Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[najaB]

I don’t think you can really say that the UK is low density.

Regardless, we're nowhere near the top of the list, and could easily accommodate a few hundred thousand more people with ease, if we were so inclined.

True, but how achievable is any of this? We should be helping with these things, but it would probably take decades of all the developed world working together to make any real difference.

The fact that still is difficult isn't a reason not to do it. And where we lead others will follow.

 

[JonathanH]

From another thread...

It's not a huge secret that this government wants to promise a tax cut ahead of the next general election. To do that the chancellor needs to stay within his "fiscal rules" for the next five years, i.e. out to 2028/9. Not spending a billion a year building the Euston HS2 station towards the end of that period is very helpful.

Are there really people in the electorate who want the basic rate of income tax to be cut to 19 pence in preference to maintaining government spending? I get that they might not care much about HS2, and it might keep some of the smaller state MPs in the party happy, but it doesn't seem to me to be a policy that is going to make any difference to electoral fortunes.

A cut in the higher rate of income tax, or any change that favoured higher earners, would be totally toxic. Indeed, any cut in income tax, even the basic rate, favours those on higher incomes.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Any solution which involves dealing with the problem by making it easier to claim asylum from abroad has to explain how it won't multiply the numbers applying, and why those who are not accepted won't still come in the boats anyway.

My opinion is that we can have controlled migration or uncontrolled migration, but we can’t have no migration. Humans have always migrated. Humans always will migrate.

If we have robust and accessible migration routes then we control who comes in. If we have a functioning migration processing system then we can quickly keep the ones we want and get rid of the ones who we don’t really want. We know who’s coming and can keep out the gangsters and terrorists.

Sadly this government has decided to abolish almost all legal routes of getting to the UK (unless you’re wealthy- regardless of the provenance of that wealth). And the processing systems are broken through deliberate under-funding. So instead of safe migration controlled by the authorities, we have a situation where everyone has to come on a dinghy or hide in a HGV and everything is controlled by criminals.

The way of stopping the small boats is by giving lawful alternatives. But, as you say, that isn’t compatible with a desire to achieve the impossible target of zero migration.

The small boat gangs will stop if their customers have an alternative.

I don’t think you can really say that the UK is low density. Although only 6% may be classified as built on, that doesn’t make the rest immediately available for housing use.

The 7% figure comes from a housing industry determined to argue we don’t have enough housing- the 7% includes houses but doesn’t, for instance, include the gardens attached to said houses.

I don’t think the UK is particularly high density and other countries, especially France and Spain, have stats skewed by much of those countries being very remote and rural. I note people of an anti-migration persuasion talk about England to avoid this issue- there’s loads of room in the far north of Scotland for the same reason.

Moving on more widely, and not referring to the quotes posts.

It’s also fair to say that the reason why you can’t get a GP appointment or a school place isn’t because of immigration. It’s partly a planning issue- all these new estates get built but developers don’t have to fund any of the extra services they require. And it’s partly a resource issue: doctors don’t want to be GPs because it’s a demanding and thankless role that doesn’t attract the funding it requires.

As for increasing population, that’s partly because we also have an ageing population- people aren’t dying like they used to. We need more younger people to pay the taxes that fund the older people. It’s why I find arguments that we should ban “economic migrants” to be utterly bizarre- we should be welcoming people who are prepared to get on their bike and move somewhere else for better prospects. We need grafters to fund care homes and pensions.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

My opinion is that we can have controlled migration or uncontrolled migration, but we can’t have no migration. Humans have always migrated. Humans always will migrate.

Agreed. But since basically no-one is arguing for no migration, that's a strawman argument. The issue is, should we allow who gets to claim asylum to be largely determined by, who pays criminal gangs to smuggle them in.

Sadly this government has decided to abolish almost all legal routes of getting to the UK (unless you’re wealthy- regardless of the provenance of that wealth).

Really? Given that the context is, asylum seekers/people fleeing persecution, can you tell us which legal routes of getting into the UK this Government has decided to abolish? As far as I'm aware, the Government has done the opposite: The Ukraine, and Hong Kong schemes are new legal routes of getting into the UK that the Government has opened. The only big legal route that closed was Freedom of Movement for EU citizens, but since EU citizens generally don't claim (or have any grounds for claiming) asylum, that's hardly relevant to this discussion.

And the processing systems are broken through deliberate under-funding.

Where's your evidence that it's deliberate under-funding? As opposed to having been suddenly overwhelmed by the combined impact of Covid, Ukraine, Afghanistan, Hong Kong, and a vast increase in small boats plus (non-asylum-related) visa applications?

The way of stopping the small boats is by giving lawful alternatives. But, as you say, that isn’t compatible with a desire to achieve the impossible target of zero migration.

Who has set a target of zero migration?

 

[Typhoon]

Really? Given that the context is, asylum seekers/people fleeing persecution, can you tell us which legal routes of getting into the UK this Government has decided to abolish? As far as I'm aware, the Government has done the opposite: The Ukraine, and Hong Kong schemes are new legal routes of getting into the UK that the Government has opened. The only big legal route that closed was Freedom of Movement for EU citizens, but since EU citizens generally don't claim (or have any grounds for claiming) asylum, that's hardly relevant to this discussion.

I am unaware of any legal route the Afghans employed to help the British troops and their families, including interpreters, who we left behind because there were, apparently, other priorities for evacuation have. There may not be many - now, but there will be some. The validity of their claims are, presumably, fairly easy to confirm in most cases. And, given they will have genuine fear for their lives because of their employment with our troops, we must owe them something. Many will speak English (rather than French or Greek) as a second language. With the evacuation route cut off, I believe they have no choice but the illegal route. We can do better,

An Afghan interpreter injured while helping British forces fight the Taliban fears the government’s crackdown on migrants puts many more lives at risk. New rules are aimed at denying access to the UK asylum system to anyone arriving irregularly – such as in a small boat crossing the Channel. But Rafi Hottak, a former translator for the UK army in Afghanistan, said it meant ex-colleagues who have not been given the sanctuary here they were promised would be left at the mercy of Taliban militants. Mr Hottak, 36, left Afghanistan in 2011 – four years after being wounded by an explosion in Helmand Province – because he had received threats.

He was initially denied British citizenship, with UK Border Agency officials claiming he had fabricated his military links, but won on appeal. Now settled in Birmingham, he is an accountant and father-of-three – and also campaigns for the rights of fellow former interpreters.

Mr Hottak told Metro: ‘We are losing precious lives every day and most of them are people who have served the Nato forces in Afghanistan. If the existing schemes do not include them, they are forced to flee the country and claim asylum. ‘Now if asylum routes are closed, it means the UK government is taking their fundamental human right away and telling them, “I will not save your life even if you have served the Nato forces and I would rather you are killed by the terrorist Taliban”.’ More than 21,000 Afghans have been welcomed under two schemes for Afghans who assisted UK war efforts. But the Ministry of Defence admitted in January some 71,149 Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy applications were still waiting to be processed. Some 4,300 people have been given leave to come here but remain in Afghanistan, fearing reprisals from the Taliban for working with the British.

source https://metro.co.uk/2023/03/09/crac...nger-lives-of-afghans-who-helped-uk-18409774/

The Ministry of Defence confirmed, through audibly gritted teeth, that the private plane chartered to bring back former soldier turned animal rescuer Paul “Pen” Farthing and his menagerie of strays had been “assisted” through the airport by British troops in the final shambolic hours of the retreat from Kabul – even as human beings who had put their trust in the western forces they worked alongside were being abandoned to their fate.

As Tom Tugendhat, the Tory MP and ex-serviceman who has been struggling to get his old army interpreter into the UK, put it: “We’ve just used a lot of troops to get in 200 dogs; meanwhile my interpreter’s family is likely to be killed. When one interpreter asked me a few days ago, ‘Why is my five-year-old worth less than a dog?’ I didn’t have an answer.”

What a story to tell the world about ourselves, amid the chaos of our leaving. What a gift to extremist movements across the Middle East and beyond, who draw their power from the idea that the west holds foreign lives contemptuously cheap; that cats of no conceivable interest to the Taliban can be airlifted out but not human beings at risk of being hunted down and executed. Even Farthing’s Afghan staff, whom he had insisted he would get out, were left behind in the end, after their paperwork was rejected at the airport.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/30/britain-dogs-afghan-people-pen-farthing

 

[nw1]

From another thread...

Are there really people in the electorate who want the basic rate of income tax to be cut to 19 pence in preference to maintaining government spending? I get that they might not care much about HS2, and it might keep some of the smaller state MPs in the party happy, but it doesn't seem to me to be a policy that is going to make any difference to electoral fortunes.

Indeed, the problem with the UK as it stands is not that we pay too much tax.

It's that public services are in a pretty terrible state, and tax cuts are not going to help that.

I think most people realise that. The price of tax cuts will be further spending cuts, making this sorry nation even worse than it is now.

 

[Typhoon]

Regardless of whether it's the biggest issue or not, Sunak can go to hell for claiming that "it's the people's priority".

Not for all of us, Rishi. Stop pretending we are all your obedient acolyte sheep who go along with your every word.

Without wishing hell on anyone (in case it is used as evidence that that should be my future abode), 'people's priority' stands alongside 'the silent majority' and 'he stands up for me' as really irritating slogans. I am actually a quite intelligent human being, I don't need to be told what I think, I can do that for myself, no-one has actually asked me what my priorities are and I suspect most politicians wouldn't like the response. Being a member of this Forum for over five years (doesn't time fly) I know that I am far from alone in being intelligent but there is no consensus on what priorities are on just about everything.
This applies to all politicians - put forward your policies (ask us what we want, if you like), we will then consider them and vote for those we prefer (or not) taking the past record into account; stop telling us what we think. it gives the impression that you think you are in some way better than us, you are not, and some of you demonstrate this on a regular basis.

 

[nw1]

Without wishing hell on anyone (in case it is used as evidence that that should be my future abode), 'people's priority' stands alongside 'the silent majority' and 'he stands up for me' as really irritating slogans. I am actually a quite intelligent human being, I don't need to be told what I think, I can do that for myself, no-one has actually asked me what my priorities are and I suspect most politicians wouldn't like the response. Being a member of this Forum for over five years (doesn't time fly) I know that I am far from alone in being intelligent but there is no consensus on what priorities are on just about everything.

Admittedly I deleted my message after recognising it was a bit strident (I don't really wish hell on anyone, it was just an expression of exasperation of this kind of language from politicians), but it is indeed extraordinarily irritating.

"The will of the people" is another one, of course. "The will of the people" is almost always "we don't know", and certainly was in the referendum to which that phrase is often applied.

As you say, it implies we all think the same way. Plus, IMO it aims to sow division amongst the population by separating it into "our kind of people" and the rest of us.

 

[birchesgreen]

To be honest after the last few years my only political priority is for some stable, competent government.

 

[317 forever]

I'm not sure whether Altrincham and Sale is a Johnsonist kind of place anyway. Affluent but AFAIK relatively liberal, it's the sort of place that would probably like Cameron but have relatively less time for the current iteration of the Tory Party.

More likely, I think, is that Johnson stands in Reigate or Dorriesland. Those are dead-cert Tory holds.

Furthermore, Altrincham & Sale West is in the borough of Trafford which voted Remain. So if Boris becomes the Tory candidate where the majority is less than his current Leave constituency, I doubt he will get elected.

Reigate and Mid Bedfordshire are more promising as safe Tory (Leave) seats.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Agreed. But since basically no-one is arguing for no migration

The Tories are arguing for net zero migration.

Really? Given that the context is, asylum seekers/people fleeing persecution, can you tell us which legal routes of getting into the UK this Government has decided to abolish?

The Government have changed the rules so that asylum claims will be negatively impacted if someone had travelled through a “safe third country”, despite the Geneva Convention putting no obligation on an asylum seeker to claim in the first country they get to.

Claims will also be negatively impacted if someone travels on a tourist visa with the intention of claiming asylum.

And the Government puts airlines and ferry companies on the hook if they carry someone without the proper entry visa.

So they can’t fly here or take commercial shipping here, and the Government now proposes to ban people who travel on small boats or in the back of a HGV.

So the question is “how can a Syrian fleeing Assad legally claim asylum in advance”. Answer from Braverman there came none.

As far as I'm aware, the Government has done the opposite: The Ukraine, and Hong Kong schemes are new legal routes of getting into the UK that the Government has opened.

The Hong Kong scheme is for British Overseas nationals living in a former British colony. Opening the doors to British people- an interesting way to define success.

As for Ukraine, per capita the UK has taken fewer Ukrainians than any other country in Europe (bar France, whose official stats are out of date). Source.

Where's your evidence that it's deliberate under-funding? As opposed to having been suddenly overwhelmed by the combined impact of Covid, Ukraine, Afghanistan, Hong Kong, and a vast increase in small boats plus (non-asylum-related) visa applications?

Staffing numbers have been repeatedly cut- the UKBA lost 20% of its staff between 2010 and 2015. And the backlog far predates the war in Ukraine. This has been a huge problem for a decade or more, all in the name of austerity.

 

[JonathanH]

Reigate and Mid Bedfordshire are more promising as safe Tory (Leave) seats.

Only 128 and 135 on the current list of Conservative seats. I think he would be wanting something in the top 75. Henley, at 41, makes a lot more sense.

 

[The Ham]

No, clearly it's not the biggest single issue, and as far as I'm aware, no-one in the Government is claiming it's more important than other issues like the cost of living, so I'm not sure why you and others keep posting as if the Government has said something like that?

But equally clearly, it is a serious issue that does need solving - and arguably needs solving fairly urgently because, in the absence of a solution, the problem has been rapidly getting worse.



Yep. All very important problems that need attention. But surely you're not suggesting that, because those are important problems, the Government shouldn't be doing anything else? That seems to be the tone of your post.

The reason for the time of my post is that it's something which appears to have had a lot of airtime within parliament. For example it's not even 18 months since the last significant piece of legislation on the issue and yet the changes don't appear to having an impact or if they are it's making things worse.

For example, much is said about the cost of housing those claiming asylum, yet rather than focus on improving the rate of the decision making (it wasn't that long ago 87% of decisions were made within 6 months, it's now about 10%).

The current legislation could be argued to be a godsend to those who are people traffickers, as they can point to our and say "if you do to the authorities they will lock you up and send you away" when what we should be doing is making it easier for those who have been forcefully moved here to be able to come forwards and enable us to bring the people traffickers to justice

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commo...ribution-BA867D9A-D260-4EB6-B142-F7B11521D1AB


Good call on digging out the quote. But 'my priority' does not necessarily mean 'my only priority'. It indicates that it is a (possibly, of several) priority. In fact, it's the 5th of 5 pledges that Rishi Sunak laid out back in January, which indicates that it is one of 5 priorities: (link)

The thing is, whilst in option polls it is currently fairly high, (3rd on the latest list I've found) it could be that the reason it's high is because the government are dealing with it badly. As the question isn't qualified it's unknown, however the assumption is that it's because it's too high. That's not too say that people aren't concerned about it being high, however if you were to ask a certain MOTD precentor if it was a concern their answer would be yes, however they certainly wouldn't be supportive of the current legislation.

As this is a non zero value it's unreasonable to assume that more of the same is what everyone within that group wants.

Also as I've highlighted, the reality is that what is something which gets a lot of headlines, the overall impact on people day to day is fairly small (unlike, for example transport).

Indeed, it is a difficult problem to solve. Any effective solution has to include measures which act to reduce people's desire to leave where they are. This means targeted aid and assistance in developing civil society and functional economies in less-developed nations.

People only make the perilous journey from sub-Saharan Africa or the Middle East because they see it as a way to escape oppressive conditions at home.

That may well be true, but which party has had over a decade to enact policies to tackle these issues?

While the UK's population density is high by European standards, it is low compared to global averages. As noted in other threads, less than 7% of our land area is built environment.

The issue is that the same people who want fewer people coming here are often the same people who wish to cut the aid budget.

One thing which could help would be to be able to claim asylum in a third country. However by doing so the UK government wouldn't be on the hook for housing then in hotels (or even more expensively in secure facilities) or even have the cost of deporting them from the UK if they were unsuccessful in their application.

Whilst this is likely to increase the numbers applying it would mean that the business model of the small boats providers would vanish.

With fewer coming here by such desperate measures it would free up (the very expensive) resources to focus on the gangs and those who are being brought here against their will to be used for drugs, sex trade, etc. In doing so it could deal with some of the other issues we h face (i.e. other issues with crime).

We could even, look to fast track those with shops we need. For example if a doctor is fleeing from a country and claims asylum, we could have a policy which states "whilst this person may or may not be justified in getting asylum, they have skills which are very much in demand and so we will bypass the normal processes (although others maybe required, such as confirming their actual ability and that they have suitable communications skills to do the job) so that they can start being "useful" to this country.

 

[Gloster]

According to the Daily Express (yes, I know how much reliance should be placed on that) Braverman is to order police to ’focus on solving crime rather than investigating woke “I’m offended’ complaints‘. This is the same Braverman who last week described Lineker’s recent comments as ‘from a personal point of view’ ‘offensive’.

 

[Yew]

According to the Daily Express (yes, I know how much reliance should be placed on that) Braverman is to order police to ’focus on solving crime rather than investigating woke “I’m offended’ complaints‘. This is the same Braverman who last week described Lineker’s recent comments as ‘from a personal point of view’ ‘offensive’.

Do the police investigate "I'm offended" complaints as it is?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

According to the Daily Express (yes, I know how much reliance should be placed on that) Braverman is to order police to ’focus on solving crime rather than investigating woke “I’m offended’ complaints‘.

The Telegraph are now reporting it too. Link

Police are to be barred from recording non-crime hate incidents just because someone is offended, under plans announced on Monday by Suella Braverman.

The Home Secretary has endorsed new guidance that requires officers to prioritise freedom of expression over offensive, controversial or derogatory language that upsets people.

Officers will be restricted to recording only incidents that are motivated by intentional hostility and pose a real risk of escalating into significant harm.

This is the same Braverman who last week described Lineker’s recent comments as ‘from a personal point of view’ ‘offensive’.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with that comparison?

 

[jfollows]

Politicians of all hues in this country have spent the last twenty years criminalising things that people say and things that people read rather than things that people do. Are you reading something on how to construct a home-made bomb? If so, watch out, because you're clearly a terrorist and will fall foul of the law. The police have, in their usual slow cumbersome way, moved to respond to these political demands and enforce the laws that the politicians want to see enforced. So it's a bit rich for the politicians to start complaining about "woke" and "offence" when they're the ones who started this nonsense.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Do the police investigate "I'm offended" complaints as it is?

Yes they sometimes do. As a couple of examples:

https://www.wessexsolicitors.co.uk/news/right-to-be-offended-201912031338

Mr Miller, a married father of four, was investigated by Humberside Police earlier this year after a Twitter user complained that he shared a "transphobic limerick". Even though no crime was committed, his sharing of the limerick online was recorded as a "hate incident" and he was described as a “suspect” in police reports

Meanwhile David McConnell was actually taken to court and has just been acquitted on appeal. His crime? Addressing and referring publicly to a trans woman as a 'he'.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-64905216

A Christian preacher who was found guilty of harassing a transgender woman by calling her a "man" and "gentleman" has had his conviction quashed.

Farrah Munir said David McConnell, who was preaching in Leeds in June 2021, had left her "emotionally distraught".

And last year, Jennifer Swayne was arrested for alleged hate crimes (but not charged) after she put up stickers in Newport, Wales promoting the 'gender-critical/feminist' position on trans rights.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...ist-jennifer-swayne-in-raid-on-home-t7n20qbv6

Police have arrested a women’s rights campaigner for an alleged hate crime and seized an academic book from her home after she put up posters “directed towards the trans community”.

Jennifer Swayne, 53, was detained for more than 12 hours after placing posters around Newport that made claims about trans women in prisons and said “humans never change sex” and that men in dresses should stay out of women’s spaces.

(To be clear I do fully support the police taking action against people who deliberately promote violence or hatred against groups, but the examples I've quoted appear to be cases where someone has simply expressed a genuinely held and non-violent, non-hateful opinion, and has been arrested or investigated largely because other people felt offended by their opinions. That's wrong and runs against free speech, so I'm glad it looks like the Government are changing the police guidance to try to avoid that happening in the future).

 

[jfollows]

(To be clear I do fully support the police taking action against people who deliberately promote violence or hatred against groups, but the examples I've quoted appear to be cases where someone has simply expressed a genuinely held and non-violent, non-hateful opinion, and has been arrested or investigated largely because other people felt offended by their opinions. That's wrong and runs against free speech, so I'm glad it looks like the Government are changing the police guidance to try to avoid that happening in the future).

That is right - I have (or should have) the right to be offensive to you without criminal sanction, with perhaps a few well-defined exceptions. The fact that I don't act this way is because I don't generally believe that being offensive is constructive, not because I'm worried about the police breathing down my neck.

 

[MikeWM]

Politicians of all hues in this country have spent the last twenty years criminalising things that people say and things that people read rather than things that people do.

Yes, that is the root cause of an awful lot of problems we have. I also agree we need to address the cause of the issue rather than being preoccupied by trying to alleviate some of the symptoms.

Given politicians really like passing new laws though, and with the Online 'Safety' Bill still winding its way through Parliament, there doesn't appear to be much hope of that.

 

[ainsworth74]

Given politicians really like passing new laws though, and with the Online 'Safety' Bill still winding its way through Parliament, there doesn't appear to be much hope of that.

Well new laws are comparatively easy and get a nice write up in the the tame newspapers. Actually trying to fix issues (often requiring funding, shock horror) are hard and don't get you anything like the same good press. The Criminal Justice system is perhaps the current most obvious example. As the backlog of cases swells (and was doing so before Covid), the ability of the police to investigate collapse, the CPS struggle to put coherent cases together, the defendants are increasingly having to represent themselves or go massively into debt (due to Legal Aid cuts and if you do self-fund good luck getting much of your money back even when acquitted as the rate of reimbursement is capped), the courts estate itself is falling to pieces, prisons are overcrowded and dangerous offering little rehabilitation and the probation service is still recovering for a flirtation with privitisation what are politicians doing? Trying to fix it? No, they talk about making new laws to make new things crimes. Even though most of the time there already are suitable charges available. Because that's quick, cheap and easy. Achieves little. But who cares about that?

 

[MikeWM]

Well new laws are comparatively easy and get a nice write up in the the tame newspapers. Actually trying to fix issues (often requiring funding, shock horror) are hard and don't get you anything like the same good press. The Criminal Justice system is perhaps the current most obvious example. As the backlog of cases swells (and was doing so before Covid), the ability of the police to investigate collapse, the CPS struggle to put coherent cases together, the defendants are increasingly having to represent themselves or go massively into debt (due to Legal Aid cuts and if you do self-fund good luck getting much of your money back even when acquitted as the rate of reimbursement is capped), the courts estate itself is falling to pieces, prisons are overcrowded and dangerous offering little rehabilitation and the probation service is still recovering for a flirtation with privitisation what are politicians doing? Trying to fix it? No, they talk about making new laws to make new things crimes. Even though most of the time there already are suitable charges available. Because that's quick, cheap and easy. Achieves little. But who cares about that?

I agree with all of that, and it is a lamentable state of affairs. The problem is that I don't see anyone is going to try to fix it - perhaps some have more hope for a Starmer premiership than I do, but I don't believe that will fix these fundamental issues any more than the Tories are doing now.

 

[The Ham]

I agree with all of that, and it is a lamentable state of affairs. The problem is that I don't see anyone is going to try to fix it - perhaps some have more hope for a Starmer premiership than I do, but I don't believe that will fix these fundamental issues any more than the Tories are doing now.

Whilst there's a chance that whoever gets into power doesn't do anything to fix such issues, however that's quite different from being fairly sure that nothings going to change under the current party in power.

That could be applied to any party who don't have an interest in a given area who are in government and any party not in power - so isn't necessarily a dig at the current lot.

Therefore whilst Labour may not fix it, there's likely to be a higher chance that they do than if the Tories were voted back in.

It is, however, worth noting that given Starter's background or is at least something which is likely to be considered. However with budget limitations, it is likely that there's going to be limits on what will happen, and it's then a case of where does any one potential government wish to focus is spending.

 

[MikeWM]

Whilst there's a chance that whoever gets into power doesn't do anything to fix such issues, however that's quite different from being fairly sure that nothings going to change under the current party in power.

That could be applied to any party who don't have an interest in a given area who are in government and any party not in power - so isn't necessarily a dig at the current lot.

Therefore whilst Labour may not fix it, there's likely to be a higher chance that they do than if the Tories were voted back in.

This is all true, and maybe it is just because I'm older and considerably more cynical, but I don't get the same feeling of 'that was a really necessary change' that I had in 1997, or even the feeling of 'new government, not much of a fan of the Tories but good to have a change' in 2010.

I can't help but feel, based on the limited evidence we have so far, that Starmer's policies on most things - civil liberties, crime, foreign policy, the economy, the NHS, etc. etc. - are going to be 'more of the same, but even more so'.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Well new laws are comparatively easy and get a nice write up in the the tame newspapers. Actually trying to fix issues (often requiring funding, shock horror) are hard and don't get you anything like the same good press. The Criminal Justice system is perhaps the current most obvious example. As the backlog of cases swells (and was doing so before Covid), the ability of the police to investigate collapse, the CPS struggle to put coherent cases together, the defendants are increasingly having to represent themselves or go massively into debt (due to Legal Aid cuts and if you do self-fund good luck getting much of your money back even when acquitted as the rate of reimbursement is capped), the courts estate itself is falling to pieces, prisons are overcrowded and dangerous offering little rehabilitation and the probation service is still recovering for a flirtation with privitisation what are politicians doing? Trying to fix it? No, they talk about making new laws to make new things crimes. Even though most of the time there already are suitable charges available. Because that's quick, cheap and easy. Achieves little. But who cares about that?

Well for the particular changes to police guidance that the last few posts have been discussing, the impact should be to remove a few things that the police would otherwise have investigated, so perhaps that will free up a few (admittedly only a few) resources.

But in general, the problems you (correctly) describe look like they would take a lot of money to fix, and that seems to be an example of a wider problem affecting much of what the Government does: Despite taxation levels being overall higher than they have ever been before in living memory, the Government is still not taking in enough money to pay for the services that most of us think we should have. To my mind, the one crucial thing that's missing from much of the public discourse is any discussion/understanding of how that situation has come about, and how we might solve it. Neither of the obvious 'solutions' of raising taxes or cutting services seem very palatable. The only thing that seems to leave is, investigating how we might provide the same services more cheaply - but none of the political parties seem to be thinking much about how we might do that.

I would think that, if we want to sort out many of the problems the UK faces, then figuring out what has caused this situation where massively high taxes still aren't enough pay for what we think we need is going to be crucial.

 

[Typhoon]

Well new laws are comparatively easy and get a nice write up in the the tame newspapers. Actually trying to fix issues (often requiring funding, shock horror) are hard and don't get you anything like the same good press. The Criminal Justice system is perhaps the current most obvious example. As the backlog of cases swells (and was doing so before Covid), the ability of the police to investigate collapse, the CPS struggle to put coherent cases together, the defendants are increasingly having to represent themselves or go massively into debt (due to Legal Aid cuts and if you do self-fund good luck getting much of your money back even when acquitted as the rate of reimbursement is capped), the courts estate itself is falling to pieces, prisons are overcrowded and dangerous offering little rehabilitation and the probation service is still recovering for a flirtation with privitisation what are politicians doing? Trying to fix it? No, they talk about making new laws to make new things crimes. Even though most of the time there already are suitable charges available. Because that's quick, cheap and easy. Achieves little. But who cares about that?

As an example, the synopsis of tonight's Panorama:

Over the last year, Panorama has had exclusive access to Kent Police as their detectives try to catch the fraudsters. With more than 10,000 reports of fraud in the county last year, they estimate that only around 20 cases were solved.

Unfortunately, passing new laws pushes failures in other areas off of the front page. Plus it gives the opportunity for finger pointing across the Commons (with added mumbling for effect), which always makes good television. Since Cameron's victory in 2015 we have had seven different Secretaries of State for Justice, each knowing that they have about a year to make a mark. Resolving the problems outlined above, even if there is the will to do it, takes longer than that. I would add to the above that when judges make the decision not to send convicted offenders to prison for fairly trivial offenses (because they suspect that there is every chance the offender will come out in a more damaged & criminally inclined state than they went in) they are vilified by politicians and the media alike.

I suppose we are partly to blame here - every year we accept more and more money being spent on the police (up 6.6% round here), I suspect trying to get an agreement to increase the Justice budget by even 0.6% would fall on deaf ears.

 

[Tetchytyke]

This is the same Braverman who last week described Lineker’s recent comments as ‘from a personal point of view’ ‘offensive’.

The Daily Telegraph- so quick to denounce cancel culture and wokery- has been demanding all week that Lineker be sacked. They’ve tried to backtrack today- Lineker isn’t the issue, the whole BBC should be shut down as it’s a big lefty elite blob, apparently.

It’s amazing how quickly these free speech champions turn into a baying mob when someone has an opinion they disagree with.

The hypocrisy is staggering.

 

[ainsworth74]

Well for the particular changes to police guidance that the last few posts have been discussing, the impact should be to remove a few things that the police would otherwise have investigated, so perhaps that will free up a few (admittedly only a few) resources.

Yep that's certainly true and I've always been extremely uncomfortable with the drift towards policing speech. Clearly some speech does need special consideration (I would for instance not object to someone being arrested and charged for shouting about how "We need to get all the [n-word]'s out of the country!" or similar) but in general terms it isn't the business of the police (or, in other words, the State) to intervene. The Twitter joke trial is perhaps a good example of this issue:

R v Paul Chambers (appealed to the High Court as Chambers v Director of Public Prosecutions), popularly known as the Twitter Joke Trial, was a United Kingdom legal case centred on the conviction of a man under the Communications Act 2003 for posting a joke about destroying an airport to Twitter, a message which police regarded as "menacing". The conviction in the Magistrates' court was widely condemned as a miscarriage of justice, but was upheld on appeal to the Crown Court. Chambers appealed against the Crown Court decision to the High Court, which ultimately quashed the conviction.

Twitter joke trial - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But in general, the problems you (correctly) describe look like they would take a lot of money to fix, and that seems to be an example of a wider problem affecting much of what the Government does: Despite taxation levels being overall higher than they have ever been before in living memory, the Government is still not taking in enough money to pay for the services that most of us think we should have. To my mind, the one crucial thing that's missing from much of the public discourse is any discussion/understanding of how that situation has come about, and how we might solve it. Neither of the obvious 'solutions' of raising taxes or cutting services seem very palatable. The only thing that seems to leave is, investigating how we might provide the same services more cheaply - but none of the political parties seem to be thinking much about how we might do that.

I would think that, if we want to sort out many of the problems the UK faces, then figuring out what has caused this situation where massively high taxes still aren't enough pay for what we think we need is going to be crucial.

Agreed. I do think that some tax issue might need addressing (particularly around evasion and avoidance) and perhaps some taxes may need to rise but in general terms I think you make a very valid point around why the heck everything is now seemingly unaffordable. To speak simplistically overall government expenditure is higher than ever and yet it seems like we're getting worse and worse public services for the money. What on earth has gone wrong?

 

[Tetchytyke]

I would think that, if we want to sort out many of the problems the UK faces, then figuring out what has caused this situation where massively high taxes still aren't enough pay for what we think we need is going to be crucial.

Outsourcing causes these issues. Paying someone else to do something is always more expensive than doing it yourself.

We see this in every sector- care homes are expensive because they’re loaded up with debt by hedge funds. Children’s homes, the same. Railways, the same. PFI hospitals, the same. Outsourced IT, the same. Water, the same.

The Covid response cost £50bn in the UK because they hired in Serco and other consultants at great expense. Here (and admittedly it’s a smaller scale) civil servants were seconded into test-and-trace from bits of government which had closed due to the pandemic, so it cost very little.

It’s the same in the private sector, getting an outsourcer in costs more money. Capita have pretty much trashed John Lewis’ customer service functions.

Everything costs more than it should because we’re paying middlemen like Serco and Capita huge sums of money. The myth the outsourcers are more efficient is simply not true.

(Outsourcing and privatisation are different: British Airways is an example of how selling something off entirely can be very successful)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Mar 2023 ==

To speak simplistically overall government expenditure is higher than ever and yet it seems like we're getting worse and worse public services for the money. What on earth has gone wrong?

As above, government hire in outsourcers rather than doing it themselves. It’s always more expensive.

The railways are a great example of this waste. But it’s even worse: the DfT pay a middleman then micromanage said middleman. The DfT really have bought a dog then proceeded to bark themselves. It’s madness.

 

[WelshBluebird]

The Twitter joke trial is perhaps a good example of this issue:

I think it is worth saying that the law used there is now two decades old and before that you had a similar law from 1984, so we are now talking at least four decades of similar speech restrictions, and I suspect there will have been ones predating that too. There's a lot of talk about how cracking down on "being offensive" etc etc is a modern "woke" thing, but in reality we have had similar legislation in this country for most of the time the same people claiming everything is now "woke" have been alive. We do not have the same "freedom of speech" history as America does, far from it. By all means argue about if that is good or not, but such legislation and the enforcement of it is absolutely not a new thing, and so people trying to characterise it as that, or as part of the "woke" mob or whatever are just plain wrong.