Slight distraction to Brexit.
But it isn’t. When ending Freedom of Movement, something that has only occurred because of Brexit… we made a recruitment problem in our struggling care and health systems even worse by deterring workers. Where do the workers come from now? That question needs still answering. It isn’t going away.
Anyway, is another London Mayor lining up his approach to try and get the PM job…?
If Sadiq Khan wants to be PM he's going to need to look a bit healthier. He looks like and anaemic zombie.
but none of us know what later life will bring us
Failing health, misery, depression, death. That's about it isn't it? 😀
As I've proposed before, give everyone a suicide pill at age 75 and reward them for using it by waiving inheritance tax on their estate, or for those below the IT threshold, pay the estate half the average health care cost for over-75s til death. Problem solved.
So, do you armchair experts really think that you know more about what’s best for Labour than the people who analyse and research this exact topic for a living, all day every day? Just wondering.
First thing you have to do is decide what the best outcome is. If you use the narrow definition of 'get the most seats possible at a general election' then I have no doubt they are doing what is 'best'.
However, I also have no doubt the Labour party will happily sacrifice doing what's best for the country in order to do what's best for the party.
If we subscribe to the theory that many on here are putting forward that once Labour are in power SKS will start moving toward the SM/CU/EU then he really will just be confirming to the electorate that all politicians lie and they are all the same. Definitely not good for the country.
If he gets elected and then does what he says and stays away from the SM/CU/EU then he will be harming the country in the name of maximizing the number of MPs returned.
I want to see Labour saying they are going to move toward the SM/CU and then actually doing it after getting elected. It might not be best for the party but it will be best for the country.
Given that politicians putting party before country is a large part of the reason the UK is where it is now I'd be happy to see less party first politics.
But it isn’t. When ending Freedom of Movement, something that has only occurred because of Brexit… we made a recruitment problem in our struggling care and health systems even worse by deterring workers. Where do the workers come from now? That question needs still answering. It isn’t going away.
No, that does not solve the problem. My view is that at that time there was economy or other incentive provided to attract workforce from other regions. It can still be done if there is better provision in terms of employment rules.
It can still be done if there is better provision in terms of employment rules.
Okay, so you answer is “make the UK a more inviting and easier place for people to come to from all over the world”…? If so, fair enough. You could have said that earlier. How do we make that happen?
My view is that at that time there was economy or other incentive provided to attract workforce from other regions.
If we incentivise people from other regions to relocate, why not bring in people from other countries? What's the difference?
I took him to mean other regions of the World. If they do mean that, it seems a sound practical approach, even if it’s not what other people wanting FoM to end sought or expect to happen.
Just a reminder that every Brexit voted for was different.
Okay, so you answer is “make the UK a more inviting and easier place for people to come to from all over the world”…? If so, fair enough. You could have said that earlier. How do we make that happen?
There must be a filtering process in place to avoid system being abused. Remember if the young people in the UK are not interested in the sector, I think it is the same for people from other places (the world and not just EU). How? The govt or people who need care have to pay for that unfortunately otherwise nobody want to work in the sector.
If we incentivise people from other regions to relocate, why not bring in people from other countries? What’s the difference?
The difference is that if the care is local then it might be more affordable since provision is already in place. For example, some of the basic infrastructure for the local carers are already in place, and providing care is just something extra that can be compensated via financial incentive in the form of tax, allowances etc to make up a living or good wage. Whereas if you get someone from other countries you need to provide an entirely "new" infrastructure for them. i.e. place to stay (unless live in carers), health provision, since they themselves might need care too if they fall ill.
and providing care is just something extra that can be compensated via financial incentive in the form of tax, allowances etc to make up a living or good wage
How about we just pay carers a higher salary instead of bringing in arbitrary and administratively complex tax breaks?
Whereas if you get someone from other countries you need to provide an entirely “new” infrastructure for them.
So people relocating from somewhere else in the UK don't need housing, schools, healthcare etc? If you bring people into an area from somewhere else you will need more local services. That applies whether they're coming from the UK or another country.
I want to see Labour saying they are going to move toward the SM/CU and then actually doing it after getting elected. It might not be best for the party but it will be best for the country.
That's what I'd LIKE. That would be the 'honest' thing to do. It also relies hugely on the country 'fessing up to the mistakes that have been made over the last 6 or so years, which I don't think we have the ability to do. In fact, rather than a general movement, it relies on the most anti-EU parts of the country holding their hands up and saying they've been duped. I don't see any prospect of that.
Consequently, I fear it would risk another Tory government and I don't think it's worth the risk.
How about we just pay carers a higher salary instead of bringing in arbitrary and administratively complex tax breaks?
Need both to be in place because not everyone fits into one category.
So people relocating from somewhere else in the UK don’t need housing, schools, healthcare etc? If you bring people into an area from somewhere else you will need more local services. That applies whether they’re coming from the UK or another country.
True, but I suspect people don't move around that often.
Wise not to mention Germany come the election, but shifting power away from central government in the way Labour proposals lay out looks a lot like a move towards the federal system they have there
Bring it on, along with the death of the charity sector at home because we pay our taxes and a revenue that puts the fear of god into evaders/avoiders like the Finanzampt. Charity abroad should still be in place but it has no place in UK, we're a (nominally) rich, first world country.
True, but I suspect people don’t move around that often.
Oh, I gave the chewkw the benefit of the doubt, silly me. I didn’t think anyone would propose that the solution to the ageing population of a county was to just shuffle people around the regions within it.
True, but I suspect people don’t move around that often.
So it's not a solution then, because that's what it would require. It's a pretty simple problem. We need more carers, nurses and doctors. If there are enough people in the UK to do the job but don't want to then the solution is to pay them more, and to sort out public services and infrastructure to support a mobile workforce, that needs lots of govt spending. If there are not enough people in the UK to do it - which I'm pretty sure is the case - then we need to bring people in from other countries. We almost certainly need to do both. Either way if we want a functioning social care system, and also a functioning health system in the short term then it needs lots of money spending and lots of immigration. Two things that the average brexiteer doesn't seem to want. 🤷♂️
I agree.
Why isn't every NHS worker that's interviewed on telly saying they were promised £350 million a week?
We need to get the message across that the money is there waiting to be spent or we were lied to.
Starmer should be shouting it from the ****ing rooftops.
The government would just argue that extra money is being spent on the NHS… 6 years of inflation (higher for medical equipment etc) probably means that in cash terms it is… but that’s not enough… not even an increase taking into inflation is enough… it needs extra money (and staff) to cope with our ageing population and additional needs (Covid). See above.
yeh but then covid, and Ukraine, and...... of course it was a lie all along but it's too easily deflected now.
Focus has to remain on the actual current incompetence and sleaze of the existing administration, not the discredited past.
Given that politicians putting party before country is a large part of the reason the UK is where it is now I’d be happy to see less party first politics.
But... Getting Tories out, and by extension Labour in, IS in the county's best interests at this point. I don't see how you can blame Labour for saying whatever it takes to get elected. That's just how democracy works in the system we have. There is no point creating the perfect plan to fix things if people won't a xept it and vote for it.
It's no good saying 'oh but they will vote for it, because it's the best idea'. That's just dreaming. Voters aren't rational.
But… Getting Tories out, and by extension Labour in, IS in the county’s best interests at this point.
I don't think Labour's lead is so precarious that they have to handicap themselves by either:
a) Lying to the electorate which is not good for the country given the main driver of the state the UK is the 'they're all the same' and 'they all lie' attitude of the Great British public.
or
b) Hamstringing themselves as to how much they can actually do by ruling out aligning with the SM/CU (not to mention all the household budget analogies) which is also not good for the country
With a 20 point lead they could at least try to be honest.
And if that didn't work they could just turn around and flat out lie about everything again. We could safely assume the electorate were so stupid they wouldn't notice.
With a 20 point lead they could at least try to be honest.
We are not joining the SM or CU in the next parliamentary term, of ever, if Labour win. Nor would we be if they didn’t make that clear before the next election. That is honest. Dangling the hope that we might be in one, or both, in the near future would not be honest. It would take a decade or more of negotiations, confidence and trust building, and realignment. Moving closer to Europe is a series of small steps, it is not the one big jump that Brexit was (yes, four years is a fast pace change for something with so much scope, in both international and domestic turns that is a big jump in very short order).
We are not joining the SM or CU in the next parliamentary term, if ever, if Labour win. Nor would be if they didn’t make that clear before the next election. That is honest.
Yeah, I'm struggling to see what the barrier is.
What's being made clear to me is that Scotland is going to be independent within the next 5 years. This thread shows that Scotland and England have diverged far too much to continue as a United Kingdom.
The SNP (and Greens) are pushing for independence and a closer relationship with Europe… both possible… but not within five years. Even if a vote to support it happens within that time frame, it can’t/won’t be enacted over night. It would/will also take a least a decade from now to get to the point Scotland is in the SM&CU (whether that means membership or something looser, at least at first).
To be clear… I would love the whole of the UK to be in the EU, or as cooperative with it as possible to achieve something that puts us in the SM in CU if not full members, but there is no point fighting the next general election in England on that issue… it isn’t deliverable. To promise it would be a lie. We need to stop divergence, stabilise what’s happening in NI, and show to be a willing partner with the others countries first, and this will take time. The relative speed of Brexit has mislead people about how slow the EU operates, and how long the journey ahead is for a UK changing its mind about Europe (again).
It would/will also take a least a decade from now to get to the point Scotland is in the SM&CU (whether that means membership or something looser, at least at first).
Where are you getting your time frames from?
How long do you think it takes for a new country to join the EU, or agree deals that let it operate as if inside the CU or SM? How do you unwind/update the trade deals we have made in order to share an external trade border with other EU/EEA states? I think my guesses about timescales are best possible outcomes, not pessimistic ones. The journey ahead is slow and long. Adding in Scottish independence (which I agree is likely to happen) doesn’t present much of a short cut… dividing up the UK won’t be quick either.
Why is indyref 2 any more likely in the next few years than it has been before?
How long do you think it takes for a new country to join the EU, or agree deals that let it operate as if inside the CU or SM?
Not long to join the EFTA, I would assume. Two years after independence seems like a reasonable time frame, if it even takes that long.
What do you see as being the major stumbling blocks to joining the EFTA?
Why is indyref 2 any more likely in the next few years than it has been before?
The next election is going to be a de facto referendum.
Two years? No chance. Took Finland, what, three decades? Five years seems possible for Scotland if there is an unusual amount of support and agreement between all countries (and there could well be). You going to need at least two years to implement an agreement to facilitate joining, and several to get the agreement before you even start. For whole UK…? Lots to do before we even contemplate asking all the countries to consider us. 10 years seems an optimistic guess to me. You wouldn’t get unilateral agreement to even start talks right now… would you?
True, but I suspect people don’t move around that often.
Oh, I gave the chewkw the benefit of the doubt, silly me. I didn’t think anyone would propose that the solution to the ageing population of a county was to just shuffle people around the regions within it.
(was out for a while just now)
I was referring to those need care.
Moving the people who need care around the country, to where these missing extra care workers are hiding? Rightio…
Two years? No chance. Took Finland, what, three decades? Five years seems possible for Scotland if there is an unusual amount of support and agreement between all countries (and there could well be).
Finland joined the EFTA in 1986 so assuming they started banging on the door as soon as it came about then 25 years. I don't think they spent 25 years trying to join the EFTA. I don't actually know when they first tried to join the EFTA.
And of course, they hadn't spent the previous 6 decades being members of the EFTA and EU.
The next election is going to be a de facto referendum.
Edit,
I’m with some other posters on this from other threads, that carrots stick isn’t getting shorter
So, what year do you think an Indy Scotland could be operating in the SM & CU? Wind in sales guess…?
So, what year do you think an Indy Scotland could be operating in the SM & CU? Wind in sales guess…?
I think it would be in Norway's interests to have Scotland as a member of the EFTA and I can't see any other country in the EFTA that would have an objection.
Take the tipex that Westminster used to cross out 'EU Rules' and replaced with 'The Big Book of Great British Rules' and write 'EU Rules' again.
So saying all that, two years after independence at the most.
If you've got anything specific you think would be a blocker I could have look at it.
So what year?
So what year?
Dunno, depends on how many years of civil disobedience and non-lethal terrorism are required to allow Scotland to be independent, given the somewhat unofficial nature of a de facto referendum.
Should give SKS a good enemy to unite the English against so at least he won't have to worry about the Tories at the following election.
Dunno, depends
So, my guess of a decade that you took issue with… takes us to 2033… do really think either Scotland or the UK can be in the SM/CU sooner than that? Only NI has a route back in that could take less than a decade from now, that I can see (via unification with an EU state). Hope isn’t enough.
That question needs still answering. It isn’t going away.
The brexiteers did answer this question. From outside Europe.
Or at least that was one of the subcampaigns (the key advantage of brexiteers was the offering mutually exclusive things to different groups) with the "save our curry house" campaign amongst others.
Dunno, depends on how many years of civil disobedience and non-lethal terrorism are required to allow Scotland to be independent, given the somewhat unofficial nature of a de facto referendum.
Unless the people are the "citizen" of Scotland it makes no difference whatsoever to anyone in other part of UK. Nil.
Or at least that was one of the subcampaigns (the key advantage of brexiteers was the offering mutually exclusive things to different groups) with the “save our curry house” campaign amongst others.
Yeah, and I remember that one of multiple contradictory Brexit campaigns… I thought that was what he was going with… but no… shipping people with care needs around the country chasing not enough workers. Personally, I’m not keen on that when it’s prisoners, never mind friends and family with care needs.
Appears Sturgeon is back pedalling on the 2024 GE being a de facto infyref.
https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/nicola-sturgeon-bottled-it-snp-28952655
So, my guess of a decade that you took issue with… takes us to 2033… do really think either Scotland or the UK can be in the SM/CU sooner than that? Only NI has a route back in that could take less than a decade from now.
Well, you said a decade of trying to get in (or at least you never specified that you meant how long to get out of the UK and into the EFTA).
Scotland getting into the EFTA should be relatively simple unless I'm missing something obvious. The UK getting into the EFTA is more complicated. For the UK a Swiss style bilateral deal would make more sense, imo. It would mean getting the tipex out again though.
Anyway, the unknown is Westminster. That's where the time frame uncertainty comes in.
I can't answer how long independence will take because I don't know just how committed to obstructing democracy Westminster is.
Appears Sturgeon is back pedalling on the 2024 GE being a de facto infyref.
Yep, beginning of the end for her, I reckon.
I just don't think the appetite to allow the SNP another decade with the snouts at the trough is there. And I don't think disillusionment with the SNP is going to translate to a bump in support for Unionist parties.
I think a more radical leadership is going to take over the SNP or their support is going to flood to parties who are in favour of a de facto referendum.
But… Getting Tories out,
Military coup then?
I hope you think thats clearly a batshit idea and I am going full out on the slippery slope fallacy.
The point though is where do we draw the line in the objective of getting the tories out?
I can blame Labour for promising everything to get in since that is how the idea they all lie and you cant trust any of them gets normalised. At that point you might as well roll a dice as to who to vote for.
Again when you look at why people voted for brexit in many cases, the subset of racists aside, it was because they had voted for a labour government and seen bugger all difference.
At which point they become vulnerable to those groups offering a change. When you have sod all and will keep getting sod all you might as well bet on the one in a million chance and not just because you are a Pratchett fan.
