Forum Topic

Why?

Before needing to put on my tin hat and climb into a trench - I ask this question. Wouldn't the inordinate amounts of taxpayers money being wasted on boosting Johnsons' profile with his own MPs by deporting refugees to Rwanda be better spent on actually doing something about all these people traffickers? Just when you think this bunch of mediocrities cannot sink any lower - they always manage to astound you by doing just that.

Vanessa Smith ● 1560d125 Comments

Until someone tells me who was on that plane originally and the background to them im kind of in the mind of just send them. What i dont need is justin welby telling me the rights and wrongs in society As they say,do one until i know who ,what and why

Julian Pavey ● 1560d

Just to further my response, you got anything better to do on here Vanessa than a tory rant. I have my views on the front bench but you are just a bit past it when it comes to attacking. Usual Boredom is the word INIT

Julian Pavey ● 1560d

I believe other countries have been placing assylum applicants in Rwanda for some time,some will say that justifies the policy and others will say two wrongs don't make a right.

Keith Iddon ● 1560d

The best way of putting the people traffickers out of business and to meet the government's expressed concern for the refugees' safety is surely to bring them over in a fleet of buses and deal with their asylum applications over here on their merits. To replace all the working people who left the UK because of Brexit we'll need about 10 years worth of boat people, so let's start welcoming them in the same way as Ukrainians.

Peter Evans ● 1560d

It’s a tough call, people can’t just rock up on our shores they need to go through the process, thousands do successfully. So I reckon this policy is more about a deterrent, whether is works remains to be seen, apparently hundreds are due to arrive on our shores this week, good weather 🥺🥺🥺🥺. We do need to control immigration. They come from France because France doesn’t provide any handouts!

Jayne Thorburn ● 1560d

Asylum seekers don't get handouts. Once they settle and can work they mostly contribute more to our economy that they take out of it. The government's whole scheme is riddled with contradictions. On the one hand we're told refugees will be well looked after in Rwanda and 'can make a new life', yet for the scheme to work as a deterrent, it relies on them being treated badly so the message gets back to others.  What kind of country is so desperate for the income from this scheme that it's happy to be portrayed as a such dreadful place to be sent to!

Peter Evans ● 1560d

What countries are already sending asylum seekers to Rwanda? Any non African ones? Denmark has been considering this but the last I saw the plan had stalled. The refugees on the plane will probably be Syrians or Afghans fleeing war or persecution. Transporting them to Rwanda is not only cruel and inhumane but likely to end up very expensive. Equivalent to transporting Jews fleeing Nazi Germany to a third country of our choosing. I don’t believe the rhetoric about preventing people smuggling or drownings. If that’s the concern why not have safe and legal routes for asylum seekers from Syria and Afghanistan. No, it’s just to deter (these sort of) asylum seekers reaching these shores at all. Incidentally what will happen to any asylum seekers who are unsuccessful in their claims?

David Turner ● 1560d

Looks like the flight might not go ahead due to an intervention by the European Court of Human Rights after an application by lawyers. We may have to leave the European convention on human rights in order to make this flight happen. That’ll us and Russia then (Russia having left after invading Ukraine)

David Turner ● 1560d

How can we have not worked out how the small boats get delivered to the potential asylum seekers?  Surely intercepting at that level could stymie the people smugglers.  Or, since hundreds land here anyway, why not commission ferries to do it safely? Plenty of staff from ex P&O employees, and then process the people safely as we have to do if they manage to arrive before drowning.

Vivienne Cox ● 1560d

Jayne , France accepts many  more asylum seekers than the UK.

Stewart Jones ● 1560d

"In 2019, the European Union (EU) announced a €10.3m (£8.8m) support package to the UNHCR's Emergency Transit Mechanism (ETM) in Rwanda""The project provided a life-saving avenue out of Libya for people in need of international protection, with a view to their further resettlement""It was built on the example of the ETM Niger, through which more than 2,900 refugees and asylum seekers were evacuated out of Libya, between 2017 and 2019""The EU’s Commissioner for International Cooperation and Development, Neven Mimica, spoke glowingly at the time about the scheme"

Julian Pavey ● 1560d

Legal people they do but not for illegals. So the answer is for people to apply legally. Thought Julian’s post is interesting. At least we are trying to put in some deterrents to stop illegal immigration.

Jayne Thorburn ● 1560d

The policy has nothing to do with controlling channel crossings.  There is a very easy solution to that issue: set up processing facilities in France (and even Greece or Turkey).  Around 80% of asylum claims are found to be genuine.This policy is sickening. It is the usual recourse of failing governments everywhere, and throughout time: distraction by blaming/ attacking "foreigners".The policy is probably illegal, and certainly immoral.It is a distraction devise, at the expense of the most vulnerable.  The government want us to focus on this, rather than their own failures.If they can get away with this, the rest of us will be next.It is fascism unveiled.  And I do not say that lightly or casually.

T P Howell ● 1560d

Surreal 🥺🥺🥺🥺

Jayne Thorburn ● 1560d

You are confusing immigration with asylum.  Asylum seekers have a legal right under international law to seek asylum in a country of their choice. The UK is about 16th on the list for final destinations for asylum seekers If people arrive with questionable status then there is a process in place to review their cases. So people don’t come here because of ‘handouts’.

Stewart Jones ● 1560d

"There is a very easy solution to that issue: set up processing facilities in France" Keep up,france wont let us.

Julian Pavey ● 1560d

Nonsense. It's the absolute opposite.  France has been urging the UK to set up processing facilities in Calais. https://www.france24.com/en/france/20211129-french-minister-urges-uk-to-open-legal-migration-route-amid-channel-crisisI think it's you who has to "keep up".

T P Howell ● 1560d

Says Interior Minister Gerald DarmaninThe same guy who banned Priti Patel from attending a meeting with other eu countries over borders and immigration because boris mentioned that illegal migrants could be sent back to france.That works going forwardThe same guy who said other eu countries shoud do the same as greece has done to control its borders. Controlled facilities with watchtowers and barbed wire and condemmed by the likes of Amnesty InternationalThe saame guy who straight away blamed liverpool fans weeks ago.Words are just that with Gerald Darmanin it seemsYou will find nothing substancial about a processing centre in france. The most likely reason is because it is not an option on the table. If it was your find it. Your find plenty asking and giving the option as a solution but nothing else. Does one not think its the obvious solution ?My god,fantastic,why has a processing facilities not been thought about before. Il take a likely stab at that. They wont allow it. Thats why your find very little in hard evidence towards such an idea

Julian Pavey ● 1559d

'It is the usual recourse of failing governments everywhere, and throughout time: distraction by blaming/ attacking "foreigners".'I think there is something in what you say. Yesterday on 'Politics Live' a Tory M.P. was saying 'if you've struggled to get a doctor's appointment, or get access to housing' etc.etc. then that's why we can't allow these people to stay. Haven't we heard that sort of thing before when trying to justify the authorities appalling behaviour to minorities or immigrant communities? I really hoped this country was above that.

Vanessa Smith ● 1559d

Thousands of people are crossing the channel in unsuitable craft. A most, if this policy was to be fully implemented, a couple of hundred people would be ejected to Rwanda.Could someone explain why a person who was willing to risk death would be then deterred by a small chance of ending up in the wrong country?

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1559d

I am guessing Rwanda wouldn’t be a country of choice that could act as a deterrent?????

Jayne Thorburn ● 1559d

JT > "I am guessing Rwanda wouldn’t be a country of choice that could act as a deterrent?????"How about threatening to make them live in Blackpool or Birmingham or somewhere godawful?Seriously, though, the policy is simply vile.

John Whitworth ● 1559d

Jayne, you are missing my point. Why would being sent to Rwanda be a deterrent when the possibility of drowning is not? The chances of either happening are not materially different.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1559d

Small quibble, Peter.Indeed asylum seekersd don't get handouts. Nor do they get clearance to earn their keep as their applications get procesed. It's a life of limbo. Needlessly so.The Rwanda scheme is abhorrent. But I was wondering why, as an option, one couldn't be given a choice: either fly off to Rwanda and stay in our system, or here's a ticket to ______ on us. If the cost is part of the issue, figure out a way to eliminate the cost altogether or, at the very least, make it a one-off line item.

David Lesniak ● 1559d

We need to do something, France seems incapable or not willing to stop small dinghy’s overloaded from crossing. We can not have people just rocking up without being legal, it is a global issue, US have problems on Mexican boarder. One would think given the size of the EU that they could do something to support people with the process. Thousands land in EU countries. This is not just a UK issue.

Jayne Thorburn ● 1559d

We are no longer in the EU. Have to deal with the problem ourselves humanely. If you go back far enough all our ancestors either walked here across Doggerland or came by boat. Only more recently by plane.

Chris Dakers ● 1559d

Jayne, international law is clear that it is the asylum seeker who decides which is their safe destination. France takes many more asylum seekers than the UK as it is evidently a more preferred destination. So to moan about the French not doing anything is nothing more than another reason to have a pop about France. You said previously that ‘they’ all want to come here because of the handouts. You now know that to be untrue. The UK is quite a way down the League table of preferred final destinations for asylum seekers. The UK could easily establish a registration  centre in Calais and then transport people safely across the Channel and use due process to establish if the claim for asylum is legitimate once they are here.

Stewart Jones ● 1559d

Here is a very good quick explainer of most of the issues , written 2 days agohttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-53734793

Andrew Craig ● 1559d

One thing it's missing is the £54m Uk agreed to pay France last October for the year to this July, to increase police beach patrols and perhaps inshore boat patrols too.  Are we to do that every year, plus how do we assess if it's effective.

Andrew Craig ● 1559d

France takes our money and pockets it, and does nothing to prevent the influx of the little rafts leaving their safe shores for La La Land.We must accept the fact that France wishes to punish us for having the audacity to leave their cherished, profligate protectionist institution.The next step for the government is to shed the enveloping ECOHR, insist on implementing article 13.8 of the NI protocol- no easy, quick tasks atmittedly.But doable, and until these steps are taken we will never reap the benefits of independence.

Denis I. Fox ● 1559d

All true if the benefits of independence you seek are a trade war with Europe, a sterling crisis, rocketing interest rates, renewed violence in Northern Ireland, a critical breakdown in our relationship with America, a collapse of our manufacturing sector and blue passports.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1559d

Jeremy, Goods leaving the UK going to the EU totalled £241b per annum in the year leading up to the referendum. Goods going the other way totalled £312b. That gives a detriment of £71b per annum in favour of GB.Do you really think the EU wants to play hardball with us on trade?As for Sleepy Joe, who likes to believe he's a full-on Irishman, do you believe he and his party will be in office next time?

Denis I. Fox ● 1559d

There was a British NGO on tv who were based in Calais and they were telling the asylum seekers clearly benefits in the UK were less than in France!

Nicholas Beard ● 1559d

OECD see us next year with the lowest growth and highest inflation in the G7. So there we are. Sterling is already under pressure.

Nicholas Beard ● 1559d

Which is exactly the reason that this government is focusing on asylum seekers. It is an easy target of people with no voice, to distract from the fact that this government is trashing our economy. The No 10 advisors have identified this as a "wedge" issue (it seems successfully, by the evidence of some of the posts on this forum, perhaps not unsurprisingly by the same people who were taken in by Brexit).The fact that Johnson and his ministers believe that they can act with impunity with regard to their own conduct, and the fact that they are trashing the economy (as well as our national infrastructure such as the NHS, transport, energy,  the justice system, etc etc etc) is not coincidental.  It goes to the same route cause: incompetence and corruption at the heart of our government- and the fact that they just don't care.Hence - it is easier to put seven people on a plane, and pick a fight with "leftie lawyers", the ECHR, etc, than to deal with the fundamental problems now facing this country.

T P Howell ● 1559d

I don't really understand the relevance of the figures you quoted about trade. The latest data is that we have a £86 billion goods trade deficit with the EU. If you are recycling the old argument that the EU will give us a good deal because they want to sell us BMWs, you haven't been paying attention over the last few years. The overarching point is that whatever damage a trade war might do to European economies, the EU can't allow the integrity of the single market to be undermined as that would ultimately be more harmful. You are making a major error if you think they are bluffing.As for the American situation, you need to be aware that support for the Good Friday Agreement is bipartisan in the US so even a Republican administration will have a major problem with the UK if we undermine it.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1558d

2021: -The United Kingdom was the second largest partner for EU exports of goods (13.0 %) and the fourth largest partner for EU imports of goods (6.9 %).The EU still accounts for over half of UK's exports  - notwithstanding a massive decline post Brexit)."They need us more than we need them" was just another Brexit lie. But it seems that some are still taken in by the rhetoric rather than the facts.

T P Howell ● 1558d

Jeremy, stats from the House of Commons library reads:The UK imported around £60b more goods & services from the rest of the EU than it exported there in the 12 months to September 2016.Quote from the nation's favourite minister (joking), Jacob Rees Mogg::"We have a huge trade deficit with the EU".Having seen the terrible violence in Northern Ireland during the 70s do you really believe any British Govt would risk upsetting the sectarian nature of citizens in that vicinity?

Denis I. Fox ● 1558d

This is a huge issue. We import because we do not make. We do not export because we do not make. Since the 80’s the UK shifted away from manufacturing and the trade deficit reflects that. UK policy not EU action. European countries make and export. The UK buys and imports. That is the root of the trade deficit. And to help the UK’s weak export record the UK decided to leave its biggest export market. How utterly dumb.

Alan Clark ● 1558d

How can Johnson presume to stay in his position when someone like Lord Geidt tears him of a very large strip? Well, obviously you just abolish the honest Lord's post altogether! No wonder most of Europe is laughing at us - comparing Johnson to a cross between Berlusconi and Trump! Any claim to the HoC being the home of The Mother of Parliaments grows more and more tenuous with each passing day, being defiled by a lying scumbag who doesn't even pretend he cares what anyone thinks anymore. How much longer will people go on defending him?

Vanessa Smith ● 1557d

How long will people go on defending him?  Forever and a day, Vanessa.  A lady in Wakefield on the news yesterday said about BJ, ‘I don’t think he’s put a foot wrong’.

Alastair Banton ● 1557d

Ye Gods, and these delusional morons are allowed to vote!

Vanessa Smith ● 1557d

Vanessa you have made your views very clear numerous times respect others

Jayne Thorburn ● 1557d

So are we now being silenced?  Hmm isn't that what happens in Russia?

Philippa Bond ● 1557d

Don’t be ridiculous, Vanessa is a stuck record and calls people morons if they don’t agree with her that’s not debating and respecting others views. Fortunately we do live in a democracy unlike Russia it’s called respect others we don’t all agree but appreciate other views

Jayne Thorburn ● 1557d

I don’t think calling Vanessa a ‘stuck record’ could be described as ‘respecting others views’ (sic).  Her exasperation at anyone who could believe that Johnson never puts a foot wrong is perfectly understandable surely?  Perhaps you’d care to comment on Johnson’s actions that she refers to in her previous post.  That would would be a good way of demonstrating some respect, and being more interesting yourself.

Alastair Banton ● 1557d

… but the larger point is that Johnson is a serial liar and rule breaker behaving like the kind of tinpot dictator from elsewhere that we used to condemn automatically.  There is nothing ‘normal’ about all this.  He is ruining Britain’s international reputation, making us objects of pity and disgust.  Rage seems to me to be a sane and appropriate response.  Making excuses for him or attacking people who express their anger is unforgivable in my view because you’re playing into his hands.

Alastair Banton ● 1557d

"Johnson is a serial liar and rule breaker" Repetative boredom"Making excuses for him or attacking people who express their anger is unforgivable" Dont be a silly billy

Julian Pavey ● 1557d

Sweet.

Alastair Banton ● 1557d

‘He is ruining Britain’s international reputation, making us objects of pity and disgust’Fake news propaganda, zelensky thinks he is a hero and friend to Ukraine, Biden too. Check out zelensky with Macron now that does fit you description 😂😂😂😂

Jayne Thorburn ● 1557d

I see it like this.- Johnson is a degenerate liar, with no mortality. - Some seem to see this as his greatest strength.  The fact that he is absolutely shameless makes him immune to criticism-  But it is not Johnson alone. His MPs are absolutely spineless in failing to get rid of him, despite the chaos and destruction he is causing.- His lies, parties, etc are not a stand alone problem that we should just "move on" from (if there is a stuck record, it is this government and its supporters repeatedly telling us to "move on" from one disaster to the next).  It goes to the very heart of the reasons why this is a failing government: hard wited corruption and incompetence (and the fact that Johnson just doesn't care what damage he does to the country as long as he gains / stays in power - I give you Brexit - probably the most self-destructive policy in modern times).- This is not a short term problem until the next election.  The damage that Johnson is doing to the balance of our constitutional norms is a genie that it will not be easy to put back into the bottle.

T P Howell ● 1556d

Ah, TP, thank you for expressing things so much better than I managed.  I’ve got a nasty dose of Covid and it’s unsettling me.  Apologies.

Alastair Banton ● 1556d

😂😂😂😂🤔

Jayne Thorburn ● 1556d

So Jayne, you find all amusing?- the collapse of the Stormont government, conflct in Northern Ireland, and the potential collapse of the Good Friday Agreement:- 2.2 million people using food banks, or face hunger- energy prices trebling (where as the increase is 4% in France)- UK inflation twice as high as comparable European countries:- the Home Office, the criminal justice system (from police, prosecutions courts and prisons) and the immigration system all in complete meltdown- life expectancy falling, for the only time in a developed economy since the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1990s- the only decline in real wages and living standards since rationing - etc etc.There are worldwide macroeconomic factors in play, but the principal causes are an abrogation of responsibility by this government. And your response? Laughing emojis. Laughing at the hardship that the least fortunate in this society are suffering. You have summed up Tory policy in one, inarticulate, line.It's not just that you don't care. You actually find it amusing.

T P Howell ● 1556d

I hope you get better soon.

T P Howell ● 1556d

Most developed countries are having exactly the same issues that have arisen due to Covid, some are still struggling to open up. Over the last few decades the world has become so interconnected so what covid has demonstrated is just how fragile & vulnerable the global economy  has become. Covid was a major blip and the pack of cards tumble. So regardless who is in government we would be facing all these issues. I was a remainer but have to accept begrudgingly the majority view to leave the EU.  I don’t call them morons but I am pretty sure enough people regret their vote to leave and given the chance again the result would swing the other way. NI is an extremely complicated region and always has been in my lifetime. It is really down to the stormont politicians to come together in the spirit of compromise to work on behalf of their citizens. The UK government/civil servants are doing their best to get them round the table but they can’t force it. Clearly Russia declaring war on Ukraine has disrupted the gas/ oil supply the whole of Europe is experiencing rising energy costs. All developed countries are experiencing inflation. So unlike you I look at the bigger picture……..

Jayne Thorburn ● 1556d

I should add that I don’t have an issue with the redistribution of food, the waste in this country is shocking. So by distributing food to those in need is surely a positive. I accept food bank has a horrid contagion, we need to rebrand it and stop food waste, helping people to eat healthier. If people cook the market stalls offer some fabulous priced fruit & veg. Do we accept food waste?

Jayne Thorburn ● 1556d

Boris is doing great, all your distractions are water off a Ducks Back, no Jayne I would not want to rejoin the EU.

Janice Evans ● 1556d

I respect that Janice but I have spoken to so many people who would have change their vote. We didn’t need many it was a tight race.

Jayne Thorburn ● 1556d

I don't know anyone who would change their vote, we have done o.k all problems now are global we are living during a pandemic and lookat Ukraine as if the pandemic wasn't enough one person is trying to destroyit.

Janice Evans ● 1556d

I'm sure you did not mean to say that if the term food bank is rebranded then that's the eat or heat problem solved. That might be interpreted as a callous disregard for the plight of those who cannot afford to feed themselves and their families. So I'm certain that you meant to add something about addressing the cost of living crisis and the awful fact that so many rely on charitable giving out of food. There can also be no doubt that your comment about redistribution of food did not intend to imply that food banks for addressing food waste is ok, but simple giving food as a charitable donation is not to be mentioned. That would give a sense that you want to ignore the fact that so many rely on charitable giving. Which certainly you did not intend.And it would be wrong to think that you believe it is 'positive' that people are given waste food. Or that this means you think that people who are struggling to pay for food only deserve food that would be otherwise waste. Or that the way to address food waste is to create a poorly paid underclass who can't afford to shop. That would be a strange way to address food waste so not something you'd advocate.I thought I'd help you out by making these things clear to everyone.

Alan Clark ● 1556d

With so many people living in flats now they have nowhere to grow their own food unless they have an adequate balcony, also many people don't live close to family members who could have otherwise help out.  No oneshould go without food, would say the supermarkets could help by having an area for food donations instead of one stand which is hardly onview.

Janice Evans ● 1556d

Perhaps Janice was in Wakefield yesterday to lend support to the Conservative candidate.

Robert Fish ● 1556d

They don't need support Robert.

Janice Evans ● 1556d

I must apologise to Jayne for misinterpreting her post about food waste. I thought it was a variant on Lee Anderson's criticism of the poor who don't know how to cook. Thanks for putting me straight, Alan.

Robert Fish ● 1556d

Thanks Alan for interrupting the post sensibly and correctly, should have put wasteful not waste. Absolutely everyone should be able to eat my point is that we are so wasteful and surely we can find ways that are respectful to redistribute the wastefulness. Crazy good food going to landfill. I know there are many charities, many supermarkets mark down the price of food as it gets towards best use by dates so there are ways and means to support those that need extra help. Just giving financial handouts isn’t the answer. There will always be people less fortunate than others surely the key is to support them in many ways.

Jayne Thorburn ● 1556d

I think we can help further. Jayne has a point that the term 'food bank' has become associated with being desperately poor and having to rely on charitable donations. I'm guessing this bad connotation arose because food banks were set up to help the desperately poor by offering charitably donated food. This brand image can be addressed by renaming them. Jayne has a valid point.I wanted to come up with a new name. But I got stuck trying to decide whether to focus on the way food banks redistribute waste food. or whether it is better to chose an aspirational name. The food waste route might offer a new name like 'waste outlet' (you know, similar to discount outlet villages). While the aspirational option might give a new name like 'future lifestyle centre' (reflecting the lack of government plans or policies to address the cost of living challenges and how this means that food banks will be a permanent feature in many people's lives). Let me consider this a bit further, whilst still giving Jayne the credit of course.Let's make this happen.

Alan Clark ● 1556d

Community Food Pantry

Jayne Thorburn ● 1556d

Or we could just have an economic and social system where working people earned enough to be able to buy their own food, instead of relying on charity, and a fair tax system. Now there's a radical thought. But that would require a government that actually cared.

T P Howell ● 1556d

You’ve got me thinking Alan, we have so many empty shops in high streets, what about creating a community food pantry in areas of greatest need. Change food stamps to food vouchers, then it’s really easy for shoppers to drop off items, local supermarkets could do the same.

Jayne Thorburn ● 1556d

How much is enough? show fair is any system? who says it’s fair? You???? With 68M people not sure it is humanly possible to create a fair society for all. For sure smaller countries can but larger countries it is much harder. Much more practical to find better ways of doing things with the money we already spend.

Jayne Thorburn ● 1556d

Or how about:- policies to promote economic growth rather than driving the country into recession:- paying workers living wages so that they are not dependent on hand outs.- Or reducing the tax burden on the lowest paid (which this government has increased by 3.5% this year (for someone earning £25,000 a year), but by 2.7% for someone earning £250,000 a year).

T P Howell ● 1556d

No companies should be allowed to pay dividends to shareholders if its workers are not paid enough to feed themselves and their families.

Vivienne Cox ● 1556d

Perhaps Govt should be looking at those companies whose workers are having to claim Universal Credit and should seek to recover the cost of the Universal  Credit plus let's say an admin charge.  This would encourage the payment of a Real Living Wage in the first place and should surely appeal to both left andvright wing opinions.

Philippa Bond ● 1556d

Let’s do the sums tax on £25K = £4,488 pa tax on £250,000 = £106,339 Fair?

Jayne Thorburn ● 1556d

Put it another way , the first example is left with £21,512.The second with £106,339.They both have to pay the same for a loaf of bread.

David Burke ● 1556d

Sink lower! How about withdrawing from the convention on human rights!!!!

Nicholas Beard ● 1556d

Except my post has clearly not got you thinking at all. My post highlighted the vacuous lack of consideration at the core of your comments. And that lack of thought / concern / awareness / common sense / decency is still very evident with your most recent offering.Basically you are saying that dependency on charity for simply enough to eat is a permanent and unchangeable aspect of the UK. You are content with that while others are alarmed. And that rather than address this you wish to enlarge and extend it. And dress it up as reducing wastage (crumbs from the table). With a new fancy logo.Do you really need other people to point out that your thinking is really terrible?

Alan Clark ● 1556d

There's always a danger that charities stepping in to help alleviate the effects of poverty are just letting the government, who should be dealing with these things, off the hook. Increasing taxes for those who can afford it and increasing welfare payments for those who can't seems a better way forward. Similarly, increasing wages to match workers' increased cost of living is no different from suppliers putting up their prices because of their increased costs. And why does the price of a thing go up when there's a shortage anyway, if it costs no more to dig up or make? 'Supply and demand' they say, which means more profit for the provider and more stress for the consumer and, without a corresponding pay rise, for the workers.

Peter Evans ● 1555d

That’s not correct, we have a global energy crisis that puts up the cost on every thing, manufacturing through transportation. Wages have increased and so has NI all these costs have to be paid so companies are NOT a making massive profits but putting up costs to cover the increases hence inflation. Covid has had a massive impact on the supply change, why? lockdowns, reduced staffing, it has an enormous impact on production/assembly of goods. So it’s a vicious cycle, higher employment costs means higher prices so nothing is actually achieved. We spend billions of our taxes supporting people in some shape or form. Surely we can get much better at how we support people with the billions we already spend.

Jayne Thorburn ● 1555d

...but of the two, our government prefers to intervene to control workers' wages rather than prices. Meanwhile French energy prices have either been frozen or the rise capped at around 4% to help the lower paid. But these foreigners can have such silly ideas!

Peter Evans ● 1555d

Now you are talking militant french, they have a lot of issues too, most countries are struggling with the same issues. France has in unemployment rate of 7.3% UK 3.7% so they have a major challenge and have to create policies accordingly. I do agree we are paying a lot of tax on energy/fuel and the government does need to so something about this.

Jayne Thorburn ● 1555d

Oh dear.  The "militant french" (sic).  Yet more prejudice.  Jane - your posts have become a fact free zone (which no doubt explains the poor conclusions you reach).Child poverty (I suggest one of the best measures of social inclusion). UK over 30%.  France 20%.  It's not a competition sport, and both figures are disgraceful for two of the top the world's largest economies. But an objective measure where the UK is well behind comparable countries.R/P index (i.e. the ratio between the riches 10% and the poorest 10%).  France 9.1.  UK 13.8 (the highest in Europe apart from Portugal).  Inequality between the richest and the poorests 50% higher in the UK than France.Life expectancy (another good absolute measure): France 83.13 years. United Kingdom 81.77% (and about the only place in the developed World where life expectancy has FALLEN in the last decade - unprecedented except in Russia immeadiately following the collapse of the Soviet Union - which is an absolute disgrace).GDP per capita: France $46k. UK $44k.Economic growth: OECD:France: "After a strong rebound in 2021, real GDP is projected to grow by 2.4% in 2022 and 1.4% in 2023."UK: "GDP is projected to increase by 3.6% in 2022, before stagnating in 2023". (NB - UK growth has only been faster in the exit from Covid because it fell further and faster beforehand).Inflation (May 2022) France 5.2% - UK 9%.Pension age France 61.  UK 67.Old age pension (a week). France £304. UK £141.Say what you like about the French - but on almost every objective measure their economy and social justice is better  than the UK's.  It's a fair reference - the French economy is probably the most comparable with the UK by size, structure, development, etc.Perhaps its time that we learnt from the French and became more militant ourselves.For balance - Youth unemployment France 20% - UK 10% - one area where the UK is doing better.  Minumum wage France €10.25 an hour (£8.79) UK £9.50.Average income tax rate France 27.3%.  UK 23.3% (but give me a better pension, any day). 

T P Howell ● 1555d

Millionnaires ask to be taxed.Instead of pussyfooting around perhaps a fairer progressive tax system would should be instituted. 

Philippa Bond ● 1555d

"-unprecedented except in Russia immeadiately...I'm 'sic' of this.

Brian Coyle ● 1554d

https://www.businessinsider.com/davos-millionaires-tell-world-leaders-tax-us-more-economic-forum-2022-5?amp

Philippa Bond ● 1554d

https://amp.theguardian.com/business/2022/may/22/millionaires-join-davos-protests-demanding-tax-us-now-taxation-wealthy-cost-of-living-crisis

Philippa Bond ● 1554d

I remember seeing an article in the US where a few mega wealthy people stated they wanted to pay tax ha! Oh to be mega wealthy. To be fair many billionaires do setup foundations to do great work and others contribute massively to charity. We are talking a tiny % of people in the world.

Jayne Thorburn ● 1554d

Charity, however well-meaning and widespread, is no substitute for a proper redistributive tax system that targets the proven needs of the people rather than the whims of the wealthy.

Peter Evans ● 1554d

Sorry but wealth creators should be encouraged, that’s progression the world tax system should not penalise them. It won’t be used they will opt to live somewhere else other then a UK, there are many options around the world. They employee in many cases thousands of people, contribute massively to society so let’s not take a communist viewpoint we should celebrate wealth creators. Before anyone attacks I am talking brilliant brains who create something the whole world benefits from not handouts from great grandparents etc.

Jayne Thorburn ● 1554d

Encourage wealth creators, trickle-down effect, etc - the usual voodoo economics employed to justify the selfishness of people who refuse to pay more taxes to help the less fortunate.

Robert Fish ● 1554d

Each to their own, without some incredible brains on this planet life would be very different. Wealth creators give thousands of people real career opportunities, inspirational leaders and contribute to billions in tax for society, I applaud them 👏👏👏👏👏

Jayne Thorburn ● 1554d

Historically, the Convervatives have a worst record running the economy.https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-qa-which-party-has-a-better-track-record-on-the-economyNo wonder they want to privatise Channel 4.

T P Howell ● 1554d

Integration and interbreeding of global populations has long been a NWO plan, to produce a bland, culture-less, religious-less, middle-class-less, slave race. The Rwanda plane image was merely a photo-op. It was never going anyway hence there were only 7 'asylum seekers' on board, with the court decision coming as the plane was about to take off. Pure theatre.

Michael Brown ● 1554d

And this wonderful government's response? Let's let the bankers salaries and bonuses let rip, it seems nothing has been learned from 2008, and they wonder why the rail-workers are on strike. Once again it's one law for them and another for the 'little people'.

Vanessa Smith ● 1554d

Guess you would have been happy in South Africa in previous decades when there was segregation of different populations then.

Andrew Jones ● 1553d

I am always sceptical of giving the incredibly wealthy the adulation that the term 'wealth-creator' offers. Don't get me wrong, there have been fantastic new businesses that have developed into large businesses that do offer good employment and the possibility of sharing the wealth of the business as it grows. What does not seem to be adequately examined is the 'taking business from others' effect.The measure of success should not simply be growth of that business and the number of people they employ. If that were the only measures then everyone would celebrate each time a large supermarket arrived in a town. Look, they employ 50 people. Look they have grown their own business. Not quite, because look, they are caused the high street to mostly shut down, and the butcher is out of work, and the average staff wage is not the same as that independent shop keeper once was able to achieve. We mostly accept these supermarkets but we also must recognise it is not new wealth, it is wealth moved from one place to another.Amazon is not all new money creation and new job creation. It has shut bookshops. It has changed job roles from shop managers to order fulfilment zero hour contracts.Worse, these are mostly multi-nationals. Who take aggressive steps to move taxation out of most countries, like the UK, and into off shore countries. I'd certainly dispute your 'billions of tax for society'. Where is the evidence of that?I absolutely agree that we can benefit from clever, driven individuals who build high value businesses and employ good people on good salaries (and wealth share schemes). But not all your 'wealth creators' are like that and many high growth businesses are doing it at the expense of pushing other business out. And ducking as much tax as they can.

Alan Clark ● 1553d

While we are talking up France, I'd like to add my relief that the French health service is working well. After a fall a couple of weeks ago I got seen rapidly to get my fractured wrist sorted and my cut eyebrow stitched. Then last week I noticed a blurred area on my eye was growing each day. So back to A&E on a Friday afternoon. I was seen at once and taken straight to the ophthalmology department. Within 30 minutes all the tests were done, the doctor confirmed a detached retina and had me booked into surgery first thing Monday. So yesterday I had the operation completed by 3pm and was out by 5pm (local anaesthetic).I've got my two out patient appointments and got my prescriptions for the stuff I'll need to look after my eye as it heals. All that for 13 euros - and that was for the 4 different items on the prescription.Oh, and the surgeon was one of the top professors at Bordeaux teaching hospital. So no shoddy fresh out of uni doctor. Got to be honest though, the actual operation was not the most pleasant thing I've ever experienced. When the junior doctor I first saw (to do the pre-op checks) mentioned it would be done under local I could have done with a stiff drink.

Alan Clark ● 1553d

So "wealth concentrators" may be a better expression than "wealth creators".Even Adam Smith (the granddaddy of laissez faire economics) recognised over 200 years ago that wealth was created from the four factors of production: land, labour, capital, and entrepreneurship.And the French economist Piketty gives an excellent analysis of how our political system unduely rewards and shifts income and wealth towards owners of land and capital, at the expense of labour, in his book Capital in the Twenty-First Century.My definition of "rich" is when your money earns more money than you do.  Unfortunately, in our tax system, money made by your money is taxed at between 10% and 20%, but the money you earn through your labour is taxed at up to 51.75%.  Is that fair?

T P Howell ● 1553d

It is strange how not so many years ago there were just companies and entrepreneurs who were starting new companies. The CEO of large existing companies were not called 'wealth creators'. The bankers who gave loans or invested in businesses were not called 'wealth creators'. Entrepreneurs were either successful or failed. Not 'wealth creators'. I do not recall talented CEO's who took near failing businesses and turned them back to growth and success being called 'wealth creators'.Then along comes the mega-successful start-ups and their associated mega-wealthy owners suddenly the term 'wealth creator' appears. Perhaps along side the rise and rise of venture capitalists, private equity and hedge funds. People who have gained millions are not greedy out to be as rich as possible opportunists. They are, one and all, wealth creators.While everyone else, by implication, are sponging off their wealth creation.Talk about a need for re-branding this awful term 'wealth creator'.

Alan Clark ● 1553d

The real 'wealth creators' are the workers who add value by their labour, and are rarely paid enough for it.

Peter Evans ● 1553d

Indeed.  ‘Wealth accumulators’ might be a better term.  Forbes is interesting on this topic.https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielscott1/2018/09/18/why-you-should-stop-using-the-term-wealth-creator/?sh=6dfe8f5e4a5e#:~:text=The%20term%20%E2%80%9Cwealth%20creator%E2%80%9D%20is,his%20or%20her%20family's%20wealth.

Alastair Banton ● 1553d

Yes, read The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists

Vivienne Cox ● 1553d

Part of 'The Money Trick' from 'The Ragged Trousered Philanthropist':'As the working classes were in need of the necessaries of life and as they could not eat, drink or wear the useless money (they'd been paid), they were compelled to agree to the kind Capitalist's terms. They each bought back and at once consumed one third of the produce of their labour.. (and) ..having each consumed the pound's worth of necessaries they had bought with their wages, they were again in precisely the same condition as when they started work—they had nothing.'

Peter Evans ● 1552d

This is the essence of capitalism - the labour value increment.I.e. the very basis of capitalism is paying a worker less than the value added by his / her labour.  This difference (discount) is the capitalist's profit (less other costs).  You could look at this as theft - stealing the one thing people can never recover - their time.That is not to say that capitalism is per se a bad thing (although unregulated capitalism inevitably fails (and ends up "eating its own children) as we see every quarter half century or so, requiring a massive government bail out with public money).  It just has to be regulated and moderated in order to work successfully and sustainably (i.e. the European social democratic model of moderated capitalism, rejected by this government).Or we get into the position where we have a government repressing workers' wages (on the excuse of controlling inflation) whilst at the same time not controlling costs (such as energy costs, borrowing costs, or distribution of profits), nor CEO salaries (in the millions for the rail companies) or bankers' bonuses (see Prime Minister's Questions in Parliament today) -  https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/boris-johnson-on-the-rack-over-plan-to-boost-bankers-bonuses-as-inflation-soars_uk_62b2f2ece4b06169caa03f6b.Incidentally, Johnson was also asked a direct question in PMQs today whether he sought to employ his (then secret) mistress in the foreign office (at £100k a year of public money - at a time his wife was undergoing treatment for cancer).  He notably refused to answer - which can only lead to the conclusion that yes, he did.  (This was Carrie, so a different mistress than the £100k of public money he funded to take on trips with him when he was Mayor of London).The man is corrupt to his core.

T P Howell ● 1552d

This goes to the heart of the Tory party failings. Again and again they seek freedom from constraints as a route to quickly making money. At best this is a naive ignorance of the boom / bust cycle. At worst it is a very small number of people aiming to get rich quickly and stuff everyone else. As someone pointed out, bright &!talented entrepreneurs create great businesses through ideas and innovation. Not through reducing oversight and restraint on the reckless aspects of capitalism.

Alan Clark ● 1552d

"And ducking as much tax as they can". But surely that's what every sane person would try and do when running a business - avoiding paying tax legally, as far as possible - that's largely why you employ an accountant, for tax avoidance, but not tax evasion.

Brian Coyle ● 1551d

I understand that. The difference is when we enter the world of these 'wealth creator' businesses. They have access to tax avoidance schemes that 'every sane person' does not.Off shoring, countries of low VAT, deciding that the 'brand' is worth millions in licence fees so individual country branches can never make money, etc. There seems to be so many tricks that can be played that is not open to ordinary people or ordinary businesses. That creates the ability for large businesses and the very, very wealthy to apply avoidance of tax payments that, under all being equal circumstances, would have to be paid. The core problem is not tax avoidance, it is unfair & only accessible to some tax avoidance.

Alan Clark ● 1551d

Many smaller companies are wealth creators too who do pay their taxes, create employment of high skilled jobs. When I refer to wealth creators I wasn’t thinking just about the global players.

Jayne Thorburn ● 1551d

Seeing the enormous disparity in the wages of those at the top of Network Rail, Royal Mail, BA, BT etc. compared to the average worker in any of those companies, it really doesn't take an economic genius to fathom out why so many of the employees are being balloted for strike action, let alone those in the public sector. Also, as pointed out in today's 'i'  the RMT's Mick Lynch is just running rings around the high and mighty trying to take him on, he is pragmatic, reasonable and concise, and gets his message across without histrionics. Neither the Labour party or the Tories are coming out of this covered in glory, and the government are just spoiling for a fight - they think this is their 'Scargill moment' - pathetic. How is it that Shapps was up in arms regarding P&O using agency staff just a few months ago but is now prepared to sanction just that on the railways? The modern union leader may yet prove that they can run rings round what pass for parliamentarians with reasoned, logical and justified argument on behalf of their members. Watch and learn Johnson.

Vanessa Smith ● 1551d

Are the details of Mick Lynch's salary package and perks in the public domain ?

Richard Greenhough ● 1551d

Yes.  But what's that got to do with the price of fish?

T P Howell ● 1551d

'Yes.  But what's that got to do with the price of fish?'It's Richard's standard riposte -  he's King of 'whataboutery', in an effort - becoming more futile by the day - to try and justify this waste of space government headed by a lying, sh*tbag.

Vanessa Smith ● 1551d

Vanessa - "Seeing the enormous disparity in the wages of those at the top of Network Rail, Royal Mail, BA, BT etc. compared to the average worker in any of those companies..."After that comment, it seems reasonable to wonder how much the man leading the workers out on strike receives compared to his members. I'm afraid I must concede the title of King of Whataboutery to Robert Fish.

Richard Greenhough ● 1550d

From 'Sherwood' currently on BBC1 from a character who is an NUM lawyer on the 1984 miner's strike, about the Thatcher government's tactics. Rings just as real now in the current climate."They wanted that strike. They wanted to change the political landscape of this country away from collectivism towards deregulated market forces. Reasonable people can agree or disagree with that shift. The point is, in order to achieve it they needed a war. They need to, and I quote, 'Provoke a war in nationalised industries'. And they picked coal. And they won. And this country changed forever."

Vanessa Smith ● 1550d

We have gone from a large coal mining industry in 1984 to a minimal one in 2022, where the prospect of opening a new mine in Cumbria is highly controversial. For environmental reasons this seems to have been inevitable, if very disruptive to the communities directly concerned. Was there any alternative ?

Richard Greenhough ● 1550d

No there wasn’t any other options coal would have stopped being mined in this country decades ago regardless on Arthur Scargill 😂😂😂😂 many of the mining towns have been reborn but the change would have been hard for those affected. I am sure many of the families looking back are grateful now.

Jayne Thorburn ● 1550d

Yes I clearly recall, back during the miners strike, that everyone was saying this is all an environmental issue.You two. Look up the word disingenuous.

Alan Clark ● 1550d

'Yes I clearly recall, back during the miners strike, that everyone was saying this is all an environmental issue.You two. Look up the word disingenuous.'What a pair! I ask you - the point was about how the government of the day skewed events to their advantage and how dirty they are prepared to play. I doubt even now whether many of the communities ripped apart are bouncing around saying how bloody grateful they are, for destroying lives and pulling families apart. But, hey ho - at least they're more environmentally friendly.

Vanessa Smith ● 1550d

I'm not sure I wholly agree with that summary. I agree the 80's Tory government wanted to batter the unions, and that they wanted to pick a fight they thought they could win, and they wanted to win it in a way that reduced the power and threat of the unions. And for the record, the unions were themselves to blame - they were not acting responsibly in the 70's and there many in union movement that wanted to overthrow capitalism in the UK. That is, not vote out capitalism democratically but to overthrow it.But de-regulation was primarily focused on the financial markets. The government did want to break up large nationalized entities into smaller private businesses. So it is true they wanted to end collectivism.What the government also did was largely decide to destroy UK large manufacturing. They saw the unions as such a threat and they were primarily based in manufacturing. Remove large manufacturing and remove the unions. Not exactly forward thinking - but at the time the financial sector was going big guns and N Sea oil was flowing in. It must have looked so simple to give up the problem sector of Industry.So between the unions and the Tory government they might a right old mess of the UK ability to export. And thus we get to Brexit.

Alan Clark ● 1550d

"Many of the mining towns have been reborn"! Perhaps you'd like to name a few of the renascent minimg towns. Entire communities in the North of England and Wales were destroyed while a government that appeared more interested in the economic success of the South-East did very little to help them. Nearly 40 years on, my home town is still a depressing place to which to return.

Robert Fish ● 1550d

Don't be silly, Alan. Just answer the question - whatever had happened in the miners' strike, would we have still had a large coal industry today with the environmental awareness that has become the norm since ? Was there any alternative ?

Richard Greenhough ● 1550d

40 years ago. Are you seriously suggesting that a managed transition away from coal mining over 30-40 years is the same as immediate closure and kicking people into unemployment and destroying whole communities?Yes I guess you are because you follow the Tory mantra of market forces, don't support workers, don't invest in transition, etc. So I can see that you think its the same.

Alan Clark ● 1549d

Alan we lost manufacturing because we couldn’t compete on price simple, market forces. Sadly the majority of people don’t buy British if cheaper alternative available.

Jayne Thorburn ● 1549d

Between 1947 and 1994, some 950 mines were closed by UK governments. Clement Attlee’s Labour government closed 101 pits between 1947 and 1951; Macmillan (Conservative) closed 246 pits between 1957 and 1963; Wilson (Labour) closed 253 in his two terms in office between 1964 and 1976; Heath (Conservative) closed 26 between 1970 and 1974; and Thatcher (Conservative) closed 115 between 1979 and 1990.The truth is that every pit has a finite life determined by the local geology, the owner's willingness to invest in new/replacement machinery, new shafts and galleries and of course market forces.Link to a graph of UK Coal production -1900 to 2019https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_mining_in_the_United_Kingdom#/media/File:Coal_production_in_the_UK.svg

Sam Hearn ● 1549d