The first 100 days.

Just ahead of Recess, some common sense decency - a safe route for the families who were separated during the military evacuation of refugees in 2021.

Statement made by

Seema Malhotra
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

In August 2021, following the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan, the UK undertook a military evacuation from Kabul. This evacuation is known as Operation Pitting.

During Operation Pitting, the UK Government “called forward” a number of people for evacuation. These people were identified as being particularly at risk. They included female politicians, members of the LGBT+ community, women’s rights activists and judges.

Due to the speed and the circumstances surrounding the evacuation, a number of families became separated, and some individuals were evacuated to the UK without all of their immediate family. The Government pledged at the time that there would be a route for separated families to reunite under the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme.

This Government is implementing that commitment and providing a means for families who were separated by the military evacuation from Kabul in August 2021 to be reunited in the UK.

Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme Pathway 1 Stage 2: Separated Families will open today, Tuesday 30 July. The window to submit an expression of interest will remain open for 3 months until 30 October 2024.

Those who have been resettled in the UK under Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme Pathway 1 and were evacuated during Operation Pitting without their immediate family members can submit an expression of interest under this pathway. Operation Pitting refers to the military evacuation to the UK from Afghanistan between 13 August and 28 August 2021.

Eligible individuals can submit an expression of interest for:

A spouse or unmarried partner
Their dependent children aged under 18 at the time of the evacuation.
In addition, any children who were evacuated without their parents will be able to submit an expression of interest for their parents and siblings aged under 18 at the time of the evacuation. Additional family members may be considered in exceptional circumstances.

^Of course, but they are not going to invest if they think sterling is going to fall in value, in fact they would like sterling to increase in value.

You're obsessed with the value of sterling. Amazon doesn't invest in build huge distribution centres in the UK because of the value of the pound, it does it because it sees a huge and profitable market to tap into. The more money consumers have to spend with them the better their profits.

All economic activity contributes to GDP growth.

Reeves will shrink the economy and make a lot of people poor if she insists on pursuing cuts and austerity and refuses to invest 'because govt revenue doesn't equal govt. spending'. That's her ridiculous 'fiscal rule', isn't it?

“'Investors' are notoriously unwilling to risk their money if they can't see any profit.”

Of course, but they are not going to invest if they think sterling is going to fall in value, in fact they would like sterling to increase in value. It’s not about giving consumers more to spend its growing the economy that counts, for the past 20 yrs very little has been spent on growth, the investment has not produced a return, which has led to increased borrowing AND a steady fall in the value of sterling.

Why do you not realize what has been happening, you just can’t borrow more year after year, IF Labour continue in the course they have set the economy will improve. Whatever is said about economic theories it has not been working for the UK for at least 20 yrs, almost all companies are now foreign owned which results in a continual flow of cash out of the UK.

They have said they will not increase taxes for working people, however you can be sure those that are not working will pay more, when you have 25% of working age not economically active it’s time things changed.

It was a very poor move by RR and I hope they will rethink it.

Whitewavemark2

I have just posted on the Pension thread but will repeat it here.

Reeves statement was about managing the inherited Tory current spending plans for the current year and no more. So Reeves, using Tory fiscal rules has set out what she needs to do.

To know what Labour is going to do you need to wait until the budget and spending plans in the autumn.

Everyone is getting overexcited about what is in effect managing Tory spending until the government announces new spending plans and budget in the autumn.

‘Getting over excited’
I’ll tell Mum to calm down then.🤬

MaizieD

^With regards to the Unions being Labours paymasters they still hold a lot of sway at party conference.^

Curious that you say nothing about business and finance being the paymaster of the tories GG13. Tory policy has always been to serve their interests.

If one is looking for 'balance' that is as unbalanced as 'unions being the paymasters of the Labour party'.

I agree that Conservatives are influenced by big business.

But I was discussing the Labour Party, and what they are implementing…

With regards to the Unions being Labours paymasters they still hold a lot of sway at party conference.

Curious that you say nothing about business and finance being the paymaster of the tories GG13. Tory policy has always been to serve their interests.

If one is looking for 'balance' that is as unbalanced as 'unions being the paymasters of the Labour party'.

GrannyGravy13

Thank you for this thread Whitewavemark2

I appreciate the time you have spent on it 👍

Been a pleasure

Good to argue agreeably😄

Thank you for this thread Whitewavemark2

I appreciate the time you have spent on it 👍

Today Parliament break for summer recess, so I will stop posting for the time, and hopefully begin next session with a resume of the first couple of weeks before I start on the rest of the 100 days.

MaizieD

^Everyone is getting overexcited about what is in effect managing Tory spending until the government announces new spending plans and budget in the autumn^

I'm afraid that 'cutting' money for projects that haven't yet been started probably won't get off the ground is performative and meaningless. No-one is going to lose out from this. It's virtual reality cuts.

While cutting the WFA is real and will affect significant numbers of poorer pensioners. At a saving of a paltry £1.5 billion..

In context, perhaps we should remember that the so called £20 billion shortfall represents only some 2% of the over all budget. Not a great deal in the grand scheme of things...

It was what incoming governments do thought isnt it?

Performative is the word.

Remember that in 2010 when Osborne blamed labour for what was in fact a world banking crises, and so based his austerity on the fiction of labour mismanagement, thus finds a convenient if fictitious peg on which to hang his ideological hat of small state.

At least Reeves has a better foundation on which to place her blame.

MaizieD

^Everyone is getting overexcited about what is in effect managing Tory spending until the government announces new spending plans and budget in the autumn^

I'm afraid that 'cutting' money for projects that haven't yet been started probably won't get off the ground is performative and meaningless. No-one is going to lose out from this. It's virtual reality cuts.

While cutting the WFA is real and will affect significant numbers of poorer pensioners. At a saving of a paltry £1.5 billion..

In context, perhaps we should remember that the so called £20 billion shortfall represents only some 2% of the over all budget. Not a great deal in the grand scheme of things...

Totally agree with your last paragraph.

One of the infrastructure projects in question is fairly close to me and will cause considerable disruption if it is allowed to go ahead, but when completed will be invaluable.

(Compulsory purchases have already been made on land and properties in the area)

MaizieD I agree with you that people having more money in their pockets to spend can and hopefully will benefit the economy.

With regards to the Unions being Labours paymasters they still hold a lot of sway at party conference.

Giving pay rises over and above the rate of inflation whilst removing help from pensioners is not a good look for any party.

I am wondering if public servants with large pensions will have the state pension removed?

Whitewavemark2 I listened to the interview this morning between Ed Balls (ex Labour MP and husband of Yvette Cooper) and RR.

He pointed out that the Civil Service has a duty to be accountable within the law. RR’s accusations which were repeated this morning question that.

Everyone is getting overexcited about what is in effect managing Tory spending until the government announces new spending plans and budget in the autumn

I'm afraid that 'cutting' money for projects that haven't yet been started probably won't get off the ground is performative and meaningless. No-one is going to lose out from this. It's virtual reality cuts.

While cutting the WFA is real and will affect significant numbers of poorer pensioners. At a saving of a paltry £1.5 billion..

In context, perhaps we should remember that the so called £20 billion shortfall represents only some 2% of the over all budget. Not a great deal in the grand scheme of things...

GrannyGravy13

Like I said if this was a Conservative initiative the non Tory’s on GN and elsewhere would be raging

The Labour Party asked questions of the Conservative Government demanding guarantees from them not to means test the WFA, then they do this.

RR’s is tantamount to saying the civil service has been complicit in covering up the state of UK finances…

That is exactly the opposite of what she said -re your comment about civil servants.

David49

GrannyGravy13

Taking money out of pensioners pockets along with stopping planned infrastructure projects is not and will not grow the economy or stimulate growth

It sends a negative message to any would be investors.

They will take even more out of middle income and high earners.

Investors like a tough chancellor, it means that less is wasted on projects that don’t give return at all

Do you stop to think, David that investors are only going to invest if they think they will make a profit. And who do you think they are going to make a profit from? Consumers, of course.

So if consumers have little or no money to spare after basic needs have been paid for where is investors profit to come from?

Did you not learn anything from tory 'austerity' post 2010? Ruined businesses and increased unemployment? Painfully slow recovery from recession?

'Investors' are notoriously unwilling to risk their money if they can't see any profit.

I have just posted on the Pension thread but will repeat it here.

Reeves statement was about managing the inherited Tory current spending plans for the current year and no more. So Reeves, using Tory fiscal rules has set out what she needs to do.

To know what Labour is going to do you need to wait until the budget and spending plans in the autumn.

Everyone is getting overexcited about what is in effect managing Tory spending until the government announces new spending plans and budget in the autumn.

GrannyGravy13

Whitewavemark2 in trying to blame the Conservatives for everything RR has backed herself into a corner with no way out.

Caving in to Labour’s paymasters (The Unions) whilst throwing some pensioners under the bus are not good optics

There was no stimulus to grow the economy in her draconian policies, and I hazard a guess that there will only be sticks in the autumn budget with the carrots remaining conspicuous by their absence.

I agree with your first comment, GG13. I have said all along that Labour was backing itself into a corner, but hoped that it was part of the political imperative to convince voters that Labour would be responsible with the national finances. They have had to fight the issue of 'financial responsibility' for many years.

I disagree strongly with the tory trope of 'the unions' being Labour paymasters and I find it strange coming from someone who is usually more objective. Workers have as much right to be adequately rewarded for their labour and skills as do company CEOs, bankers, etc yet somehow the latter, however poorly performing, seem to be able to race ahead in the wages stakes, while workers get left way behind. Those more left wing than me might, quite unfairly if course say that this is because business and finance are the paymasters of the tories..

Paying the proposed public sector pay increases will contribute to growth, though not as much as had the increases been accompanied by investment in infrastructure. The sum I saw projected for the pay increases was £10 billion over all cost. I'm sure that many enterprises would be happy to see some of that money coming their way.

GG13 oh dear some posters are always so keen to defend the Civil Service…. Have you caught my obsession with the Civil Service too?
So at least two people are on the right track … I am inclined to wait and see what happens in October but I would encourage everyone to start writing to their Labour MPs when the policies become clearer. Never forget that only 20 per cent of the electorate voted for Labour.
I assume policies will be clearer by then? Ever optimistic!

Like I said if this was a Conservative initiative the non Tory’s on GN and elsewhere would be raging

The Labour Party asked questions of the Conservative Government demanding guarantees from them not to means test the WFA, then they do this.

RR’s is tantamount to saying the civil service has been complicit in covering up the state of UK finances…

GrannyGravy13

Taking money out of pensioners pockets along with stopping planned infrastructure projects is not and will not grow the economy or stimulate growth

It sends a negative message to any would be investors.

They will take even more out of middle income and high earners.

Investors like a tough chancellor, it means that less is wasted on projects that don’t give return at all

Scrap plans for Social Care Cap

I’m not an accountant but I can’t see how they can save £30million pounds this year when it wasn’t coming into effect until 2025.

£30 million to just set it up?

Whitewavemark2 in trying to blame the Conservatives for everything RR has backed herself into a corner with no way out.

Caving in to Labour’s paymasters (The Unions) whilst throwing some pensioners under the bus are not good optics

There was no stimulus to grow the economy in her draconian policies, and I hazard a guess that there will only be sticks in the autumn budget with the carrots remaining conspicuous by their absence.