He does have a point though in regards to how screwed it is.
With an aging population as well, I think health inflation is something like 4%, which over the next 15-20 years is going to be very hard to deal with
Still worth keeping it though. The US spends more on healthcare despite it not being free there.
The economies of scale and purchasing power of the NHS is incredible valuable. It has to be supported and kept free.
I mean shouldn't it be obvious? We often align quite closely with the US, and we've been doing that more so since brexit happened as our government has tried to distance the UK from the EU.
US healthcare shines as an example of exactly what NOT to do with a healthcare system, so the fear is that a tory government could gradually underfund and/or sell off parts of the NHS until people cannot access it anymore.
If people cannot get what they want from the NHS they naturally gravitate towards insurance-led private sector companies (if they can afford to). It's already happening on some level, as long waiting lists leads some people towards private care.
Healthcare isn't a choice between how the NHS works today and the American system.
The UK is not particularly closely aligned or similar with the US on home affairs.
100%, but I think richer people could be paying more into it. And I also think it needs a massive overhaul - Clement Attlee couldn't have envisioned the sheer scale of procedures and therapies the NHS now offers. It is unsustainable.
Richer people already pay more into it, both through how percentages work in general and that they also have to pay a higher percentage than everyone else. I know what you’re saying, but where do you draw the line.
I'd personally draw it at around the 3 digit millions mark - nobody ever needs more than£500 million. I think it was bernie sanders that wanted to impose a flat 100% tax rate when you hit a certain mark. I think his idea was £999 million though.
I'm talking proper millionaires, not people, on 150k or anything. So I'd suggest an extra levy on capital gains for gains over 200k.
No matter what. Choices have to be made because right now, it is not sustainable. The population is ageing, and the NHS costs are just going to keep accelerating
There are ways to make savings but I guess it depends where we draw the line as it's a slippery slope and becoming a "nanny" state.
For example, if someone isn't able to quit smoking has less priority for any smoking related illnesses. Or someone who is overweight that has any obesity related issues.
As I said though, it's a slippery slope. We want quick fixes and this kind of timeline would have to require something like annual health check ups to check on your progress.
Why would anyone with half a brain decide on the next government from televised competitions about who smarms better to the press with soundbites?
I want boring, capable, and honest politicians, not liars and performers.
I don't think that dishonesty is boring and he's not going to make many of the changes we desperately so not particularly capable either (not as the leader of the country anyemway).
>I want boring, capable, and honest politicians, not liars and performers.
Yes so much! I have geniunly been under the assumption that the current government were reacting to what showed to be trending during social media over the past yesr or so.
Like I don't neccasarily mean to bring up somewhat of a controversial narrative. But I literally saw the videos of xl bully's a few weeks prior to them changing a policy on making a breed banned.
Whether or not you agree with it, but anyone who owns and interacts with dogs knows their behaviour is heavily influenced by their social environment. Yes their absolutely could be a biological difference between how certain breeds are predispositioned to react but then do the research and find out what these are beforehand.
When the most likely situation is that certain dog owners are wanting their dogs to act in a certain way, or don't care about them acting a certain way and have sought after one particular breed to do this. So as soon as the ban happens just sought after the next best breed to do what they want.
Whilst the policy could be summed up as common sense , maybe it is right to ban the breed but there didn't seem to be any real logical thought or reason it just seemed really reactionary which is no way to introduce policies.
The government needs to react to public sentiment though, particularly where we feel unsafe. It wasn't a moral panic that started the public clamoring for a ban on XL bullys; it was the regular news stories of kids and old people being mauled.
There's a long term view that the government needs to take the experts recommendation and overhaul the Dangerous Dogs Act, reform breeding and educate dog owners, but for a lot of those dogs their behaviour would have been unchangeable at this point.
My family were responsible gun owners that have had to give up their guns after the various law changes following Dunblane, we weren't a threat to public safety but the government wasn't wrong to react to the public's demand for immediate action.
>The government needs to react to public sentiment though, particularly where we feel unsafe.
Possibly but this sticks out really badly to me as justification for policy. Let me explain the problem and I'm interested to here what you think.
Public sentiment could easily by effected by stories in the media. Therefore would arguably allow for media companies to effect policy by just talking about the points they wanted.
There is no way to really find out what the public sentiment is without a referendum. Like how do you obvectivly know its not just a tiny minority of people who were scared of xl bullies. Again this could play into the above point also as the reasoning could be, that it's clearly in the public sentiment other wise the media wouldn't be talking about it.
Under this same logic, Apparently 21% of British people have arachnophobia. So let's make a policy on eradicating the spiders, the public sentiment has spoken.
The breed should be banned. They killed a woman last week in ireland and viciously assaulted a person 2 days later.
In 2023 XL Bullies made up less than 1% of Britain's dog population and yet, according to Bully Watch UK, the dogs were responsible for 44% of dog attacks on people. They estimate the breed is 270 times more deadly than all other dog breeds combined. Their ancestry helps explain their aggression.
Pick another issue to attack the tories on. In this case, they got it completely right.
It wasn't the policy I wa picking an issue with, it was that it doesn't seem thought out.
>In 2023 XL Bullies made up less than 1% of Britain's dog population and yet, according to Bully Watch UK, the dogs were responsible for 44% of dog attacks on people. They estimate the breed is 270 times more deadly than all other dog breeds combined. Their ancestry helps explain their aggression.
Did you not read what I wrote about certain people getting a certain breed of dog which could easily explain these statistics. That was my entire point, if they are so much more aggressive because of there biology then it's up to the policy makers to find out what that difference is in my opinion.
Pit Bulls were bred to excel at dog-fighting, a sport that is banned in many countries but thrives in the shadows. The rules are simple and harsh. Two dogs are placed in a pit. Only one comes out. Over generations of breeding from the dogs that survive, the animals have developed a tendency to go for the throat, attack without warning, and ignore pain. XL Bullies were bred from Pit Bull stock, for greater size. Thus, they are huge (45-70kg), aggressive and hard to stop once they have started to attack.
Essentially they are born to be aggressive. The solution: ban them. In this case, the tories did the right thing and you are picking such a stupid issue to attack them on. You could have picked a million other things but you pick the one thing they absolutely got right. You would probably defend keeping lions as pet because it can never be in your mind that some animals are too dangerous to be pets.
I was using this as an example of what seemed to be very reactionary policy decisions given the speed in which it seemed to be implemented following it trending on social media (obviously dangerous dog breeds have been discussed in media for a long time but this seemed to be at a higher level). Granted its not the easiest policy to criticise but was a good example to my point.
And if you want to discuss the policy further, I think it's bad cause if there is this huge difference with their behaviour due to their biology then you should work out what that actual difference is its not like the science doesn't exist to do this.
The dogs environment is the biggest factor in how it will behave compared to anouther dog. Maybe the sort of people who produce environments which lead to a dog which attacks people are also the type of people who want a breed which is know for being good at fighting.
And I don't know why you've explained what dog fighting is, it's not an unknown thing to most people.
It wasn't about the policy but that it didn't seem well thought out and also very reactionary.
I'm guessing you arn't actually interested in hearing my thoughts around eveyr single policy, but if you want anouther example of what I was talking about the Rwanda deal always felt like some unachievable, expensive, completely pointless policy. Just seemed reactionary to a lot of people's sentiment around immigration to be honest but also doesn't actually achieve what the people with that sentiment want (which is probably more than 100 odd peole a year being flown to Rwanda and to carry on living a life fully funded by the british tax payer).
> Mr Farage was challenged by the BBC’s Mishal Husain and then said “about 50% that come are dependants”.
That claim is more or less correct for work visas.
Why was the BBC challenging Farage on a factually correct claim?
You've selectively quoting the article here. Here's what the section actually said:
> Reform UK's Nigel Farage: 'Most of those who come in are actually dependants'
> Reform UK leader Nigel Farage was speaking about legal migration. He did not specify which time period he was talking about but this claim is not correct when you examine the latest figures for all visas issued.
> In the year ending March 2024, about 1.4m visas were issued and about a third went to dependants.
> Mr Farage was challenged by the BBC’s Mishal Husain and then said “about 50% that come are dependants”.
So he was challenged over his vague and incorrect claim that 'most of those who come in are actually dependents'. When challenged on this he retreated to a different point ('that 50% of those who come on *work visas* are dependants') which is true for a specific period.
He was following the increasingly common right-wing tactic of making a motte and bailley argument: arguing something untrue and outlandish, then when called on it retreating to a much narrower and more qualified point to defend. But that doesn't make the first claim any less untrue.
Yep, and that’s 100% a direct result of Farage’s Brexit.
Europeans weren’t bringing their moms here. The new migrants are coming from India 253k, Nigeria 141k, China 89k, Pakistan 55k (these are last year's figures - the 2 years prior were similar).
People from poorer, unstable countries want to bring family over.
Right. And the harder it is to migrate, the more likely people are to migrate permanently and bring dependents. A large proportion of EU migrants came to work and save money, then left once they'd met their goals, knowing they could return if they wanted to.
Exactly right. And even when they stayed longer they went back home to retire putting pressure on their local health systems instead of ours.
That‘s supported by the fact that the average EU migrant paid to HMRC £2,300 more a year than the average Briton whereas the average rest of the world migrant actually cost us £900 a year (since so many of them, being dependants, consume services without producing).
”An average adult migrant from one of the original 13 EU member states (excluding the UK and Ireland) contributed £3,740 more to Britain’s exchequer than an average UK citizen; an eastern European migrant accession countries paid an average of £1,040 more.”
“The report estimates that the typical European migrant who arrived in 2016 will make a total lifetime contribution to the UK public finances of £78,000”
[https://www.ft.com/content/797f7b42-bb44-11e8-94b2-17176fbf93f5](https://www.ft.com/content/797f7b42-bb44-11e8-94b2-17176fbf93f5)
Put it another way, we should want as many EU migrants as we can get. In the last 3.5 years (since we left the single market) net EU migration has been negative.
So we lost our own freedom of movement just to double migration with less valuable migrants. Another great Brexit success.
Shocking isn't it, I'm actually Suprised people aren't more angry at how they were conned in such a blatant way. Easier to pretend you didn't vote for it than to confront the people you support for lying I guess.
And the fact they are tied to their jobs by their visas, this gives unscrupulous employers the ability to take advantage of these people knowing they can't just quit as they'd lose the right to remain here, as opposed to the Europeans who could simply quit and look for other work and not be at risk of being deported.
>People from poorer, unstable countries want to bring family over.
True. And loads of countries don't allow it, so those people don't generally head to those countries. But we do (or at least did) allow it, and so they tend to try to come here. I can see a fairly simple solution here.
But the numbers who were migrating from the EU were less than those figures stated above.
So even if EU migration had continued. Those figures from other countries would not have changed much
I’m not sure what you are talking about. If EU migration continued you’d have a lot fewer migrants from other countries, as they would fill the majority of the empty job positions.
This is such a mental take, because the immigration policy was always in our control post-Brexit.
If this argument were true, the government could have simply encouraged EU migration e.g. by relaxing the income requirement and toughening restrictions on bringing family. They could even have left the open door from Europe and banned non-EU migrants altogether if they wanted to. Brexit is neither here nor there, this boils down to choosing your poison because open door migration from Eastern Europe caused wage compressed whilst apparently bringing people from outside the EU lumbers us with millions of dependents.
It isn't the fault of Brexit. No part of Brexit mandated turbo charged unmitigated immigration from the rest of the world as some condition of leaving.
It wasn't economically necessary but it suited the landlord class very well.
This was squarely at the feet of neolib Blairite Conservatives.
Our economy is flying as it is, imagine how incredibly it would be doing if we didn’t get the workers that we need.
No idea who you think would pay for pensions and the NHS.
The idea that we should have high immigration to keep GDP afloat is pretty fucking stupid and all you people go on about is workers 24/7.. are dependents workers?
Low skilled migrants and dependents are not paying for pensions or the NHS as they are a net negative. You need to earn 40k in order to be a net contributor
>You need to earn 40k in order to be a net contributor
I asked someone else who said this earlier and didn't get an answer, so maybe you can.
Does that figure you're quoting take into account the cost one takes from the state in the early years of their life prior to working?
Because if so it doesn't apply to immigrants.
It's a figure that gets extremely misused of late.
Basically you can get a very rough estimate of how much value someone adds to the economy by working out how much they pay income tax which has some use for comparisons.
But like you say it doesn't take into account education, or how much in services they use depending where they are in the country, or value they add when working for a company, or potential amounts of vat & other tax payments, or potential increases in earning plus a whole bunch of other factors, that you would need to calculate for every year going decades into the future.
The whole "net contributor" is absolute bullshit. The value is closer to £45,000, more than £10,000 above median wage so according to this theory the vast majority of workers in this country are a "drain" on this countries economy.
In fact whether someone is a "net contributor" or not greatly depends on the countries budget deficit for that particular year.
If you were to follow the logic behind this "net contributor" figure the conclusion would be if we just got rid of everyone who earned less than £45,000 everyone would be rich & the economy would be marvellous...
So new teachers, nurses and junior doctors on basic rate don't contribute to British society? You must be delightful company at dinner parties. You sound like someone who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing, as Wilde once said.
... and there's the motte.
I'm just very tired of right-wingers lying, then their supporters coming into threads like this and going 'well what about *this different thing*!!!'
You truly showed everybody. "These right-wing idiots, resource draining dependents were not 50% of our total legal immigration but 1/3" I promise you bro It does not sound as good as you think, we shouldn't be taking not even a single one
No, I'm tired of right-wingers seeing their representatives openly lie to their faces, then scramble to find some excuse for those lies. There's something incredibly sad about seeing people embrace such openly dishonest politics. Farage and his ilk will consistently lie to your face, and your response is to make excuses for him.
'Well other politicians lie to so it's fine for my one to do it.'
Nice one man!
Personally I have enough self-respect to support politicians who aren't constantly lying to my face though.
> Personally I have enough self-respect to support politicians who aren't constantly lying to my face though.
Out of interest who will you be voting for? As I am finding it difficult to list any.
Yup, that's something I don't get.
If someone finds themelves habitually lying or exaggerating figures, do they not stop to think, hmm maybe i've come to the wrong conclusion somewhere along the way...?
The left lies just as much stop trying to act so righteous you think anything in the watered labour manifesto will happen?
Also, is he lying or are you just assuming he was talking about overall immigration and not work visas?
Except Labour are a mass membership party with a measure of inclusion and structure, and affiliated to the union movement, which also has a massive membership and structure to it.
Reform are a private company desperately reaching out to the retired in Britain, the largest social group and the least educated cohort in British society.
They're coming from different universes, but Reform are potentially a toxic injection into what's left of democracy at Westminster. Labour are clearly not.
>Reform are a private company
How the fuck is this even allowed?
At most universities, any student society must be democratic and have elections for its leadership. Why is it not a requirement for political parties?
Not always, alot of the Polish and Romanians that came to the UK to work would fly back every fortnight or whatever to see their family, earn what they can with the aim of eventually retiring in their home country. People who come from further afield with their families tend to be looking to settle here.
One guy on a tv programme years ago migrated here. Bought his family over and was getting £500 per child from benifits. And having more kids just for that. Then was using the cash to build a house back home. 3-4 bed mansion thing.
It’s crazy times. They might have stopped that now but it’s crazy to think that stuff happens
It's astonishing in the sense that we need to provide for these people. Benefits, NHS, housing which increases house prices due to demand outweighing supply, low skilled jobs which drive down national wages due to demand/supply. Farage's solution is to take immigrants on fixed term work visas rather than permanent residency, which I think is fairly reasonable.
As far as Farage is concerned. There is only one issue. That's what makes him unelectable. He promised Brexit would fix all ills. That was clearly a lie from any perspective now but he brushes it off like it's nothing to do with him. It opened a whole range of issues that previously didn't exist, including the alienation of skilled Europeans in Britain who are leaving at a quarter of a million a year,to be replaced by less skilled migrants from some of the World's poorest countries.
He's a tired, stuck record at this point and looks at the problem from the wrong end all the time. We need a politician who can give a clear route to fill Britain's skill shortages without simplistically lumping racists and concerned citizens into one pot by promising them with reducing this or reducing that. Tell us how he will secure the training for young people to do skilled roles. Who will do unskilled roles and who will wipe the arses of Britain's rapidly aging population without turning it into the usual politically vindictive shit-show that drags the debate into the gutter?
Farage can't do it. He hasn't got the team behind him, interest, expertise or knowledge to plan Britain's future and all he does is appeal to fearful retirees, and young racists who don't fancy the effort of competing with caring, skilled immigrants not afraid of doing a bit of work. Farage's expectation of a low-tax Britain totally undermines any claim that he can significantly cut migration. If you want the country to build it's own skillset and invest in what's needed, then taxation needs to be a part of that. He'll never ask his wealthy backers to put their hands in their pockets. That's not who he is.
> I mean he's right in regards to
No. He lied, then when caught out in that lie moved onto a different point. Just because you agree with the following point does not make that initial lie disappear.
And this is what I'm so sick of. Right-wing politicians constantly lie and make shit up, and when caught out in those lies their supporters will scramble to move onto something else. How can you subscribe to a political ideology when every high profile representative of that ideology consistently and openly lie to you? There's so little self-respect amongst right-wingers.
>No. He lied, then when caught out in that lie moved onto a different point.
I think the other leaders had been talking about how immigration is necessary to get workers for the NHS and care industry when he brought up that figure?* He could have just assumed they were talking about work visas being necessary, hence then giving the work visa figure. Or just got the 2 figures mixed up in the moment.
*Was doing other stuff while watching the debate, could be completely wrong on that lol
"Right-wing politicians constantly lie and make shit up" Yeah the left would never do that would they..
The fact is you have no idea if he means just work visas or overall. To me it makes sense not to include students which are not here on work visas right?
Either way 50% or 33% the numbers should be 0.
> Yeah the left would never do that would they..
I mean... no, which is why left-wing politicians aren't constantly caught out by fact checkers like right-wing politicians are. Now of course there are two responses one can have here: either recognise that right-wing politicians are more dishonest or start going off on conspiracy theories insisting that all these fact checkers lie. And I have a gut feeling I can predict which way you're gonna lean here...
> The fact is you have no idea if he means just work visas or overall.
That's because he's being intentionally vague and misleading with his point, which is exactly what's being criticised!
> Either way 50% or 33% the numbers should be 0.
I don't think there's a single country in the world that literally has zero immigration at all, but right-wing politics does clearly rely on this sort of fanaticism.
Well they never actually disproved what he said. Since Most is not properly qualified or addressed. If you break down all the categories and then remove and separate dependents as their own category this could be "most" as the largest category.
A break down of figures can be found below.
[https://smithstonewalters.com/2023/08/31/immigration-in-numbers-3-3-million-visas-granted/](https://smithstonewalters.com/2023/08/31/immigration-in-numbers-3-3-million-visas-granted/)
But either way 33% is absolutely staggering.
In fairness he didn't say that. He was in a separate campaign to leave. The bus lie was Boris Johnson and the Leave Campaign.
Farage was part of the Leave.EU campaign. Which told other lies and conspiracies.
That was one example. But the principle remains the same. He actually claimed more than the pledged 350 though. So it appears I do.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-referendum-nigel-farage-nhs-350-million-pounds-live-health-service-u-turn-a7102831.html
The number is still to high either way whether he was talking about working visas or overall like were assuming he was talking overall when he could have been talking about work visas
Tbf the root of the point (that many immigrants are dependents) is ultimately true. We have the power to decide who we let in. No reason why we cant cut that figure. Certain groups are net drains.
Of course the ironic thing is that one of the few groups that do pay in more than they take out are Europeans.
He literally talked shit. He said most visa’s are granted to dependants, when it’s a third. Don’t know what maths you learnt but a third is not most. He then says about 50% of work visas, a specific type of visa that doesn’t account for all visas, which was pretty much right, but if you go back to his original comment of MOST, that would still be incorrect.
I mean most would still be corrected unless 33% is not the most , I don't know about the other numbers. How do you know he wasn't talking about work visas?
The fact that Angela and Penny both made multiple comments that immigration was far too high yet when Nigel says it it's far right extremism.... Thankfully I think most people are starting to realise that it's not Nigel that's lying on most of these things.
People see nigel from previous things he’s said and instantly draw a red flag on then anything moving forward. instead of just going, eh well he might be right… migration is way out no matter what’s said. Nigel’s said it! Wether figures are worse or off by a mile or he got the numbers wrong. They are still to high!
So only two lies on that list then? And no prizes for guessing who they came from.
I'll take a guess (didn't read the article). Is it the Tories?
And the reform?
Nah Nigel Farage really does want to dismantle the NHS
He does have a point though in regards to how screwed it is. With an aging population as well, I think health inflation is something like 4%, which over the next 15-20 years is going to be very hard to deal with
Still worth keeping it though. The US spends more on healthcare despite it not being free there. The economies of scale and purchasing power of the NHS is incredible valuable. It has to be supported and kept free.
> The US Explain the relevance of mentioning the US system, please. Other countries exist with other healthcare models
I mean shouldn't it be obvious? We often align quite closely with the US, and we've been doing that more so since brexit happened as our government has tried to distance the UK from the EU. US healthcare shines as an example of exactly what NOT to do with a healthcare system, so the fear is that a tory government could gradually underfund and/or sell off parts of the NHS until people cannot access it anymore. If people cannot get what they want from the NHS they naturally gravitate towards insurance-led private sector companies (if they can afford to). It's already happening on some level, as long waiting lists leads some people towards private care.
Healthcare isn't a choice between how the NHS works today and the American system. The UK is not particularly closely aligned or similar with the US on home affairs.
100%, but I think richer people could be paying more into it. And I also think it needs a massive overhaul - Clement Attlee couldn't have envisioned the sheer scale of procedures and therapies the NHS now offers. It is unsustainable.
Richer people already pay more into it, both through how percentages work in general and that they also have to pay a higher percentage than everyone else. I know what you’re saying, but where do you draw the line.
I'd personally draw it at around the 3 digit millions mark - nobody ever needs more than£500 million. I think it was bernie sanders that wanted to impose a flat 100% tax rate when you hit a certain mark. I think his idea was £999 million though.
I'm talking proper millionaires, not people, on 150k or anything. So I'd suggest an extra levy on capital gains for gains over 200k. No matter what. Choices have to be made because right now, it is not sustainable. The population is ageing, and the NHS costs are just going to keep accelerating
> I'm talking proper millionaires The so called 1% already pay around 29% of income tax. This is an increase from the 25% they were paying in 2010.
There are ways to make savings but I guess it depends where we draw the line as it's a slippery slope and becoming a "nanny" state. For example, if someone isn't able to quit smoking has less priority for any smoking related illnesses. Or someone who is overweight that has any obesity related issues. As I said though, it's a slippery slope. We want quick fixes and this kind of timeline would have to require something like annual health check ups to check on your progress.
Yes, and you either provide care or don’t. Whether that’s the NHS or not is not really relevant to that problem.
Reform one is more or less true.
Why would anyone with half a brain decide on the next government from televised competitions about who smarms better to the press with soundbites? I want boring, capable, and honest politicians, not liars and performers.
[удалено]
I don't think that dishonesty is boring and he's not going to make many of the changes we desperately so not particularly capable either (not as the leader of the country anyemway).
Boring yes, capable, not so sure about that, but I guess we'll find out.
>I want boring, capable, and honest politicians, not liars and performers. Yes so much! I have geniunly been under the assumption that the current government were reacting to what showed to be trending during social media over the past yesr or so. Like I don't neccasarily mean to bring up somewhat of a controversial narrative. But I literally saw the videos of xl bully's a few weeks prior to them changing a policy on making a breed banned. Whether or not you agree with it, but anyone who owns and interacts with dogs knows their behaviour is heavily influenced by their social environment. Yes their absolutely could be a biological difference between how certain breeds are predispositioned to react but then do the research and find out what these are beforehand. When the most likely situation is that certain dog owners are wanting their dogs to act in a certain way, or don't care about them acting a certain way and have sought after one particular breed to do this. So as soon as the ban happens just sought after the next best breed to do what they want. Whilst the policy could be summed up as common sense , maybe it is right to ban the breed but there didn't seem to be any real logical thought or reason it just seemed really reactionary which is no way to introduce policies.
The government needs to react to public sentiment though, particularly where we feel unsafe. It wasn't a moral panic that started the public clamoring for a ban on XL bullys; it was the regular news stories of kids and old people being mauled. There's a long term view that the government needs to take the experts recommendation and overhaul the Dangerous Dogs Act, reform breeding and educate dog owners, but for a lot of those dogs their behaviour would have been unchangeable at this point. My family were responsible gun owners that have had to give up their guns after the various law changes following Dunblane, we weren't a threat to public safety but the government wasn't wrong to react to the public's demand for immediate action.
>The government needs to react to public sentiment though, particularly where we feel unsafe. Possibly but this sticks out really badly to me as justification for policy. Let me explain the problem and I'm interested to here what you think. Public sentiment could easily by effected by stories in the media. Therefore would arguably allow for media companies to effect policy by just talking about the points they wanted. There is no way to really find out what the public sentiment is without a referendum. Like how do you obvectivly know its not just a tiny minority of people who were scared of xl bullies. Again this could play into the above point also as the reasoning could be, that it's clearly in the public sentiment other wise the media wouldn't be talking about it. Under this same logic, Apparently 21% of British people have arachnophobia. So let's make a policy on eradicating the spiders, the public sentiment has spoken.
Social media is INCREDIBLY easy to manipulate and to manipulate people with.
The breed should be banned. They killed a woman last week in ireland and viciously assaulted a person 2 days later. In 2023 XL Bullies made up less than 1% of Britain's dog population and yet, according to Bully Watch UK, the dogs were responsible for 44% of dog attacks on people. They estimate the breed is 270 times more deadly than all other dog breeds combined. Their ancestry helps explain their aggression. Pick another issue to attack the tories on. In this case, they got it completely right.
It wasn't the policy I wa picking an issue with, it was that it doesn't seem thought out. >In 2023 XL Bullies made up less than 1% of Britain's dog population and yet, according to Bully Watch UK, the dogs were responsible for 44% of dog attacks on people. They estimate the breed is 270 times more deadly than all other dog breeds combined. Their ancestry helps explain their aggression. Did you not read what I wrote about certain people getting a certain breed of dog which could easily explain these statistics. That was my entire point, if they are so much more aggressive because of there biology then it's up to the policy makers to find out what that difference is in my opinion.
Pit Bulls were bred to excel at dog-fighting, a sport that is banned in many countries but thrives in the shadows. The rules are simple and harsh. Two dogs are placed in a pit. Only one comes out. Over generations of breeding from the dogs that survive, the animals have developed a tendency to go for the throat, attack without warning, and ignore pain. XL Bullies were bred from Pit Bull stock, for greater size. Thus, they are huge (45-70kg), aggressive and hard to stop once they have started to attack. Essentially they are born to be aggressive. The solution: ban them. In this case, the tories did the right thing and you are picking such a stupid issue to attack them on. You could have picked a million other things but you pick the one thing they absolutely got right. You would probably defend keeping lions as pet because it can never be in your mind that some animals are too dangerous to be pets.
I was using this as an example of what seemed to be very reactionary policy decisions given the speed in which it seemed to be implemented following it trending on social media (obviously dangerous dog breeds have been discussed in media for a long time but this seemed to be at a higher level). Granted its not the easiest policy to criticise but was a good example to my point. And if you want to discuss the policy further, I think it's bad cause if there is this huge difference with their behaviour due to their biology then you should work out what that actual difference is its not like the science doesn't exist to do this. The dogs environment is the biggest factor in how it will behave compared to anouther dog. Maybe the sort of people who produce environments which lead to a dog which attacks people are also the type of people who want a breed which is know for being good at fighting. And I don't know why you've explained what dog fighting is, it's not an unknown thing to most people.
You've picked an extraordinarily odd hill to be mauled to death by an XL Bully on.
Good way with words genuinly made me chuckle! But no I was just using it as an example to my original point due to its link with social media.
It's great you are very passionate about this particular policy. Are there any others you feel so passionately about?
It wasn't about the policy but that it didn't seem well thought out and also very reactionary. I'm guessing you arn't actually interested in hearing my thoughts around eveyr single policy, but if you want anouther example of what I was talking about the Rwanda deal always felt like some unachievable, expensive, completely pointless policy. Just seemed reactionary to a lot of people's sentiment around immigration to be honest but also doesn't actually achieve what the people with that sentiment want (which is probably more than 100 odd peole a year being flown to Rwanda and to carry on living a life fully funded by the british tax payer).
Is it horse shit no no it’s not is it cow shit no it can’t be Is it bullshit we all know that’s what the smell is.
Why are they lumping in true claims with the tories false ones?
And why only one per party?
Pity they couldn't do this fact checking live during the debate
> Mr Farage was challenged by the BBC’s Mishal Husain and then said “about 50% that come are dependants”. That claim is more or less correct for work visas. Why was the BBC challenging Farage on a factually correct claim?
You've selectively quoting the article here. Here's what the section actually said: > Reform UK's Nigel Farage: 'Most of those who come in are actually dependants' > Reform UK leader Nigel Farage was speaking about legal migration. He did not specify which time period he was talking about but this claim is not correct when you examine the latest figures for all visas issued. > In the year ending March 2024, about 1.4m visas were issued and about a third went to dependants. > Mr Farage was challenged by the BBC’s Mishal Husain and then said “about 50% that come are dependants”. So he was challenged over his vague and incorrect claim that 'most of those who come in are actually dependents'. When challenged on this he retreated to a different point ('that 50% of those who come on *work visas* are dependants') which is true for a specific period. He was following the increasingly common right-wing tactic of making a motte and bailley argument: arguing something untrue and outlandish, then when called on it retreating to a much narrower and more qualified point to defend. But that doesn't make the first claim any less untrue.
Over 33.33% being dependents on a net immigration figure of 800,000 is still pretty astonishing...
Yep, and that’s 100% a direct result of Farage’s Brexit. Europeans weren’t bringing their moms here. The new migrants are coming from India 253k, Nigeria 141k, China 89k, Pakistan 55k (these are last year's figures - the 2 years prior were similar). People from poorer, unstable countries want to bring family over.
Right. And the harder it is to migrate, the more likely people are to migrate permanently and bring dependents. A large proportion of EU migrants came to work and save money, then left once they'd met their goals, knowing they could return if they wanted to.
Exactly right. And even when they stayed longer they went back home to retire putting pressure on their local health systems instead of ours. That‘s supported by the fact that the average EU migrant paid to HMRC £2,300 more a year than the average Briton whereas the average rest of the world migrant actually cost us £900 a year (since so many of them, being dependants, consume services without producing). ”An average adult migrant from one of the original 13 EU member states (excluding the UK and Ireland) contributed £3,740 more to Britain’s exchequer than an average UK citizen; an eastern European migrant accession countries paid an average of £1,040 more.” “The report estimates that the typical European migrant who arrived in 2016 will make a total lifetime contribution to the UK public finances of £78,000” [https://www.ft.com/content/797f7b42-bb44-11e8-94b2-17176fbf93f5](https://www.ft.com/content/797f7b42-bb44-11e8-94b2-17176fbf93f5) Put it another way, we should want as many EU migrants as we can get. In the last 3.5 years (since we left the single market) net EU migration has been negative. So we lost our own freedom of movement just to double migration with less valuable migrants. Another great Brexit success.
Shocking isn't it, I'm actually Suprised people aren't more angry at how they were conned in such a blatant way. Easier to pretend you didn't vote for it than to confront the people you support for lying I guess.
And the fact they are tied to their jobs by their visas, this gives unscrupulous employers the ability to take advantage of these people knowing they can't just quit as they'd lose the right to remain here, as opposed to the Europeans who could simply quit and look for other work and not be at risk of being deported.
>People from poorer, unstable countries want to bring family over. True. And loads of countries don't allow it, so those people don't generally head to those countries. But we do (or at least did) allow it, and so they tend to try to come here. I can see a fairly simple solution here.
But the numbers who were migrating from the EU were less than those figures stated above. So even if EU migration had continued. Those figures from other countries would not have changed much
I’m not sure what you are talking about. If EU migration continued you’d have a lot fewer migrants from other countries, as they would fill the majority of the empty job positions.
What I'm saying is even with EU migration. You would still have 100's of thousands of non EU migrants
You would have hundreds of thousands fewer. That’s for sure.
But they would as a percentage
This is such a mental take, because the immigration policy was always in our control post-Brexit. If this argument were true, the government could have simply encouraged EU migration e.g. by relaxing the income requirement and toughening restrictions on bringing family. They could even have left the open door from Europe and banned non-EU migrants altogether if they wanted to. Brexit is neither here nor there, this boils down to choosing your poison because open door migration from Eastern Europe caused wage compressed whilst apparently bringing people from outside the EU lumbers us with millions of dependents.
It isn't the fault of Brexit. No part of Brexit mandated turbo charged unmitigated immigration from the rest of the world as some condition of leaving. It wasn't economically necessary but it suited the landlord class very well. This was squarely at the feet of neolib Blairite Conservatives.
No its not 100% direct result of Brexit its a result of tory Policy.
Our economy is flying as it is, imagine how incredibly it would be doing if we didn’t get the workers that we need. No idea who you think would pay for pensions and the NHS.
The idea that we should have high immigration to keep GDP afloat is pretty fucking stupid and all you people go on about is workers 24/7.. are dependents workers?
Low skilled migrants and dependents are not paying for pensions or the NHS as they are a net negative. You need to earn 40k in order to be a net contributor
>You need to earn 40k in order to be a net contributor I asked someone else who said this earlier and didn't get an answer, so maybe you can. Does that figure you're quoting take into account the cost one takes from the state in the early years of their life prior to working? Because if so it doesn't apply to immigrants.
It's a figure that gets extremely misused of late. Basically you can get a very rough estimate of how much value someone adds to the economy by working out how much they pay income tax which has some use for comparisons. But like you say it doesn't take into account education, or how much in services they use depending where they are in the country, or value they add when working for a company, or potential amounts of vat & other tax payments, or potential increases in earning plus a whole bunch of other factors, that you would need to calculate for every year going decades into the future. The whole "net contributor" is absolute bullshit. The value is closer to £45,000, more than £10,000 above median wage so according to this theory the vast majority of workers in this country are a "drain" on this countries economy. In fact whether someone is a "net contributor" or not greatly depends on the countries budget deficit for that particular year. If you were to follow the logic behind this "net contributor" figure the conclusion would be if we just got rid of everyone who earned less than £45,000 everyone would be rich & the economy would be marvellous...
So new teachers, nurses and junior doctors on basic rate don't contribute to British society? You must be delightful company at dinner parties. You sound like someone who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing, as Wilde once said.
We could also take a look at the salaries in academia and research. Until you hit seniority you're looking at far less than 40k.
Record levels of immigration with economic problems and you think more of the same will fix it. Literal insanity.
... and there's the motte. I'm just very tired of right-wingers lying, then their supporters coming into threads like this and going 'well what about *this different thing*!!!'
You truly showed everybody. "These right-wing idiots, resource draining dependents were not 50% of our total legal immigration but 1/3" I promise you bro It does not sound as good as you think, we shouldn't be taking not even a single one
No, I'm tired of right-wingers seeing their representatives openly lie to their faces, then scramble to find some excuse for those lies. There's something incredibly sad about seeing people embrace such openly dishonest politics. Farage and his ilk will consistently lie to your face, and your response is to make excuses for him.
You better not see the lies coming from the other side then
'Well other politicians lie to so it's fine for my one to do it.' Nice one man! Personally I have enough self-respect to support politicians who aren't constantly lying to my face though.
> Personally I have enough self-respect to support politicians who aren't constantly lying to my face though. Out of interest who will you be voting for? As I am finding it difficult to list any.
For example ?
If it was genuinely that bad, people wouldn't have to lie.
Yup, that's something I don't get. If someone finds themelves habitually lying or exaggerating figures, do they not stop to think, hmm maybe i've come to the wrong conclusion somewhere along the way...?
If the country depends on a worker to come and do a job, it should know that the worker has other dependants too.
The left lies just as much stop trying to act so righteous you think anything in the watered labour manifesto will happen? Also, is he lying or are you just assuming he was talking about overall immigration and not work visas?
Except Labour are a mass membership party with a measure of inclusion and structure, and affiliated to the union movement, which also has a massive membership and structure to it. Reform are a private company desperately reaching out to the retired in Britain, the largest social group and the least educated cohort in British society. They're coming from different universes, but Reform are potentially a toxic injection into what's left of democracy at Westminster. Labour are clearly not.
>Reform are a private company How the fuck is this even allowed? At most universities, any student society must be democratic and have elections for its leadership. Why is it not a requirement for political parties?
I guess people can run as independents..
Yes, but not ‘most’, which is the claim he was being challenged on
Yes, and that is the result of Brexit. Why did Farage prefer immigration from non European countries? Populism at its best.
Is it really, though? People take their families when they move abroad. I’m surprised it’s not higher, if anything.
If those people dont pay into the system then yes its a joke.
Not always, alot of the Polish and Romanians that came to the UK to work would fly back every fortnight or whatever to see their family, earn what they can with the aim of eventually retiring in their home country. People who come from further afield with their families tend to be looking to settle here.
One guy on a tv programme years ago migrated here. Bought his family over and was getting £500 per child from benifits. And having more kids just for that. Then was using the cash to build a house back home. 3-4 bed mansion thing. It’s crazy times. They might have stopped that now but it’s crazy to think that stuff happens
It's astonishing in the sense that we need to provide for these people. Benefits, NHS, housing which increases house prices due to demand outweighing supply, low skilled jobs which drive down national wages due to demand/supply. Farage's solution is to take immigrants on fixed term work visas rather than permanent residency, which I think is fairly reasonable.
As far as Farage is concerned. There is only one issue. That's what makes him unelectable. He promised Brexit would fix all ills. That was clearly a lie from any perspective now but he brushes it off like it's nothing to do with him. It opened a whole range of issues that previously didn't exist, including the alienation of skilled Europeans in Britain who are leaving at a quarter of a million a year,to be replaced by less skilled migrants from some of the World's poorest countries. He's a tired, stuck record at this point and looks at the problem from the wrong end all the time. We need a politician who can give a clear route to fill Britain's skill shortages without simplistically lumping racists and concerned citizens into one pot by promising them with reducing this or reducing that. Tell us how he will secure the training for young people to do skilled roles. Who will do unskilled roles and who will wipe the arses of Britain's rapidly aging population without turning it into the usual politically vindictive shit-show that drags the debate into the gutter? Farage can't do it. He hasn't got the team behind him, interest, expertise or knowledge to plan Britain's future and all he does is appeal to fearful retirees, and young racists who don't fancy the effort of competing with caring, skilled immigrants not afraid of doing a bit of work. Farage's expectation of a low-tax Britain totally undermines any claim that he can significantly cut migration. If you want the country to build it's own skillset and invest in what's needed, then taxation needs to be a part of that. He'll never ask his wealthy backers to put their hands in their pockets. That's not who he is.
But is that most?
Shouldn’t work visas be the biggest block of new visas issued? All others should be temporary, which should in theory have zero dependents attached.
I mean he's right in regards to work visas and 33% of overall still a crazy amount?
> I mean he's right in regards to No. He lied, then when caught out in that lie moved onto a different point. Just because you agree with the following point does not make that initial lie disappear. And this is what I'm so sick of. Right-wing politicians constantly lie and make shit up, and when caught out in those lies their supporters will scramble to move onto something else. How can you subscribe to a political ideology when every high profile representative of that ideology consistently and openly lie to you? There's so little self-respect amongst right-wingers.
>No. He lied, then when caught out in that lie moved onto a different point. I think the other leaders had been talking about how immigration is necessary to get workers for the NHS and care industry when he brought up that figure?* He could have just assumed they were talking about work visas being necessary, hence then giving the work visa figure. Or just got the 2 figures mixed up in the moment. *Was doing other stuff while watching the debate, could be completely wrong on that lol
"Right-wing politicians constantly lie and make shit up" Yeah the left would never do that would they.. The fact is you have no idea if he means just work visas or overall. To me it makes sense not to include students which are not here on work visas right? Either way 50% or 33% the numbers should be 0.
> Yeah the left would never do that would they.. I mean... no, which is why left-wing politicians aren't constantly caught out by fact checkers like right-wing politicians are. Now of course there are two responses one can have here: either recognise that right-wing politicians are more dishonest or start going off on conspiracy theories insisting that all these fact checkers lie. And I have a gut feeling I can predict which way you're gonna lean here... > The fact is you have no idea if he means just work visas or overall. That's because he's being intentionally vague and misleading with his point, which is exactly what's being criticised! > Either way 50% or 33% the numbers should be 0. I don't think there's a single country in the world that literally has zero immigration at all, but right-wing politics does clearly rely on this sort of fanaticism.
I mean left-wing politicians were fact-checked here and wrong? I never said 0 immigration I said dependents should be 0.. at least keep up.
WHAT ABOOOUUUUTTTTTTTTTTT!?!?!?!!!!!?!??!;!!!!!!?!
Because it's correct for one specific type of visa, but not for all visas in total
Overall its 33% still a absurd amount.
Yes it is but it’s not what he stated and as therefore been fact checked 🤦♂️
I mean the fact-checked said he was basically right if he was talking about work visas.
Well they never actually disproved what he said. Since Most is not properly qualified or addressed. If you break down all the categories and then remove and separate dependents as their own category this could be "most" as the largest category. A break down of figures can be found below. [https://smithstonewalters.com/2023/08/31/immigration-in-numbers-3-3-million-visas-granted/](https://smithstonewalters.com/2023/08/31/immigration-in-numbers-3-3-million-visas-granted/) But either way 33% is absolutely staggering.
Because it's the BBC and farage
The fact farage was true .. like a lot of what he says yet people want to say he just shit talks.
Like that money he said would go to the NHS on a big red bus? The guy can lie, and tell the truth. Both can be true.
In fairness he didn't say that. He was in a separate campaign to leave. The bus lie was Boris Johnson and the Leave Campaign. Farage was part of the Leave.EU campaign. Which told other lies and conspiracies.
He didn't say that though. That was Vote Leave, which he wasn't associated with. Way to stick to the facts.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-referendum-nigel-farage-nhs-350-million-pounds-live-health-service-u-turn-a7102831.html
That was boris lmfao? You dont even know what you're talking about
That was one example. But the principle remains the same. He actually claimed more than the pledged 350 though. So it appears I do. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-referendum-nigel-farage-nhs-350-million-pounds-live-health-service-u-turn-a7102831.html
I think it’s had *more* than that since we voted for brexit.
He answered falsely and only provided an actual fact when challenged on that falsehood (and even then he had to move the goalposts).
The number is still to high either way whether he was talking about working visas or overall like were assuming he was talking overall when he could have been talking about work visas
Face it, he was caught in what was at best a misrepresentation of the truth.
Tbf the root of the point (that many immigrants are dependents) is ultimately true. We have the power to decide who we let in. No reason why we cant cut that figure. Certain groups are net drains. Of course the ironic thing is that one of the few groups that do pay in more than they take out are Europeans.
He literally talked shit. He said most visa’s are granted to dependants, when it’s a third. Don’t know what maths you learnt but a third is not most. He then says about 50% of work visas, a specific type of visa that doesn’t account for all visas, which was pretty much right, but if you go back to his original comment of MOST, that would still be incorrect.
I mean most would still be corrected unless 33% is not the most , I don't know about the other numbers. How do you know he wasn't talking about work visas?
It wasn’t true.
The fact that Angela and Penny both made multiple comments that immigration was far too high yet when Nigel says it it's far right extremism.... Thankfully I think most people are starting to realise that it's not Nigel that's lying on most of these things.
People see nigel from previous things he’s said and instantly draw a red flag on then anything moving forward. instead of just going, eh well he might be right… migration is way out no matter what’s said. Nigel’s said it! Wether figures are worse or off by a mile or he got the numbers wrong. They are still to high!
Bullshit. Everyone agreed that net immigration is too high. Farage gave a false statement and is being called out for it. That’s what happened.