tax carrots rather than subsidised to continue inefficiently digging coal to make steel to make ships that can employ sailors from deprived areas and give them a livelihood & help keep HMS poolshitter from docking.
Personally I would have also included power stations and water utilities as key industries, and retained some sort of state home building programme too if flogging off all of the old badly maintained council crap.

[sockwithaticket]

One of the things I've wondered when you hear the "we need to import more Kazakhs to offset our elderly population" is why no-one proposes policies (economic/social) that would encourage more people to have kids.

It seems like a strangely defeatist position whereby you are coming to terms with your extinction rather than trying to build a better economy and society where people can thrive enough to have kids.

To effectively change things to make having children a more attractive prospect means fundamentally altering the rent-seeking, rip off economy that's been created for us. The people getting very rich and donating to governments don't want anything of the sort.

Now there's some date out there suggesting there's only so much you can do to try and induce people to breed (although as far as I'm aware a lot of that focuses on factors like levels of gender equality in Scandinavian countries rather than material conditions like proportion of wages eaten up by housing and utility costs), but it's better to try than simply leave the issue to fester. Especially as there are indications that migrants end up where the native population are in terms of feritlity within a couple of generations, so we're just importing more people who end up as part of the non-breeding, aging population. To which the answer is apparently 'import more people' and so on and so forth.

It's always men who suggest economic tools to make women have more children. And they never work.

Money is undeniably a factor in having kids for a lot of people.

https://yougov.co.uk/society/articles/5 ... t-children

I wouldn't for a moment claim that sorting out the economic side will suddenly triple the birth rate, but it does remove barriers. It means people like my mate who has two kids and got the snip, but thought hard about it because he and his wife really wanted 3 or 4, would be more able to err on the side of having the extras. It would also mean that my friend whose pregnancy turned out to be twins rather than a single child wouldn't suddenly be scrambling to re-assess whether she could afford to keep the pregnancy.

We have clearly hit a point in society where some people are more comfortable saying they simply don't want kids for whatever reason or are content to have fewer than prior generations, but there is plenty out there suggesting that finances are holding many back from the number of kids they would like to have and some from taking the plunge in the first place.

And we might just manage to improve society in other ways and for people other than 'breeders' too by dismantling the economic status quo.

[_Os_]

You linking thatcher to events 10+ years before she got in power

I've read this twice now. Still makes no sense. Net migration switched from net emigration to net immigration under Thatcher. I give you a free pass on the "pool shitter" stuff as you're a decent guy and just taking the piss. But this is just reading a graph boet. Here it is again:

[tabascoboy]

Worth pointing out, again, on the ‘we need immigrants to work in care homes’ point that on average each care worker since 2020 has arrived with three dependents, therefore making our dependency ratio substantially worse.

Ponzi schemes are great though.

There's also something broken with the immigration system when it is easier for a care worker to bring in their spouse than it is for me to do it as a British citizen.

According to Richard Tice, stop unemployment benefits and train them up in Social Care. Easy as that

[Yeeb]

You linking thatcher to events 10+ years before she got in power

I've read this twice now. Still makes no sense. Net migration switched from net emigration to net immigration under Thatcher. I give you a free pass on the "pool shitter" stuff as you're a decent guy and just taking the piss. But this is just reading a graph boet. Here it is again:

From your own graph and past comments , seem to say net (im) migration only occurred thanks to her, check the 58-62 period

Feels v odd trying to talk economics and politics with a saffa who wrote the book on disastrous policies

[_Os_]

You linking thatcher to events 10+ years before she got in power

I've read this twice now. Still makes no sense. Net migration switched from net emigration to net immigration under Thatcher. I give you a free pass on the "pool shitter" stuff as you're a decent guy and just taking the piss. But this is just reading a graph boet. Here it is again:

From your own graph and past comments , seem to say net (im) migration only occurred thanks to her, check the 58-62 period

Feels v odd trying to talk economics and politics with a saffa who wrote the book on disastrous policies

Does a line of best fit really need to be put on there, I mean I can do it, but do you actually require it?

Ja, a South African would know nothing about populist policies creating a disaster and feeding into yet more populist policies, ultimately junking decades. I called the Tories before most, and even predicted they would end up in a crisis involving the Treasury and BoE one year out from when it happened. It's not the first time I'm watching this movie.

[Hal Jordan]

Michael Rosen tells Starmer to go fuck himself in a polite manner:

I lay in bed
hardly able to breathe
but there were people to sedate me,
pump air into me
calm me down when I thrashed around
hold my hand and reassure me
play me songs my family sent in
turn me over to help my lungs
shave me, wash me, feed me
check my medication
perform the tracheostomy
people on this ‘island of strangers’
from China, Jamaica, Brazil, Ireland
India, USA, Nigeria and Greece.

I sat on the edge of my bed
and four people came with
a frame and supported me
or took me to a gym
where they taught me how
to walk between parallel bars
or kick a balloon
sat me in a wheel chair
taught me how to use the exercise bike
how to walk with a stick
how to walk without a stick
people on this ‘island of strangers’
from China, Jamaica, Brazil, Ireland
India, USA, Nigeria and Greece.

If ever you’re in need as I was
may you have an island of strangers
like I had.

[Yeeb]

I've read this twice now. Still makes no sense. Net migration switched from net emigration to net immigration under Thatcher. I give you a free pass on the "pool shitter" stuff as you're a decent guy and just taking the piss. But this is just reading a graph boet. Here it is again:

From your own graph and past comments , seem to say net (im) migration only occurred thanks to her, check the 58-62 period

Feels v odd trying to talk economics and politics with a saffa who wrote the book on disastrous policies

Does a line of best fit really need to be put on there, I mean I can do it, but do you actually require it?

Ja, a South African would know nothing about populist policies creating a disaster and feeding into yet more populist policies, ultimately junking decades. I called the Tories before most, and even predicted they would end up in a crisis involving the Treasury and BoE one year out from when it happened. It's not the first time I'm watching this movie.

98 onwards was the first real spike, blaming thatcher for that is just mental.

[Paddington Bear]

Tbh you are all over the place, as Slick mentioned a few posts further down. You do know we still actually make cars in the Uk yep?
You linking thatcher to events 10+ years before she got in power, and 30+ since she left, is just too much mentalist 5D chess for me so I can let you go on in your crazy beliefs & ignore all those years Labour were in power. I might start constantly blaming the Germans now for our countries woes , or perhaps William The first or julius ceasar.

Talking about Thatcher’s time in office now is akin to harping on about VE day in the year she was elected. At some point people are going to have to let it go.

It might be convenient for those who think neoliberalism is a good idea to let it go, but there was a direction of travel started back then that has ended up with us having a shit and expensive train service, house prices simply unobtainable for most, literal shit in our rivers and seas, energy prices skyrocketing, people pulling their own teeth out etc, we haven't veered away from that direction of travel, if anything we've careered down that road at an accelerating rate.

For the sake of argument let’s uncritically accept this - the British left has managed to convince the British public that this is:

1) true and
2) evidence that we should radically change course

Precisely zero times in the 34 years since she left office or the 46 since she entered into it.

On the two occasions that Labour have turfed the Tories out they have either enthusiastically embraced much of Thatcherism (Blair) or left it well in the past and emphasised that they were the real protectors of economic and societal orthodoxy rather than the Tories (Starmer).

So *even if* it were true, harping on about a woman who left office before a fair chunk of the electorate was born is a loser’s hobby, a political dead end, and roughly akin to saying that policemen are getting younger and that you struggle to understand this new music. Time to get new material.

And, as Yeeb says, suggesting that Thatcher rather than Boris or Blair was the primary architect of large-scale immigration is easily refutable nonsense.

[Tichtheid]

Talking about Thatcher’s time in office now is akin to harping on about VE day in the year she was elected. At some point people are going to have to let it go.

It might be convenient for those who think neoliberalism is a good idea to let it go, but there was a direction of travel started back then that has ended up with us having a shit and expensive train service, house prices simply unobtainable for most, literal shit in our rivers and seas, energy prices skyrocketing, people pulling their own teeth out etc, we haven't veered away from that direction of travel, if anything we've careered down that road at an accelerating rate.

For the sake of argument let’s uncritically accept this - the British left has managed to convince the British public that this is:

1) true and
2) evidence that we should radically change course

Precisely zero times in the 34 years since she left office or the 46 since she entered into it.

On the two occasions that Labour have turfed the Tories out they have either enthusiastically embraced much of Thatcherism (Blair) or left it well in the past and emphasised that they were the real protectors of economic and societal orthodoxy rather than the Tories (Starmer).

So *even if* it were true, harping on about a woman who left office before a fair chunk of the electorate was born is a loser’s hobby, a political dead end, and roughly akin to saying that policemen are getting younger and that you struggle to understand this new music. Time to get new material.

And, as Yeeb says, suggesting that Thatcher rather than Boris or Blair was the primary architect of large-scale immigration is easily refutable nonsense.

I'll repeat myself since you don't seem to have read it.

... there was a direction of travel started back then... we haven't veered from that direction of travel

You'll probably notice if you re-read that I made no mention of immigration, I was talking about economic policies.

There's a saying about being doomed to repeat history if we conveniently choose to ignore it or learn from it.

[Paddington Bear]

It might be convenient for those who think neoliberalism is a good idea to let it go, but there was a direction of travel started back then that has ended up with us having a shit and expensive train service, house prices simply unobtainable for most, literal shit in our rivers and seas, energy prices skyrocketing, people pulling their own teeth out etc, we haven't veered away from that direction of travel, if anything we've careered down that road at an accelerating rate.

For the sake of argument let’s uncritically accept this - the British left has managed to convince the British public that this is:

1) true and
2) evidence that we should radically change course

Precisely zero times in the 34 years since she left office or the 46 since she entered into it.

On the two occasions that Labour have turfed the Tories out they have either enthusiastically embraced much of Thatcherism (Blair) or left it well in the past and emphasised that they were the real protectors of economic and societal orthodoxy rather than the Tories (Starmer).

So *even if* it were true, harping on about a woman who left office before a fair chunk of the electorate was born is a loser’s hobby, a political dead end, and roughly akin to saying that policemen are getting younger and that you struggle to understand this new music. Time to get new material.

And, as Yeeb says, suggesting that Thatcher rather than Boris or Blair was the primary architect of large-scale immigration is easily refutable nonsense.

I'll repeat myself since you don't seem to have read it.

... there was a direction of travel started back then... we haven't veered from that direction of travel

You'll probably notice if you re-read that I made no mention of immigration, I was talking about economic policies.

There's a saying about being doomed to repeat history if we conveniently choose to ignore it or learn from it.

Doesn’t change anything I’ve said really - the left need to change the record as no one is listening to it or ever has. Migration point was a tag on to Yeeb and Os’s discussion

[Tichtheid]

For the sake of argument let’s uncritically accept this - the British left has managed to convince the British public that this is:

1) true and
2) evidence that we should radically change course

Precisely zero times in the 34 years since she left office or the 46 since she entered into it.

On the two occasions that Labour have turfed the Tories out they have either enthusiastically embraced much of Thatcherism (Blair) or left it well in the past and emphasised that they were the real protectors of economic and societal orthodoxy rather than the Tories (Starmer).

So *even if* it were true, harping on about a woman who left office before a fair chunk of the electorate was born is a loser’s hobby, a political dead end, and roughly akin to saying that policemen are getting younger and that you struggle to understand this new music. Time to get new material.

And, as Yeeb says, suggesting that Thatcher rather than Boris or Blair was the primary architect of large-scale immigration is easily refutable nonsense.

I'll repeat myself since you don't seem to have read it.

... there was a direction of travel started back then... we haven't veered from that direction of travel

You'll probably notice if you re-read that I made no mention of immigration, I was talking about economic policies.

There's a saying about being doomed to repeat history if we conveniently choose to ignore it or learn from it.

Doesn’t change anything I’ve said really - the left need to change the record as no one is listening to it or ever has. Migration point was a tag on to Yeeb and Os’s discussion

I think it challenges your desire to brush Thatcher under the carpet and the disastrous policies of privatisation of rail and utilities etc and selling off assets such as affordable housing.

No one is listening?

Two-thirds of people, 65%, support the expansion of social housing by making it available to people to people who cannot afford the cost of private renting and not just the most vulnerable people in society.
This was backed by 76% who voted Labour in 2019 and 63% who voted Conservative.

Public opinion polls indicate that a significant majority of British people support renationalizing water services. The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management reports that 83% of British people favor this, and this figure is echoed in other polls and reports,. The high level of public support for renationalization reflects concerns about the performance of privatized water companies, particularly regarding environmental stewardship and water quality.

Support for nationalising utilities and public transport has grown significantly in last seven years

https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/ ... even-years

[Yeeb]

I'll repeat myself since you don't seem to have read it.



You'll probably notice if you re-read that I made no mention of immigration, I was talking about economic policies.

There's a saying about being doomed to repeat history if we conveniently choose to ignore it or learn from it.

Doesn’t change anything I’ve said really - the left need to change the record as no one is listening to it or ever has. Migration point was a tag on to Yeeb and Os’s discussion

I think it challenges your desire to brush Thatcher under the carpet and the disastrous policies of privatisation of rail and utilities etc and selling off assets such as affordable housing.

No one is listening?

Two-thirds of people, 65%, support the expansion of social housing by making it available to people to people who cannot afford the cost of private renting and not just the most vulnerable people in society.
This was backed by 76% who voted Labour in 2019 and 63% who voted Conservative.

Public opinion polls indicate that a significant majority of British people support renationalizing water services. The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management reports that 83% of British people favor this, and this figure is echoed in other polls and reports,. The high level of public support for renationalization reflects concerns about the performance of privatized water companies, particularly regarding environmental stewardship and water quality.

Support for nationalising utilities and public transport has grown significantly in last seven years

https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/ ... even-years

Nobody pro thatcher is trying to sweep anything , if anything it’s the anti thatcher diatribe that tries to pin every single negative thing ever onto her, is as sweeping as it is incorrect.

First off , public opinion I think is largely irrelevant because of them being so racist thick and lazy plus all the other labels plonked on them.

Next, for every blanket assertion ‘her disastrous policy of selling off council houses’, it completely misses the context of:
Sales were first Labour ideas
The quality of those houses was poor
The cost of maintenance of them was unsustainable for the councils and central govt pockets at the time (a common theme of when tories enter power …)
It enfranchised many people greatly into being homeowners , who would perhaps take better care of the place
And of course, that actual biggest problem of her actions, which was not doing anything material to replace that public housing stock as I’ve previously mentioned many times.

Very casual ignorance shown there of precisely why she sold off the family silver , and deliberate amnesia on just how poor rail, gas, phone etc services were back then. Nationalisation hardly worked well when it was tried before in Uk, as usual the Uk swung wildly from one extre to another and wondered why it didn’t work as well as the more market social Nordic model of part ownership and governance. That rising support for nationalisation stat just shows how many have died who were old enough to remember it.

[Paddington Bear]

I'll repeat myself since you don't seem to have read it.



You'll probably notice if you re-read that I made no mention of immigration, I was talking about economic policies.

There's a saying about being doomed to repeat history if we conveniently choose to ignore it or learn from it.

Doesn’t change anything I’ve said really - the left need to change the record as no one is listening to it or ever has. Migration point was a tag on to Yeeb and Os’s discussion

I think it challenges your desire to brush Thatcher under the carpet and the disastrous policies of privatisation of rail and utilities etc and selling off assets such as affordable housing.

No one is listening?

Two-thirds of people, 65%, support the expansion of social housing by making it available to people to people who cannot afford the cost of private renting and not just the most vulnerable people in society.
This was backed by 76% who voted Labour in 2019 and 63% who voted Conservative.

Public opinion polls indicate that a significant majority of British people support renationalizing water services. The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management reports that 83% of British people favor this, and this figure is echoed in other polls and reports,. The high level of public support for renationalization reflects concerns about the performance of privatized water companies, particularly regarding environmental stewardship and water quality.

Support for nationalising utilities and public transport has grown significantly in last seven years

https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/ ... even-years

I’m not sweeping anything under the rug and you’ll note I haven’t attacked or defended any of her policies, I’m just not interested in discussing someone who left office 34 years ago and died 12 years ago as if it is a pressing national issue. The youngest people who could have voted for or against her in a general election are now 56, going to have to move on at some point.

And yes, no one listens as is shown by the constant failures of going on about Thatcher at the ballot box.

[Tichtheid]

Doesn’t change anything I’ve said really - the left need to change the record as no one is listening to it or ever has. Migration point was a tag on to Yeeb and Os’s discussion

I think it challenges your desire to brush Thatcher under the carpet and the disastrous policies of privatisation of rail and utilities etc and selling off assets such as affordable housing.

No one is listening?

Two-thirds of people, 65%, support the expansion of social housing by making it available to people to people who cannot afford the cost of private renting and not just the most vulnerable people in society.
This was backed by 76% who voted Labour in 2019 and 63% who voted Conservative.

Public opinion polls indicate that a significant majority of British people support renationalizing water services. The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management reports that 83% of British people favor this, and this figure is echoed in other polls and reports,. The high level of public support for renationalization reflects concerns about the performance of privatized water companies, particularly regarding environmental stewardship and water quality.

Support for nationalising utilities and public transport has grown significantly in last seven years

https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/ ... even-years

I’m not sweeping anything under the rug and you’ll note I haven’t attacked or defended any of her policies, I’m just not interested in discussing someone who left office 34 years ago and died 12 years ago as if it is a pressing national issue. The youngest people who could have voted for or against her in a general election are now 56, going to have to move on at some point.

And yes, no one listens as is shown by the constant failures of going on about Thatcher at the ballot box.

There was a very definite switch of economic policy during her tenure - Shirely this is not controversial in the slightest? If you're not prepared to trace back to the beginning of neoliberal policies in the UK then what is the point of entering in to any discussion on the topic?

As for the ballot box, I have no idea why people vote Tory, far less Reform but that's another topic, so I have no idea why the electorate vote against policies they support. Forget the man here, but look at the policies Corbyn's Labour set out in 2019 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50501411

The only one I can't find hard polling data in favour of those six policies is on the National Care Service and that's that's possibly only because the first search didn't come back with lots of results on it, I didn't do a more detailed search.

I know Populist Bozo won on Getting Brexit Done innit, but that was even more a case of the electorate voting against their own best interests.

[_Os_]

From your own graph and past comments , seem to say net (im) migration only occurred thanks to her, check the 58-62 period

Feels v odd trying to talk economics and politics with a saffa who wrote the book on disastrous policies

Does a line of best fit really need to be put on there, I mean I can do it, but do you actually require it?

Ja, a South African would know nothing about populist policies creating a disaster and feeding into yet more populist policies, ultimately junking decades. I called the Tories before most, and even predicted they would end up in a crisis involving the Treasury and BoE one year out from when it happened. It's not the first time I'm watching this movie.

98 onwards was the first real spike, blaming thatcher for that is just mental.

Oh dear, the claim Tony Blair is to blame for something that started under Thatcher and accelerated after him. The right wing got away with it pre-Big Dog, just sad to be saying that still in 2025. Anyway here's the updated graph for you.