Spin Time

[matticus]

That's part of the problem. It's easy for Farage and the Mail to exaggerate the numbers and make out that all refugees are criminals. Asylum seeker is synonymous with murderer / rapist in many people's minds.

Just out of camera shot here is Farage wetting himself with admiration:

 

[matticus]

... and let's us not forget this fine gesture from the Tories:

Fri 7 Jul 2023
Robert Jenrick has cartoon murals painted over at children’s asylum centre

Paintings were considered too welcoming at Kent centre for lone children arriving in UK

 

[Psamathe]

From the people I've spoken to, it seems that many are upset about so many people coming over here on boats and being put up in hotels. it doesn't help that fake/one-sided videos are being put up on social media.

It would help a lot of our political classes (incl. Labour) stopped conflating "asylum seekers" and "migration". People get upset when "migration" figures are released but then interpret that as people arriving seeking asylum (eg in boats). Politicians make a big deal about asylum seekers arriving in boats but the numbers are quite manageable particularly if we processed their claims in a realistic timeframe. Big "immigration" numbers are those we are granting visas to.

We could reduce asylum seeker hotel bills by processing their claims in a reasonable timeframe (except to the long term contracts without sensibel break clauses that the Conservatives setup).

Similarly Government could start talking about finding staff for care, NHS, nurses, etc. being recruited from overseas and less of the "migration is too high which is why we're smashing the gangs and stopping the boats" (conflating again).

It's madness when our educational establishments (Universities) are financially dependent of overseas student fees. Start funding our University system properly and they'd not be needing to bring in anybody with $$$ to avoid bankruptcy.

Ian

 

[CXRAndy]

It’s really easy being a populist opposition politician.
Talk nonsense with no responsibility or consequences.

That's what Starmer did before the elections

 

[icowden]

That's what Starmer Sunak did before the elections

FTFY

Starmer made almost no announcement on policy, plans, manifesto.

So far they have done little on No.1 and No.2. No.3 is a pointless waste of money. No.4 is going well. No.5 is meaningless. No.6 hasn't manifested yet.

Weak pledges and no plans on how to achieve them - other than energy where Ed is doing a great job.

 

[CXRAndy]

I think he promised not to raise taxes and bills, but he raised both


View: https://x.com/ChrisMid/status/1883952770501497071?t=virmzHRJ68IV-TwEvR86zQ&s=19

 

[All uphill]

We need to do a lot more to hit home the message that asylum seekers are desperate people seeking help.

And offering their energy and skills to our moribund economy.

 

[icowden]

I think he promised not to raise taxes and bills, but he raised both

A small detail, but your shootpost is shoot as per usual. That isn't what he promised. What was said was in 2023 - "If Labour were in power we would freeze council tax for 2023".

They weren't. They couldn't. They didn't.

But you stick to your crapformation.

 

[CXRAndy]

Yeah yeah, go Labour 👍

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

It would help a lot of our political classes (incl. Labour) stopped conflating "asylum seekers" and "migration". People get upset when "migration" figures are released but then interpret that as people arriving seeking asylum (eg in boats). Politicians make a big deal about asylum seekers arriving in boats but the numbers are quite manageable particularly if we processed their claims in a realistic timeframe. Big "immigration" numbers are those we are granting visas to.

That's a bit rich right? So far i known every council has a problem called ''housing shortage'' because there are not enough houses. So even if it are 10 refugees per day, (randomnumber since you fail the qualify what ''quite manageable seems to be) it's to much, solve the problems of the current population first before thinking of others.

It's madness when our educational establishments (Universities) are financially dependent of overseas student fees. Start funding our University system properly and they'd not be needing to bring in anybody with $$$ to avoid bankruptcy.

Ian

Or maybe check their books? maybe they are simply spending to much on BS?

 

[Stevo 666]

Exactly if it has a target audience, then it is propaganda. I've seen enough right wing propaganda to last me ta.

What with that and Laffer's curve - give me a break.

Unfortunately for you the Laffer curve is a real thing and I can explain if you want to understand.

Otherwise why not just raise the rate to 110% to punish the evil rich and nasty big corporates and watch the cash roll in? 😉

 

[Stevo 666]

That's what Starmer did before the elections

And what the Fib Dums have always done.

 

[briantrumpet]

Unfortunately for you the Laffer curve is a real thing and I can explain if you want to understand.

Otherwise why not just raise the rate to 110% to punish the evil rich and nasty big corporates and watch the cash roll in? 😉

I know that you'll be delighted if I characterise your "110%" comment as reductio ad absurdum. No-one's suggested that, so it's also a straw man.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

On the contrary, diligent application of the Laffer curve in the past has actually led to controversial outcomes. Since its proposal, there have been several real-life trials of modelling the Laffer curve and its consequent application, which have resulted in the finding that tax rates, which are actually utilised by the governing body, are to the left of the Laffer curve turning point, which would maximise tax revenue. More significantly, the result of several experiments, which tried to adjust the tax rate to the one proposed by the Laffer curve model, resulted in a significant decrease in national tax revenue - lowering the economy's tax rate led to an increase in the government budget deficit. The occurrence of this phenomenon is most famously attributed to the Reagan administration (1981–1989), during which the government deficit increased by approx. $2 trillion.[65]

I know you'd like to claim that giving already-rich people more money means they spend it and that benefits poorer people, but 'trickle-down economics' is just a con to justify tax cuts for very rich people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics

But as you were very enthusiastic about Liz Truss's proposed tax cuts to be paid for by borrowing, and your general dislike of tax, I guess we shouldn't be surprised at your point of view re the Laffer Curve.

 

[Stevo 666]

I know that you'll be delighted if I characterise your "110%" comment as reductio ad absurdum. No-one's suggested that, so it's also a straw man.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve



I know you'd like to claim that giving already-rich people more money means they spend it and that benefits poorer people, but 'trickle-down economics' is just a con to justify tax cuts for very rich people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics

But as you were very enthusiastic about Liz Truss's proposed tax cuts to be paid for by borrowing, and your general dislike of tax, I guess we shouldn't be surprised at your point of view re the Laffer Curve.

I exaggerated to make a point as I'm sure you're aware. Same offer to you Brian, happy to explain it. As you know, I'm fairly familiar with the underlying subject matter 😉

 

[briantrumpet]

I exaggerated to make a point as I'm sure you're aware. Same offer to you Brian, happy to explain it. As you know, I'm fairly familiar with the underlying subject matter 😉

Please do try - I'll be interested to see your working on how Reagan's experiment was a tremendous success despite adding $3tn to the US debt.