Love the longer hair Rachel and the smiles!

Thank you PaynesGray. Please continue with your rebuttals.

GG13

Didn’t the last Government change the law so that anyone arriving in the UK without the appropriate documentation or through legal routes was classed as an illegal immigrant

You are referring to The Illegal Migration Act 2023 which never come fully into force particularly the core "duty to remove” section. Why didn't it? Because the then Secretary of State Suella Braverman could not comply with this duty as she has nowhere to send most people, not least because under Brexit, the UK had taken itself out of the Dublin agreement.

The Rwanda scheme was a £700 million dead duck, Just days before Sunak announced the General Election, Rwanda admitted that, contrary to the tens of thousands of people he claimed would be sent, it was only going to take around 200 people accommodated in the Hope Hostel.

It is now being used for deportees from the USA.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckg4xp2my0vo

The Act was poorly thought out as Free Movement explain:

freemovement.org.uk/the-illegal-migration-act-2023-what-has-changed/

See the paragraph starts: It is difficult to understand the process envisaged by bringing these sections into force now. and Anyone in this situation … It is unclear how long the Home Office will leave this group of people in the inadmissibility process without considering their claims, but their claims will need to be considered at some point, and some form of leave granted where necessary …

You will see now why the Tories virtually stopped processing people. They didn’t know how to process their own law.

The Act has now been repealed and replaced with the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill which is now at the Report Stage in the House of Lords.

Twelve stages to date: bills.parliament.uk/bills/3929

bills.parliament.uk/publications/62877/documents/7140

Contrary to people claiming Labour are doing nothing about irregular migration, they are. I am getting a sense of déjà vu here as I think I have explained all this before, but the Bill had its first reading on 30 January 2025. Considering the complexity of it and the amount of time lost annually to Parliamentary recesses and conference season, that it’s got to the stage it is at now in nine months is remarkable.

Recess dates: www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/house-of-commons-faqs/business-faq-page/recess-dates/

How many people will bother to read what I have just taken the time to set out will probably be few. The thread wasn’t about migration anyway. I just happened to mention it in the context of the long list of costly problems that the Tories left behind for Labour to try to resolve. Nevertheless, I feel it’s right to rebut the repeated ill-informed comments we get here about migration.

Cutting spending depresses the economy.

Oh! We agree!
😀

Allira

MaizieD

Allira

fancythat

Anniebach

How can the legacy of the disastrous conservative government of 14 years be solved

By cutting spending by 15%

No I havent done the figures so dont know if that is too much or too little.

But no one will agree.
No, I am not going to discuss it with any posters, as no one will agree anyway.
That old thing of overspending and wastage.
But it wont happen anyway.

But that is what needs to happen.

You're right.

Spending stimulates the economy, or so I thought.
So much of our infrastructure needs more expenditure, creating jobs.

How is she right?

Cutting spending depresses the economy.

Can't you remember what happened when Osborne cut spending?

I can. My DH lost his job because the company he was working for lost the work it did for government projects.

Cutting spending made the post GFC depression last for much longer than it should have.

How is she right?

Because fancythst said no-one will agree with her statement thst it can be solved By cutting spending by 15%
Then said:
But no one will agree.
And I said "You're right".

Then I said
Spending stimulates the economy, or so I thought.
So much of our infrastructure needs more expenditure, creating jobs.

Perhaps you missed that in your haste to disagree with me.

MaizieD

Allira

fancythat

Anniebach

How can the legacy of the disastrous conservative government of 14 years be solved

By cutting spending by 15%

No I havent done the figures so dont know if that is too much or too little.

But no one will agree.
No, I am not going to discuss it with any posters, as no one will agree anyway.
That old thing of overspending and wastage.
But it wont happen anyway.

But that is what needs to happen.

You're right.

Spending stimulates the economy, or so I thought.
So much of our infrastructure needs more expenditure, creating jobs.

How is she right?

Cutting spending depresses the economy.

Can't you remember what happened when Osborne cut spending?

I can. My DH lost his job because the company he was working for lost the work it did for government projects.

Cutting spending made the post GFC depression last for much longer than it should have.

How is she right?

Because fancythst said no-one will agree with her statement thst it can be solved By cutting spending by 15%
Then said:
But no one will agree.
And I said "You're right".

PaynesGrey

Teazel and sundowngirl. I am not swallowing any line. Perhaps familiarise yourself with the law. There is no such thing as an "illegal" person seeking asylum. Under international law, anyone has the right to apply for asylum in any country that has signed the 1951 Refugee Convention and to remain there until the authorities have assessed their claim.

Didn’t the last Government change the law so that anyone arriving in the UK without the appropriate documentation or through legal routes was classed as an illegal immigrant

dayvidg

PaynesGrey

dayvidg

PaynesGrey
'Reeves increased employers NIC from 13.8% to 15% a 1.2% increase'

I make that an 8.7% increase!

How?

15 divided by 13.8 x 100 = 8.69

What?

Would you agree that if the price of something increases from £13 to £15 it increases by £2?

Therefore if the price of something increases from £13.80 to £15.00 it increases by £1.20.

£100 x 13.8% = £13.80. £100 x 15% = £15.00. The increase is £1.20. £100 x 1.2% £1.20.

Allira

fancythat

Anniebach

How can the legacy of the disastrous conservative government of 14 years be solved

By cutting spending by 15%

No I havent done the figures so dont know if that is too much or too little.

But no one will agree.
No, I am not going to discuss it with any posters, as no one will agree anyway.
That old thing of overspending and wastage.
But it wont happen anyway.

But that is what needs to happen.

You're right.

Spending stimulates the economy, or so I thought.
So much of our infrastructure needs more expenditure, creating jobs.

How is she right?

Cutting spending depresses the economy.

Can't you remember what happened when Osborne cut spending?

I can. My DH lost his job because the company he was working for lost the work it did for government projects.

Cutting spending made the post GFC depression last for much longer than it should have.

No, I am not going to discuss it with any posters, as no one will agree anyway.
So why post? I'm just puzzled.

fancythat

Anniebach

How can the legacy of the disastrous conservative government of 14 years be solved

By cutting spending by 15%

No I havent done the figures so dont know if that is too much or too little.

But no one will agree.
No, I am not going to discuss it with any posters, as no one will agree anyway.
That old thing of overspending and wastage.
But it wont happen anyway.

But that is what needs to happen.

You're right.

Spending stimulates the economy, or so I thought.
So much of our infrastructure needs more expenditure, creating jobs.

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Full disclosure.
I read the thread title and thought we were talking about a completely different Rachel. ◀️

That's a very enigmatic smile! What is she planning in the Budget?

🤔

Anniebach

How can the legacy of the disastrous conservative government of 14 years be solved

By cutting spending by 15%

No I havent done the figures so dont know if that is too much or too little.

But no one will agree.
No, I am not going to discuss it with any posters, as no one will agree anyway.
That old thing of overspending and wastage.
But it wont happen anyway.

But that is what needs to happen.

Teazel and sundowngirl. I am not swallowing any line. Perhaps familiarise yourself with the law. There is no such thing as an "illegal" person seeking asylum. Under international law, anyone has the right to apply for asylum in any country that has signed the 1951 Refugee Convention and to remain there until the authorities have assessed their claim.

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Full disclosure.
I read the thread title and thought we were talking about a completely different Rachel. ◀️

Fabulous hair 👍🏻

PaynesGrey

dayvidg

PaynesGrey
'Reeves increased employers NIC from 13.8% to 15% a 1.2% increase'

I make that an 8.7% increase!

How?

15 divided by 13.8 x 100 = 8.69

Full disclosure.
I read the thread title and thought we were talking about a completely different Rachel. ◀️

Illegal immigration as opposed to legal migration

Teazel2

PaynesGrey

Labour came to power in 2024 in a snap election. We’d had 14 years of austerity the tail end of which was catastrophically damaging Brexit, a lethal pandemic swiftly followed by a cost of living crisis and record energy prices - the latter three major issues where the previous government provided funds to keep businesses and families afloat.

Everybody here in a pensioner household will have had at least £1,000 help - EBSS of £400 and a WFP boosted by £300 for two consecutive years. All households received EBSS. The cost of those two bits of help alone cost around £17-18 billion.

Interest rates rocketed as result of the soaring inflation.

On top of that we had the irregular migration issue where from 2022 the Tories had just stuck asylum seekers in hotels, awarding lucrative contracts to private businesses while they virtually stopping processing asylum applications.

On top of all this, almost the first thing the new government had to tackle was the FarageRiots swiftly followed by the election of Trump and the many challenges he presented with his toddler tariff tantrums.

And yet people expect the mess to be resolved in 16 months. They gripe constantly about the state of the NHS and yet when Reeves raises extra funds for it they complain about that too.

Yes, I am aware of the different monetary theories and that there are other ways but this is the way that goverments do it - they treat the economy as books that have to be balanced.

We have a costly ageing popualtion, around a quarter of the working age population not working and around 30% of children living in poverty.

How would critics address all this?

‘Irregular immigration issue’

You really have swallowed Labour speak, hook, line and sinker.

What would you call it?

The capitalist system in which we live depends on consumers (that's everyone who buys anything, both individuals, institutions and the state)) for profits and growth. the prime reason for lack of growth in our economy is the fact that a very significant number of consumers are becoming more and more impoverished or … (I stopped you there MaizieD to insert my take)

“Squirrelling away savings”. 🤷‍♀️

I read an article last week in which it was pointed out that savings accounts in the UK are at an all time high. People are very wary about what Reeves has planned so they aren’t spending (or only cautiously) other than essentials.

Interesting.

PaynesGrey

Labour came to power in 2024 in a snap election. We’d had 14 years of austerity the tail end of which was catastrophically damaging Brexit, a lethal pandemic swiftly followed by a cost of living crisis and record energy prices - the latter three major issues where the previous government provided funds to keep businesses and families afloat.

Everybody here in a pensioner household will have had at least £1,000 help - EBSS of £400 and a WFP boosted by £300 for two consecutive years. All households received EBSS. The cost of those two bits of help alone cost around £17-18 billion.

Interest rates rocketed as result of the soaring inflation.

On top of that we had the irregular migration issue where from 2022 the Tories had just stuck asylum seekers in hotels, awarding lucrative contracts to private businesses while they virtually stopping processing asylum applications.

On top of all this, almost the first thing the new government had to tackle was the FarageRiots swiftly followed by the election of Trump and the many challenges he presented with his toddler tariff tantrums.

And yet people expect the mess to be resolved in 16 months. They gripe constantly about the state of the NHS and yet when Reeves raises extra funds for it they complain about that too.

Yes, I am aware of the different monetary theories and that there are other ways but this is the way that goverments do it - they treat the economy as books that have to be balanced.

We have a costly ageing popualtion, around a quarter of the working age population not working and around 30% of children living in poverty.

How would critics address all this?

‘Irregular immigration issue’

You really have swallowed Labour speak, hook, line and sinker.

Thanks PaynesGrey until the Labour government does something to stop contractors having to dig deeply into their savings to pay tax on future earnings, perhaps DH should properly retire?

1p on income tax would go a way towards improving public services. However, governments are terrified of the backlash that will be caused because no one wants to pay more tax, yet they moan like hell when there are potholes and there are long NHS waiting lists. Anyone who thinks Brexit has had no effect on our economy is seriously deluded.

ronib

The big story is that some freelance workers have been made liable to pay both the employer’s NIC and the employee’s….. this defies all logic but there we are!

Ah! You need to understand why umbrella companies came about. Go back to Tory tax policy in the 1990s and the tax avoidance that resulted from that to understand what is happening now.

www.fcsa.org.uk/the-genesis-of-umbrella-companies/

The Labour goverment is taking steps to change things:

www.gov.uk/government/publications/umbrella-companies-tackling-non-compliance-in-the-umbrella-company-market/umbrella-companies-tackling-non-compliance-in-the-umbrella-company-market

Nice hair shame about some\ many of her policies!
At least she's relatively approachable unlike the very precious, pretentious Ms fillet steak, Kemi!
Oddly MrIlovedogs goes all unnecessary when Kemi graces us with her rarefied presence on the box! 🤔

The big story is that some freelance workers have been made liable to pay both the employer’s NIC and the employee’s….. this defies all logic but there we are!