East Coast Mariner
TS Member
Yes, all these Covid inquiries are complete fluff, only to discuss the things that polite society agrees were the worst things about it - delayed schooling, lack of PPE etc.
- News all the latest
- Theme Park explore the park
- Resort tour the resort
- Future looking forward
- History looking back
- Community and meetups
-
ℹ️ Heads up...
This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks. - Thread starter Matt.GC
- Start date
- Favourite Ride
- Ug Bugs
- Favourite Ride
- Ug Bugs
UK Politics General Discussion
Slugjc
TS Member
Lucky for them, they know the folk in power so the amount the tax they and the their companies pay, are kept lower than needed.
BarryZola
TS Member
Labour say they want to stop the boats and 'smash the gangs' but here they are apparently about to add another couple of pull factors for people to come to our isles.
Firstly, they're looking at paying asylum seekers etc in hotels £100 a week to leave 'migrant hotels'. £400 a month, nice little earner, especially on top of the allowances they already get. I get that overall it will potentially save the government money on hotel costs but where do all the migrants go then? Set up shanty towns and tent cities? Live in the dodgy underground workplaces/shops where they work cash in hand when they're not officially supposed to be working? That'll turn out well.
Then, in the budget it looks like they're getting rid of the two child benefit cap. Again "Let's go to the UK, we can go there and have as many kids as we like and get more money for each one we have". They were supposed to be getting a grip on rising benefit costs for the nation but the best they can do is increase the costs!
Then Reeves is about to go back on one of her manifesto pledges not to put up income tax. This, after unemployment has just gone up to 5%, it's highest level for a while, after putting National Insurance costs up for businesses.
Absolute mess this lot are.
Firstly, they're looking at paying asylum seekers etc in hotels £100 a week to leave 'migrant hotels'. £400 a month, nice little earner, especially on top of the allowances they already get. I get that overall it will potentially save the government money on hotel costs but where do all the migrants go then? Set up shanty towns and tent cities? Live in the dodgy underground workplaces/shops where they work cash in hand when they're not officially supposed to be working? That'll turn out well.
Then, in the budget it looks like they're getting rid of the two child benefit cap. Again "Let's go to the UK, we can go there and have as many kids as we like and get more money for each one we have". They were supposed to be getting a grip on rising benefit costs for the nation but the best they can do is increase the costs!
Then Reeves is about to go back on one of her manifesto pledges not to put up income tax. This, after unemployment has just gone up to 5%, it's highest level for a while, after putting National Insurance costs up for businesses.
Absolute mess this lot are.
Slugjc
TS Member
Dearnt tax the wealthy because they will fund reform. Nigel will con the working class to vote for him (on the migrant issue) then screw them all over once he is in, to look after his mates.
Keep the two child thing, but have something in place for change of circumstances, i.e redundancy and illness.
Failing that, which will still save money. Keep the cap at 2. Every child after decrease the amount. 50% for the third. 25 for the forth and 10% for any after. Or buy them a Tele.
Keep the two child thing, but have something in place for change of circumstances, i.e redundancy and illness.
Failing that, which will still save money. Keep the cap at 2. Every child after decrease the amount. 50% for the third. 25 for the forth and 10% for any after. Or buy them a Tele.
1st point deterents don't work, seeking Asylum is not illegal. The Tories closed off all the safe legal routes and stopped the embassies being used restore those and you might significantly reduce the boats.
It's a good idea to have asylum seekers work whilst their visa is being processed adding more money to the economy and with a workers shortage thanks to declining birth rate, More people retiring and loss of EU Workers. Migration will need to come in to prevent the losses.
Two Child Benefit Cap going will lift so many people out of poverty you want children to remain in poverty.
Its been rumoured they'll decrease the national insurance on businesses and increase income tax. It is a risky gamble. But there are other taxes that could be risen instead. The Budget is all rumours and speculation at the minute leaking information to see how viable it is
GooseOnTheLoose
TS Member
The currently weekly allowance for an asylum seeker is £49.15 per week. This is all they get. This is to cover their food, drink, clothes, public transport, phone and internet costs, all of which are considered a basic human essential.
The proposal of an additional £100 per week is to cover their living costs, if they choose to opt out of government provided accomodation. To be eligible, asylum seekers would have to provide proof of appropriate accommodation and would remain subject to normal regular reporting to the Home Office.
The YMCA is the one of country's largest providers of temporary and emergency supported living accomodation. In the bellwether county of Worcestershire, a single bedroom will cost you £92.91 per week to rent. This does include some bills, but excludes council tax and an unspecified amount of "service charges" per week. This usually ranges between an additional £20-60 per week. At the low end, you're looking at £112.91 per week to live in a YMCA hostel, which is more than the government could be offering in its proposed costs, further squeezing the existing weekly allowance.
Theoretically, the total monthly income an asylum seeker could receive is £596.60 (not that a month is strictly 4 weeks, but we'll go with it). It is worth remembering that the are not allowed to work and they are not able to claim other state benefits. Anyone would struggle to live on just under £600 a month for all of their costs.
You cannot claim state benefits in the UK unless you have permanent settled status. Asylum seekers cannot claim state benefits, those living here with temporary visas cannot claim most state benefits, those living here with a workers visa cannot claim most state benefits. The only eligible benefit the latter two are able to claim is a contribution based benefit, like New Style JSA. The amount they could get will be based on their contributions alone.
You need to show you have a right to reside in the UK to claim Universal Credit, Pension Credit or Child Benefit.
Prior to Brexit, the UK Government held the power to be able to deport any resident/foreign national who was no longer able to provide for themselves, this included EU nationals. Our government rarely, if ever, used this power. It still retains this power now.
I don't believe that this was ever a stated aim and it certainly wasn't a manifesto pledge, but I can understand why you might have this impression.
Pensions are the largest source of state benefits in the UK.
For the financial year 2023-2024, DWP spent approximately £124.1 billion on the State Pension. The total expenditure on all pensioner benefits combined was around £147 billion.
For the financial year 2025-2026, the total DWP spending on benefits for pensioners is forecast to be £174.9 billion, with the State Pension accounting for approximately £145.6 billion of that amount.
DWP's total budget for 2023-2024 was £268.5 billion, and the 2025-26 forecast is £326.9 billion for the UK wide social security system.
Benefits for pensioners account for roughly 55% of DWP's benefit budget. As a percentage, pensioners account for roughly 19% of the UK's population.
The most effective way of tackling the rising costs of the benefits system is to remove the triple lock on pensions.
The increase in the pension budget between 2023-2024 and 2025-2026 is roughly £50 billion, which just so happens to be the same amount as the recent forecasts of a "black hole" in Reeve's budget.
Rachel Reeves rejects claims of £50bn ‘black hole’ in finances
The chancellor hit back at the idea that the government faces so large a gap between spending and tax income.
www.bbc.co.uk
Sadly freezing pension increases for a year, or scrapping the triple lock, are hardly vote winners. But sure, let's go after the £5.4 billion we spend on our asylum system every year intead.
Last edited:
BarryZola
TS Member
So yes, what you're saying is that the bribe to get them out of the hotels will not work? Another proposal that is as useful as a chocolate fireguard then, and they must know it.
With the child benefit cap, that's not the message that 'the boat gangs' will feed people and most will just hear that it's another benefit that will eventually be available to them when they get their asylum claims approved. It's the optics of it.
On numerous occasions Starmer and Reeves have mentioned that the benefits bill is too high and that we need to get a handle of it. It might not have been a manifesto pledge (I didn't say it was anyway) but it's been touted by them many a time. That's why we had the big thing about trying to cut disability benefits etc before Reeves and Starmer got bullied by their back-benchers into U-turning.
Well yes, maybe they should get rid of the triple-lock. But instead of doing what's right for the country they'd rather do whatever they need to do to hang onto power for their own selfish needs. There needs to be cross-party agreement on some of these issues that neither party dare to touch in-case they lose votes and before an election both agree and make it clear to the electorate that these things are going to happen whatever colour rosette you vote for. But they're all just a bunch of children playing games about who can sit on what side of parliament and make a few quid for themselves through dodgy back-room deals whilst they cling to power.
With the child benefit cap, that's not the message that 'the boat gangs' will feed people and most will just hear that it's another benefit that will eventually be available to them when they get their asylum claims approved. It's the optics of it.
On numerous occasions Starmer and Reeves have mentioned that the benefits bill is too high and that we need to get a handle of it. It might not have been a manifesto pledge (I didn't say it was anyway) but it's been touted by them many a time. That's why we had the big thing about trying to cut disability benefits etc before Reeves and Starmer got bullied by their back-benchers into U-turning.
Well yes, maybe they should get rid of the triple-lock. But instead of doing what's right for the country they'd rather do whatever they need to do to hang onto power for their own selfish needs. There needs to be cross-party agreement on some of these issues that neither party dare to touch in-case they lose votes and before an election both agree and make it clear to the electorate that these things are going to happen whatever colour rosette you vote for. But they're all just a bunch of children playing games about who can sit on what side of parliament and make a few quid for themselves through dodgy back-room deals whilst they cling to power.
GooseOnTheLoose
TS Member
I believe it'll cause more problems than it is going to solve.
I can envisage a fair few entrepreneurial property owners taking full advantage of this scheme, in a similar vein to those providing "supported" living accomodation to people with complex needs or a history of being homeless.
It's likely that they will buy up housing stock, split them into as many single occupancy rooms as they can get away with, and essentially create asylum slums.
A few disreputable characters may provide offers of off the books "work", creating a risk of modern slavery.
More asylum seekers will turn to petty crime to be able to sustain living independently, which would put them at immediate risk of deportation if caught.
What the government is essentially doing with this proposal is creating a private sector market for actual asylum hotels, in all but name, for a fraction of the current cost.
Benzin
TS Member
Basically what we're saying is that the biggest benefit scroungers are the pensioners?
Everything else will just be another situation where the rich get richer and those struggling will just have to cope or attack whatever the scapegoat of the week is. Ignoring as always that the actual amount of asylum seekers is far lower than things like, children in poverty, but that costs money to fix which (through a daft refusal) Labour can't raise taxes to at least help to solve.
Though I'm sure reducing the minimum wage is a completely fair and well costed proposal that will also aid those in those sectors.
Everything else will just be another situation where the rich get richer and those struggling will just have to cope or attack whatever the scapegoat of the week is. Ignoring as always that the actual amount of asylum seekers is far lower than things like, children in poverty, but that costs money to fix which (through a daft refusal) Labour can't raise taxes to at least help to solve.
Though I'm sure reducing the minimum wage is a completely fair and well costed proposal that will also aid those in those sectors.
Slugjc
TS Member
They are. It's political suicide by ANY party to go against the pensions.
In the 1950s, you had twenty workers for 1 pensioner. We are now down to 3 workers per 1 pensioner.
Also the unspoken truth, that the elderly are holding the NHS back as we do not have the care system in place to cope with the aging population
In the 1950s, you had twenty workers for 1 pensioner. We are now down to 3 workers per 1 pensioner.
Also the unspoken truth, that the elderly are holding the NHS back as we do not have the care system in place to cope with the aging population
BarryZola
TS Member
Yes, because some clever so and so's started campaigning to tell everyone to stop smoking and drinking so everyone is living way longer than a pension's supposed to last for and having a million hip replacements before they die. Previous leaderships also managed to screw the country so much that no-one can afford kids anymore. Big round of applause.
RIPCorky
TS Member
This is what happens when you vote a government out rather than vote one in. This lot really are useless, not that is wasn't obvious. Unemployment rise correlates directly with Reeve's tax on business. Removing two child benefit cap will be adding a few billion to the "black hole" that's probably already significantly increased in size in only a year this lot have been in power. Labour will be out for another generation next general election and Starmer will probably be remembered as the PM who lost to Farage...
They are actually doing fine in Government its their communication that is the abysmal thing that's holding them back they are doing a lot of good things that the media won't tell you.
A Week is a long time in politics and a lot can happen between now and the next election people have short memories
Increasing Rate ot pay for minimum wage
Strengthening Renters Rights
Strengthening Workers Rights
Bringing back SurrStart centres
Economy Consecutively Growing every month this year.
Removing Two Child Benefot Cap
NHS Waiting Lists been going down
Trains being Nationalised again
GB Energy been created.
Backtracking is not a bad thing when you have done something wrong.
One thing they are doing right do unpopular stuff in the first year and do more popular stuff later on nearer to the election.
Got to remeber the reason the country is so bad is the sheer amount of damage Tories in action caused you can't undo 14 Years of damage in just 18 Monthe
Lots of overcapitalisation there...
Surestart was a flop first time around because it was adopted by the middle classes, not the target market at all.
A large number of the things you list haven't actually happened yet, and will cost enormous amounts of money to businesses and the taxpayer...unfunded and unwritten.
The "Two Child Benefot Cap" removal is really needed, but will cost another penny on income tax to fund it...but we really need the fresh population, so a cost worth paying.
The NHS remains in crisis, dread for this winters corridor queues is already well reported.
Never knew corridor waiting until I was in my forties...it simply never used to happen.
I also remember nationalised trains.
Jeez.
Surestart was a flop first time around because it was adopted by the middle classes, not the target market at all.
A large number of the things you list haven't actually happened yet, and will cost enormous amounts of money to businesses and the taxpayer...unfunded and unwritten.
The "Two Child Benefot Cap" removal is really needed, but will cost another penny on income tax to fund it...but we really need the fresh population, so a cost worth paying.
The NHS remains in crisis, dread for this winters corridor queues is already well reported.
Never knew corridor waiting until I was in my forties...it simply never used to happen.
I also remember nationalised trains.
Jeez.
Sure Start was one of the biggest things that helped people of the last Labour Government
Benzin
TS Member
I mean Labour are doing well if their goal was to try and desperately appeal to those who'll never vote for them whilst disenfranchising their core supporters.
All the other issues (like businesses having to foot the bill for stuff, oh noooo) comes down to a capitalist society and the every growing pressure from those at the top demanding more profit. Can't raise the price? Make the quality of the thing worse with cheaper products (that also mean you can't legally call it chocolate anymore). But people are easily distracted by scapegoats and due to the tribalism of politics are happy to ignore the potential issues of say, exiting the ECHR because their side will win. Ignoring that things like Brexit made removing a number of illegal immigrants harder.
The only hope from a leftist's perspective is the Greens, and thats only down to Zach Polanaski seemingly being the first politician in ages to act like the one you think of. He actually ANSWERED A QUESTION DIRECTLY! The scandal!
Which is just crazy to consider.
All the other issues (like businesses having to foot the bill for stuff, oh noooo) comes down to a capitalist society and the every growing pressure from those at the top demanding more profit. Can't raise the price? Make the quality of the thing worse with cheaper products (that also mean you can't legally call it chocolate anymore). But people are easily distracted by scapegoats and due to the tribalism of politics are happy to ignore the potential issues of say, exiting the ECHR because their side will win. Ignoring that things like Brexit made removing a number of illegal immigrants harder.
The only hope from a leftist's perspective is the Greens, and thats only down to Zach Polanaski seemingly being the first politician in ages to act like the one you think of. He actually ANSWERED A QUESTION DIRECTLY! The scandal!
Which is just crazy to consider.