Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[Yew]

Those caught in it are already accommodated and whether their cases are decided or not,

In an asylum centre, rather than free to live their lives and contribute to our economy, if they have a valid case, or returned to whence they came if they don't.

 

[najaB]

I disagree. The backlog is not causing any additional problems. Those caught in it are already accommodated and whether their cases are decided or not, they will continue to be so.

Even if the backlog stayed exactly the same size as it is we'd be still be talking about basically pissing hundreds of millions of pounds (billions even) down the drain. And those people would continue to be basically imprisoned.

 

[The Ham]

I disagree. The backlog is not causing any additional problems. Those caught in it are already accommodated and whether their cases are decided or not, they will continue to be so. My point is that there are insufficient resources to cope with the current rate of arrivals and that is a problem. I mentioned the resources needed to clear the backlog for illustration only. Even if each case was to be determined quickly, many of those refused asylum will launch endless appeals and it is unlikely that any single case would be concluded within six months.

It is the entire principle of asylum that needs to be reassessed.

The target isn't that they have their car fully resolved within 6 months, rather they have an initial decision within 6 months. For the majority of cases that's granting asylum (although that can vary wildly by year):

How many people do we grant protection to?

www.gov.uk

Just over three quarters (76%) of the initial decisions in 2022 were grants of refugee status, humanitarian protection or alternative forms of leave. This is a substantially higher grant rate than in pre-pandemic years when around a third of initial decisions were grants. The grant rate in 2022 is the highest yearly grant rate in over 30 years (since 82% in 1990, although volumes were lower at that time – 4,025 initial decisions in 1990, compared with 18,699 in 2022).

Asylum is recognised by international law, we could go about trying to undo it, but that's not a good look. It would be about as good as suggesting that we do away with war crimes, as it's not all that uncommon for the two to be linked (for example the ethnic cleansing of the war in Yugoslavia).

 

[Enthusiast]

In an asylum centre, rather than free to live their lives and contribute to our economy, if they have a valid case, or returned to whence they came if they don't.

Even if the backlog stayed exactly the same size as it is we'd be still be talking about basically pissing hundreds of millions of pounds (billions even) down the drain. And those people would continue to be basically imprisoned.

They are not imprisoned. They are free to come and go as they wish. Of course if they don't like the arrangements we have made for them here, they are always free to try elsewhere. They could try Ireland, for example. They would have no difficulty travelling there.

Yes, I'm being flippant (well, almost). But the situation as it is cannot continue. I'm not talking just about here in the UK but also elsewhere in Western Europe. It is simply not possible for Europe to accommodate all those from Asia and Africa who want to settle here. But under the current system they can all simply pitch up, claim they have fled peril and the recipient nation has to accommodate them and hear their claims.

This will not suddenly diminish; it will continue and exacerbate. Fannying about with barges, RAF camps and Rwanda is not the answer. People thinking it is not a "good look" should ask themselves whether they want huge amounts of government resources to be continually devoted to the problem when there are so many more pressing issues that need to be addressed. A fundamental reassessment of Europe's responsibilities towards asylum seekers is necessary. Mr Sunak and the Conservatives are not the people to do that and nor is Mr Starmer and Labour. Since no other party is likely to form a government any time soon we're largely stuck with it. But anyone expecting any fundamental changes, especially if there is a change of government, will be sorely disappointed.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Maybe there needs to be a better system which isn't done by country, rather is done with all countries working together.

Anyone anywhere can claim asylum, their case is reviewed (with details like where family/ties exist) and a decision is made at to if they meet the requirements to be given asylum and a recommended country given. There would be agreements in place determining the numbers given access to a given country.

Yes I agree some kind of international system as you describe would be a lot better. It would sadly take an awful lot of international cooperation to set up, which may not be possible, but I'm sure is a worthy thing to try to do.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Aug 2023 ==

Asylum is recognised by international law, we could go about trying to undo it, but that's not a good look. It would be about as good as suggesting that we do away with war crimes, as it's not all that uncommon for the two to be linked (for example the ethnic cleansing of the war in Yugoslavia).

Something like 'that's not a good look' seems to get thrown up whenever there are suggestions about trying to change the asylum system, but I'm not sure it's a particularly good argument (Related to that, we see the same kind of argument used against suggestions that we should stop following the ECHR and use some different human rights framework instead). But it seems obvious to me that the international rules governing asylum were designed for the very different World of 1945 and in many ways are no longer appropriate to today's World (ditto the international framework around human rights). Do we really want to be stuck with a framework that's no longer fit for purpose and be constantly refusing to try to seek something better just because doing so is considered to be 'not a good look'?

 

[The Ham]

They are not imprisoned. They are free to come and go as they wish. Of course if they don't like the arrangements we have made for them here, they are always free to try elsewhere. They could try Ireland, for example. They would have no difficulty travelling there.

Yes, I'm being flippant (well, almost). But the situation as it is cannot continue. I'm not talking just about here in the UK but also elsewhere in Western Europe. It is simply not possible for Europe to accommodate all those from Asia and Africa who want to settle here. But under the current system they can all simply pitch up, claim they have fled peril and the recipient nation has to accommodate them and hear their claims.

This will not suddenly diminish; it will continue and exacerbate. Fannying about with barges, RAF camps and Rwanda is not the answer. People thinking it is not a "good look" should ask themselves whether they want huge amounts of government resources to be continually devoted to the problem when there are so many more pressing issues that need to be addressed. A fundamental reassessment of Europe's responsibilities towards asylum seekers is necessary. Mr Sunak and the Conservatives are not the people to do that and nor is Mr Starmer and Labour. Since no other party is likely to form a government any time soon we're largely stuck with it. But anyone expecting any fundamental changes, especially if there is a change of government, will be sorely disappointed.

I would like to highlight that my reference to not a good look was about ripping up international law.

Clearly something needs to change, more staff would help, as would giving them activities to do for the benefit of the nation whilst they await a decision (that maybe getting a job and paying taxes, or it could be being tasked with doing something to benefit the community where they are) at least then it could be argued that the country benefits a little, likewise more international working to find better solutions.

Whilst no one thing would make a big difference, the impact of them all could result in a betterment which is more than the sum of its parts (i.e. if we can reduce the demand to come here and increase the number of decisions being made the backlog - and therefore cost in housing them - would fall faster than just one or the other).

Yes I agree some kind of international system as you describe would be a lot better. It would take an awful lot of international cooperation to set up though.

Indeed.

 

[Falcon1200]

This is a story from a couple of years ago. The French seemed keen. The fact that it happens suggests that its the UK government which wasn't interested.

https://www.france24.com/en/france/...pen-legal-migration-route-amid-channel-crisis says:

Thanks for the link. But I do wonder about the practical difficulties involved in setting up such a reception centre, by a non-EU nation in another, EU, country; Presumably it would be staffed by British nationals, who would either have to travel to France every day, or, far more likely, live there; With their families if appropriate, so housing and education would have to be provided, along with healthcare arrangements. How many staff would be required to deal with the number of applicants, how long would each application take to be processed, where would those applicants live and how would they support themselves in the meantime?

It does sound, at first glance, a sensible and humane idea, but I fear there would be huge practical difficulties; Which is perhaps why it has not happened.

 

[edwin_m]

Thanks for the link. But I do wonder about the practical difficulties involved in setting up such a reception centre, by a non-EU nation in another, EU, country; Presumably it would be staffed by British nationals, who would either have to travel to France every day, or, far more likely, live there; With their families if appropriate, so housing and education would have to be provided, along with healthcare arrangements. How many staff would be required to deal with the number of applicants, how long would each application take to be processed, where would those applicants live and how would they support themselves in the meantime?

It does sound, at first glance, a sensible and humane idea, but I fear there would be huge practical difficulties; Which is perhaps why it has not happened.

The outbasing of Border Force officials at Continental Eurostar stations provides some sort of model. Or, being close to Calais, they could come over in coaches through the Tunnel for each shift.

 

[takno]

Thanks for the link. But I do wonder about the practical difficulties involved in setting up such a reception centre, by a non-EU nation in another, EU, country; Presumably it would be staffed by British nationals, who would either have to travel to France every day, or, far more likely, live there; With their families if appropriate, so housing and education would have to be provided, along with healthcare arrangements. How many staff would be required to deal with the number of applicants, how long would each application take to be processed, where would those applicants live and how would they support themselves in the meantime?

It does sound, at first glance, a sensible and humane idea, but I fear there would be huge practical difficulties; Which is perhaps why it has not happened.

We have lots of models for making all of this happen. We manage to employ thousands of consular officials across the world with no issues, and many companies manage to employ key workers in European countries using visas. Most of the administrative work could be done in the UK anyway, and given that it's Calais it really wouldn't be particularly difficult for the in-person staff to commute.

Any even remotely capable administration could make this happen. Of course any remotely capable administration wouldn't have taken on the duty to house tens of thousands of people while they make them wait more than 6 months for a decision on asylum claims, but we are where we are.

 

[Enthusiast]

Something like 'that's not a good look' seems to get thrown up whenever there are suggestions about trying to change the asylum system, but I'm not sure it's a particularly good argument (Related to that, we see the same kind of argument used against suggestions that we should stop following the ECHR and use some different human rights framework instead). But it seems obvious to me that the international rules governing asylum were designed for the very different World of 1945 and in many ways are no longer appropriate to today's World (ditto the international framework around human rights). Do we really want to be stuck with a framework that's no longer fit for purpose and be constantly refusing to try to seek something better just because doing so is considered to be 'not a good look'?

Exactly. All the proposed “solutions” continue in the same vein – accepting that people have the “right” to arrive without leave to do so and having no idea how to deal with them when they do so in huge numbers. Very coincidentally, there was an article by Sheryl Jacobs in The Daily Telegraph today which expanded on my point that the current asylum principles are outdated and unsustainable:

The global refugee system is morally bankrupt – and could finish the West

It’s unjustifiable to spend vast resources on educated and able migrants while their homelands crumble

www.telegraph.co.uk

It’s usually behind a paywall, but here’s a couple of points Ms Jacobs made:

“Moreover, it’s time to face up to the uncomfortable fact that the whole international refugee system has become morally deranged. Western resources are being spent on highly mobile and relatively well-educated men who can afford to pay thousands of pounds to people-traffickers, rather than the less fortunate, who are left festering in permanent camps. Activists pretend that granting citizenship to refugees is a saintly act – overlooking the brain drains that have made it impossible to rebuild and create opportunities in countries from Syria to Albania. Instead we should be changing international law so that educated migrants are obliged, once conflicts subside, to return to their countries.

All this is barely the start. Western powers must also decide on a reasonably fair international quota system – and stick to it. Processing needs to happen in a safe territory as close to the originating country of refugees as possible. International law should be changed so that those who try to cut the queue by eloping to Europe are automatically sent back to where they came from."

These are points I made in my earlier post (but much more eloquently put by Ms Jacobs). The current international legislation governing asylum is completely unfit for purpose and needs ditching. Alas I fear no politician in the UK – least of all Mr Sunak or Mr Karmer – have the bottle to take such a stance.

 

[yorksrob]

I think the worst thing about the Tory party is that it hasn't had a new idea since about 1975.

Other Western countries are repatriating industry (USA), investing in sovereign wealth funds (Norway, Australia). Many European countries are driving down inflation by subsidising paid for public transport.

All the Tory party has to offer is reheated crony capitalism and austerity.

 

[brad465]

I think the worst thing about the Tory party is that it hasn't had a new idea since about 1975.

Other Western countries are repatriating industry (USA), investing in sovereign wealth funds (Norway, Australia). Many European countries are driving down inflation by subsidising paid for public transport.

All the Tory party has to offer is reheated crony capitalism and austerity.

I mean it's almost like the name "Conservative" gives away the idea that they don't change things

 

[yorksrob]

I mean it's almost like the name "Conservative" gives away the idea that they don't change things

Well, they manage to "change" things when it suits them.

Time was when flogging all the countries assets to communists and becoming reliant economically on untrustworthy dictatorships eould have been seen as unconservative, but the "free market" half-wits gained control.

 

[Busaholic]

I think the worst thing about the Tory party is that it hasn't had a new idea since about 1975.

In the case of a good idea, I'd say 1875, that being a year after Benjamin Disraeli became Tory Prime Minister. That was a highpoint for the Conservatives imo and they've been going downhill ever since. Not sure they're capable of going any lower, but still they cling to power.

 

[nw1]

I mean it's almost like the name "Conservative" gives away the idea that they don't change things

If only.

If the Conservative governments since 2010, and particularly since 2016, hadn't changed things from the way they were in the 90s and 00s, I think a good number of us would be a lot happier!

 

[Gloster]

In the case of a good idea, I'd say 1875, that being a year after Benjamin Disraeli became Tory Prime Minister. That was a highpoint for the Conservatives imo and they've been going downhill ever since. Not sure they're capable of going any lower, but still they cling to power.

You always think that the Conservatives can’t go any lower. Then they do.

 

[jon0844]

Frankly, if one were a cynic (me, cynical!) you would get the feeling that as losing control of the system has coincided with the Conservatives losing control of everything else, including their own party, they see the immigration problems as the only thing that they might be able to play as a trump card in the next election. They are planning their policy, not to solve the problem, which, to be fair, probably can’t be anywhere near solved in this parliament, but to keep it as a festering sore to use as an election vote-grabber. Legionella Braverman, who is ultimately responsible, just does not seen to be making any effort to produce any long-term strategy, or even any strategy at all, but instead seems to be using it as part of her plan to be the next, or possibly next-but-one leader of the Conservatives, by producing harsh policies that are likely to be popular with a fair proportion of those who elect the Conservative leader, even if the policies have no effect on the problem, or even a negative one.

With the rhetoric within the current-day Conservative party, hijacked by the far-right, it would seem that allowing immigration to become the talking point it is works well for a party that has regularly talked of the legal profession as enemies of the state. No right-minded individual would be keen to give up their human rights, but if a party can convince them that getting rid of human rights will allow us to deal with the immigrants, how many might then agree - and forget about the impact on their own lives in the future?

GB News and the like are always going on about us giving up the ECHR, and I am pretty sure they're not just saying that because it allows us to turn boats around or shoot them out of the water (and I know that they wouldn't be able to do that, but it's what some of the people right keep saying we should do).

 

[Kite159]

I think the worst thing about the Tory party is that it hasn't had a new idea since about 1975.

Other Western countries are repatriating industry (USA), investing in sovereign wealth funds (Norway, Australia). Many European countries are driving down inflation by subsidising paid for public transport.

All the Tory party has to offer is reheated crony capitalism and austerity.

So the £2 fare scheme on the buses in England which has been in place since January isn't classed as subsiding public transport?

 

[brad465]

Things are so bad it seems we now have a Telegraph writer advocating under 50s leave the UK:

If you’re under 50, it’s time to jump ship – get out of Britain while you can

The UK seems incapable of solving its own issues, and things are set to get worse

www.telegraph.co.uk

The historian Niall Ferguson once remarked that “if young Americans knew what was good for them, they would all be in the Tea Party”. If young British people knew what was good for them, they’d be on the next plane out of the country. Emigration is, after all, the time-honoured path to prosperity for those trapped in stagnating countries.

And the UK is not so much stagnating as it is fossilising. Fifteen years of anaemic growth mean that real wages are still below their 2008 peak – there are 30 year olds who have seen their entire working career go by without seeing meaningful growth in wages. The result is that countries we are used to thinking of as our peers are surging ahead.

Our GDP per capita, adjusted for actual purchasing power, is closer to Slovenia’s than it is to Denmark’s or Australia’s. American levels of prosperity are so far out of reach that we would need an economic Apollo mission to bridge the gap between us; the general manager of a Buc-ee’s petrol station in Texas is paid more than our Prime Minister.

With a tricky election looming, Rishi Sunak may come to regret giving up his US green card.

Economists think of migration as being driven by a combination of push and pull factors, things which drive you away from your home country and things which draw you to your destination. We’ve grown used to the stories of doctors trading soul-sapping shifts on NHS wards for higher pay and fewer hours in Australia, or finance professionals heading to Dubai.

The risk for Britain is that this trend now becomes widespread as a toxic combination of economic stagnation and surging growth elsewhere lure young people away.

It’s not as if the push factors are lacking. The housing market has passed beyond dysfunction and into catastrophe. Record numbers of adults still live with their parents, trapped by surging rents and unaffordable house prices. Those who do strike out can expect to spend well over 20 per cent of their incomes on housing costs, double the proportion that baby boomers spent when they were young. The average deposit on a family home would take that family around 19 years to save, compared to three years in the 1980s.

Young people wanting to start families are finding things previous generations took for granted to be effectively out of reach. It’s hard not to connect this dysfunction with the birth rate reaching record lows. Fertility intentions – the number of children women want to have – have been pretty much at replacement level in Britain even as the number of children they actually have has fallen.

To the extent that it is no longer possible for many to have the family lives they dream of in Britain, that’s a pretty convincing reason to leave.

This isn’t helped by the Government’s seeming preference to charge Scandinavian levels of taxes to deliver American levels of public services. The tax burden is creeping towards a post-war high of 37.7 per cent of GDP, while the NHS, unreformed and possibly unreformable, seems to be falling apart. International comparisons score the health service highly for being free at the point of use and treating people equally. The problem is that it’s bad at keeping people from dying.

Meanwhile, other countries are becoming ever more attractive. We’re used to young people from Central and Eastern Europe coming here to work. Yet Poland is now growing so quickly that, if you project pre-pandemic growth rates forwards, it’s set to overtake us in output per person in ten years’ time.
In the meantime, it has a few other perks to offer young people, including exempting those under 26 from paying income tax. It’s a particularly appealing proposition if you can find a way to wrangle remote working at London wages while paying Warsaw prices.
The best reason to leave, though, is not that other countries are richer, or growing fast. It’s that the UK seems incapable of solving its own issues, and if anything they look set to get worse.
Britain has been an old state for centuries, but it is increasingly an old country. People living longer is obviously a good thing. The problem is that, combined with decades of low birth rates, these improved life expectancies have flipped the population pyramid on its head. The proportion of the population aged over 65 has crept up from 15 per cent in 2000 to 19 per cent in 2022, and is set to reach nearly 30 per cent by 2070.

The result is that caring for Britain’s elderly is set to impose an ever greater burden on the working-age population. The record tax burden in 2027/28 could easily be passed in the 2030s, and the 2040s too. The spending pressures are there to do it; the cost of the state pension and old age benefits is set to rise to nearly 10 per cent of GDP by 2070, while health and social care budgets will take up nearly 18 per cent of output.

We don’t have to reach these heights for living in a stagnating economy with ratcheting taxes to be unappealing, particularly when cuts are likely to fall towards the end of this period on the spending today’s workers are meant to benefit from.

The German economist Albert Hirschman framed the choice of consumers facing deteriorating quality as one between voice and exit: either stay and try to fix things, or leave for a better alternative. For young people in Britain, “voice” seems to be failing. There is precious little political impetus to fix any of these issues.

Successive governments have found planning to be a political live wire, with the NHS run almost as its own private kingdom, issuing demands for tribute from ministers unable to effectively interfere in its running; no party seriously wants to shrink the state.

That leaves exit. Those who can go, should.

 

[The Ham]

Things are so bad it seems we now have a Telegraph writer advocating under 50s leave the UK:

If you’re under 50, it’s time to jump ship – get out of Britain while you can

The UK seems incapable of solving its own issues, and things are set to get worse

www.telegraph.co.uk

Someone who was cynical might think that the reason for Brexit was to limit the ability for the younger generations to find work elsewhere - although that would be someone who was fairly cynical.

 

[Pete_uk]

Let's face it, we have some big problems.

 

[brad465]

Let's face it, we have some big problems.

And we have the even bigger problem that despite recognising there are big problems, voters and politicians are not prepared to support/implement the radical/macro reforms required to solve them.

 

[yorksrob]

Things are so bad it seems we now have a Telegraph writer advocating under 50s leave the UK:

If you’re under 50, it’s time to jump ship – get out of Britain while you can

The UK seems incapable of solving its own issues, and things are set to get worse

www.telegraph.co.uk

Only the Telegraph would consider me a "young person" .

 

[ainsworth74]

The discussion on the ECHR can now be found in its own thread here.

 

[HSTEd]

Someone who was cynical might think that the reason for Brexit was to limit the ability for the younger generations to find work elsewhere - although that would be someone who was fairly cynical.

I doubt that Brexit was part of such a masterminded conspiracy - after all the bulk of the establishment desperately did not want it.

I'd argue it was more likely that the ruling elite were desperate to cover up the problems by continuing the Blair era policy of importing as much cheap labour from the poorer parts of Europe as possible.

Whether that was sustainable in the long run, even with mooted EU expansion, is another question.

Ultimately Britain has become a nation made of sacred cows, with too many sectional interest groups to ever actually change anything given the demographics of the voter base. (Median age of the electorate is now 49-50)

 

[jon0844]

Like it or not, we need people to do lower paid jobs. Maintaining a decent minimum wage, worker rights, and affordable housing would allow people on lower incomes to live an acceptable life and not need to be told they should eat for 30p a day by patronising idiots like Lee Anderson - and a lot of EU sourced workers don't intend to settle here forever - but when they are here, they're paying taxes and contributing to the economy, as well as keeping the economy going strong by having sufficiently staffed hospitality sectors, health/care facilities etc.

We've imported labour since the 50s and 60s and will continue to do so, which means we've gained very little by restricting freedom of movement - which is also limiting the movement of our citizens abroad to live or work. Of course, the rich can easily get visas, or literally buy citizenship if they have enough money to 'invest', so they aren't impacted by the changes.

They also have the means to live in multiple countries to get around restrictions and often save on paying taxes.

Us mere mortals can't do the same.

 

[HSTEd]

Like it or not, we need people to do lower paid jobs.

The problem is the UK does not appear to be doing anything to minimise the number of people doing low value work.
Whenever such impacts are brought about by the open market, for example the rise of online retail or automated checkouts, or decline in cash acceptance, people complain and demand more public money be spent to distort the market to preserve the status quo.

The reality, is as we slip into demographic transition we can expect automation to pervade throughout the economy.

The only solution that British industry has resorted to for the last 20 years is to acquire more cheap labour to throw at the problem, which is why our productivity growth has been near zero since 2004.
Solving the housing crisis itself will be a challenge given the institutional apparatus is designed to force houses to be built to look like they are from the 1970s, albeit worse in most ways.

 

[jon0844]

Businesses are going to do everything they can to reduce staffing numbers regardless.

It matters not what they're paid. Even highly-paid lawyers, surveyors, architects etc could find much of their work replaced by computers, although I do think it's quite likely the Government will be lobbied hard to do everything they can to stop AI and automation impacting certain professions.

 

[nw1]

The problem is the UK does not appear to be doing anything to minimise the number of people doing low value work.
Whenever such impacts are brought about by the open market, for example the rise of online retail or automated checkouts, or decline in cash acceptance, people complain and demand more public money be spent to distort the market to preserve the status quo.

The reality, is as we slip into demographic transition we can expect automation to pervade throughout the economy.

And is that good for us?

Minimising people doing "low value work" by taking their jobs away and throwing them on the dole instead is scarcely a good idea. For one thing, it's less tax income and a bigger welfare bill.

We need to preserve the status quo in this respect, as livelihoods depend on it. I think many of us have seen quite enough change to last a lifetime in the past three years since Covid and Brexit, and wish to see the preservation of what remains of the "old normal".

To this end, Labour could do themselves a favour by standing on a "more regulation for automation and AI, to preserve jobs" platform. They'd probably gain more votes than they would lose that way.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Aug 2023 ==

Businesses are going to do everything they can to reduce staffing numbers regardless.

It matters not what they're paid. Even highly-paid lawyers, surveyors, architects etc could find much of their work replaced by computers, although I do think it's quite likely the Government will be lobbied hard to do everything they can to stop AI and automation impacting certain professions.

Indeed, and a good thing too. The danger to the jobs market of generative AI, and potential mass unemployment on a scale not seen in recent times, is arguably a very serious concern and we should not just take the free-market "just let it happen" attitude, just because that's been the political norm of late. Of course, it should be all jobs which are preserved, including the lower-paid ones; not just the lawyers and architects!

Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of good uses of AI, to help humanity as a whole, and these uses should be promoted - but using AI to dispose of jobs is not a good one.


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Aug 2023 ==

So the £2 fare scheme on the buses in England which has been in place since January isn't classed as subsiding public transport?

Welcome but, I suspect, temporary.

 

[HSTEd]

And is that good for us?

Minimising people doing "low value work" by taking their jobs away and throwing them on the dole instead is scarcely a good idea. For one thing, it's less tax income and a bigger welfare bill.

We need to preserve the status quo in this respect, as livelihoods depend on it. I think many of us have seen quite enough change to last a lifetime in the past three years since Covid and Brexit, and wish to see the preservation of what remains of the "old normal".



To this end, Labour could do themselves a favour by standing on a "more regulation for automation and AI, to preserve jobs" platform. They'd probably gain more votes than they would lose that way.

We are in the middle of a crippling labour shortage!
Unemployment is near historic lows.

Almost everyone made redundant would rapidly find a new job elsewhere in the economy.

Maintaining the status quo in such employment merely leads to the growth of large caste of people living in penury who are paid very little for their labour, because that is the only way people can afford to employ them.

Combined with the reality that the labour shortage is only going to get worse due to the impeding demographic cliff, and such a policy is a recipe for rapidly declining living standards and an economic death spiral.