Reform Is the 2024 Dark Horse

[MancTom]

5 minutes ago, andrewwk said:

if there is a shortage of staff in the NHS (there is) we do need people from overseas with those skills to fill the gap. We don't need loads of low skilled workers / illegal migration and I am sure we will agree on that. But the rocket surgeon "one in one out" idea would literally see people dying because there are not doctors / nurses to care for them. 

immigration numbers are not driven by fruit pickers, nor even people in boats. Some of the biggest categories are Ukraine, Hong Kong and NHS workers (all of order 100k or more per year). So it's actually pointless arguing about fruit pickers because even if you stop it, the impact won't be big.

[Insane]

5 minutes ago, andrewwk said:

if there is a shortage of staff in the NHS (there is) we do need people from overseas with those skills to fill the gap

Yes but we don't need to let everyone in in the hope of catching enough people to work in the NHS. I heard that there are 288,000 immigrants who work in the NHS but we have had over 10 million extra people in the last 20 years , so that works out that just 3% of immigrants work for the NHS yet 100% will use it. 

8 minutes ago, andrewwk said:

But the rocket surgeon "one in one out" idea would literally see people dying because there are not doctors / nurses to care for them. 

Why would it. One out so we let one in who is going to work in the NHS , quite simple. 

[andrewwk]

Just now, MancTom said:

immigration numbers are not driven by fruit pickers, nor even people in boats. Some of the biggest categories are Ukraine, Hong Kong and NHS workers (all of order 100k or more per year). So it's actually pointless arguing about fruit pickers because even if you stop it, the impact won't be big.

although presumably the Ukraine / HK categories will be blips, so in principle are also not the issue?

[andrewwk]

Just now, Insane said:

Yes but we don't need to let everyone in in the hope of catching enough people to work in the NHS. I heard that there are 288,000 immigrants who work in the NHS but we have had over 10 million extra people in the last 20 years , so that works out that just 3% of immigrants work for the NHS yet 100% will use it. 

Why would it. One out so we let one in who is going to work in the NHS , quite simple. 

what if the required number of NHS workers is greater than the number of people exiting the UK?

[Insane]

3 minutes ago, MancTom said:

So it's actually pointless arguing about fruit pickers because even if you stop it, the impact won't be big.

Yet in an earlier post you gave fruit pickers as an example of why we need more immigration. 

[Insane]

1 minute ago, andrewwk said:

what if the required number of NHS workers is greater than the number of people exiting the UK?

400,000 exited last year so we are a long way from that situation. If it ever occurred (which it won't) then we can always reassess. Much better to do that than carry on with an ever increasing head count that is currently out of control. 

I don't know but do you know how many of the 1.1 million new arrivals last year are working in the NHS? 

[andrewwk]

12 minutes ago, Insane said:

400,000 exited last year so we are a long way from that situation. If it ever occurred (which it won't) then we can always reassess. Much better to do that than carry on with an ever increasing head count that is currently out of control. 

I don't know but do you know how many of the 1.1 million new arrivals last year are working in the NHS? 

yeh sure, I mean it's not just the NHS that is an example of a skills shortage. of course immigration needs to be addressed, why the need for the blunt instrument?

[Insane]

3 minutes ago, andrewwk said:

yeh sure, I mean it's not just the NHS that is an example of a skills shortage. of course immigration needs to be addressed, why the need for the blunt instrument?

Why do you call it a blunt instrument?

Our official population figure is just under 70 Million other indicators put the figures much higher. Yet we keep being told we need more people. It is a never ending increasing circle the more we have the more some people say we need. 

You say immigration needs to be addressed what do you mean by that ?

How many more do you think we need?

If things are not working with an official figure of 70 Million why would they work with 72, 74 or any other number of million people? 

I don't expect a number from you no one when asked this question ever gives a number. An extra 700,000 people last year and people say we still need more. 

[Orb]

2 hours ago, Insane said:

An extra 700,000 people last year and people say we still need more. 

That's almost the entire population of some countries (Bhutan, Guyana). If a politician said we're allowing the entire population of Bhutan to emigrate here this year, and the entire population of Guyana next year, and the entire population of Estonia over the following two years, and so on and so on, even the pro-immigration cohort would be like "hang on a minute, this is getting a bit much now". 

But that's exactly what's happening in terms of nominal arrivals. 

[Insane]

2 minutes ago, Orb said:

That's almost the entire population of some countries (Bhutan, Guyana). If a politician said we're allowing the entire population of Bhutan to emigrate here this year, and the entire population of Guyana next year, and the entire population of Estonia over the following two years, and so on and so on, even the pro-immigration cohort would be like "hang on a minute, this is getting a bit much now". 

But that's exactly what's happening in terms of nominal arrivals. 

It is madness where does it all end. 

If you take a look at some of my posts on here I have been debating with andrewwk who rolled out all the normal default lines when it comes to immigration blar blar blar.

When he said immigration did need addressing I then asked him go give me some numbers. Asking how many more should we let in ? As usual when I pose this question he has gone silent. 

[Orb]

3 minutes ago, Insane said:

It is madness where does it all end. 

If you take a look at some of my posts on here I have been debating with andrewwk who rolled out all the normal default lines when it comes to immigration blar blar blar.

When he said immigration did need addressing I then asked him go give me some numbers. Asking how many more should we let in ? As usual when I pose this question he has gone silent. 

I've observed that question asked here over and over, and I've never seen a direct answer given. 

[Unmoderated]

On 13/01/2024 at 20:17, Johnno1167 said:

Oh.. and The Brexit party as they label themselves. So, how exactly is brexit working out for the UK ? 

immigration up. GDP down . Foreign  Investment down . Growth slowed on average vs all neighbours on the same continent .  
The land of unicorns , milk and honey, not quite yet in sight . Still trying to find a single benefit . Even the government a wonder he ministerial post for brexit opportunities ! 
But hey ho, can still claim blue passports ! 
 

the #1 ask I have at the next election is that we have a few grown ups in control .

 

Better than it seems to be for the EuroZone. Germany in particular. 

[A17]

All elections now are a choice between two options

1. We offer simple solutions to complex problems.

2. We don't see any problems whatsoever.

[andrewwk]

3 hours ago, Insane said:

Why do you call it a blunt instrument?

Our official population figure is just under 70 Million other indicators put the figures much higher. Yet we keep being told we need more people. It is a never ending increasing circle the more we have the more some people say we need. 

You say immigration needs to be addressed what do you mean by that ?

How many more do you think we need?

If things are not working with an official figure of 70 Million why would they work with 72, 74 or any other number of million people? 

I don't expect a number from you no one when asked this question ever gives a number. An extra 700,000 people last year and people say we still need more. 

As I said before several times, points-based Aus-style system. and why should I give a number? I don't what it "should" be and neither do you

Edited January 15 by andrewwk

[Insane]

3 minutes ago, andrewwk said:

As I said before several times, points-based Aus-style system. and why should I give a number? I don't what it "should" be and neither do you

Right ponts-based Aus-style system, so how many is that?

Why should you give a number because it is all about numbers we already have 70 million people. That is the official figure we all know it is much higher. In Australia not only do they use a points based system on who they let in they also dictate where the arrivals go and live, maybe we should try that here and spread people out a bit as where I live on the East London Essex Borders we are more than full up. There are other places in the UK that are also full yet they attract more and more people. 

I do know what the figure needs to be which is Net/Zero. Quite simple oh and also we need to remove those that are living here illegally.

[burk]

Here's one for the "how will the NHS ever survive?" crowd:

[burk]

7 hours ago, Orb said:

In an ideal world I'd like to see a total stop to immigration and mass deportations too, for a variety of cultural and social reasons. However, any party offering a referendum couldn't really compose the referendum question so extreme. Claims of "far right" could then be more justified, whether mass deportations are actually far right or not. A politically more palatable question would offer a strict points based system. I know that's not to a lot of people's tastes, but it would stop the insane levels of mass immigration we're experiencing now. Anyway, it was an example of how the question could be phrased. 

Another way it could be phrased is "should there be a generational pause on all immigration?" Y/N. This option would allow us at least to deal with the huge current problem and catch up regarding infrastructure, housing, and services. 

I don't think a referendum is required, a Party offering an immediate cessation is quite acceptable in the national conversation. I'd go further and say it's tptb's infantilising attitude towards the electorate on the question of mass immigration that makes that more palatable with time. 

Hence why it's in the SDP's Constitution along with leaving the ECHR. Matt Goodwin's latest polling data and surveys taken nationwide suggests a much different opinion to mass immigration and not in the way Westminster and media elites would hope

What gave us the Brexit vote has galvanized many who feel short changed by the Tories, especially the red wall seats. 

Plus 10 minutes spent on YT or twitter watching journalists vlogs of the problems caused by the cultural enrichers up and down the country is only going to harden attitudes towards these people.

Politicians may soon find themselves overtaken by events caused by their own tin ear on this issue.

[Money Frugality]

https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/48418-voting-intention-con-20-lab-47-16-17-jan-2024
 

Reform climbs to 12% in latest poll by you gov 

[Bear Necessities]

Because of the first past the post "democracy" we live under, that 12% for Reform would end up with 0 or maybe 1 seat because of their vote spread out thinly across the country.

It is ridiculous that we still put up with this way of doing things instead of some kind of proportional representation.

I'm far more towards the other end of the political spectrum personally (but don't want to debate that in here), but I would fully support PR "even" if it means Reform getting 12% of seats (and Green getting 7% etc) Even if it meant a far right or far left party getting 2 or 3 or 5%. Because the whole point is that it represents everyone and not just the party that I prefer (or should that be despise slightly less?)

It just seems like such a better system where every vote actually counts for something and everyone gets representation. and the house is full of differing voices and shades of grey rather than just black and white, right and wrong shouting matches (but where both sides always seem to agree that HPI = good.)

No wonder people don't vote. I spent my entire childhood in a part of the country where you could stick a blue rosette on a sack of horsesh*t and it would get elected so every time my parents voted red it felt like a waste of time.  (and there are a lot of places where you can switch those red and blue rosettes and it's the same story. I'm sure there are a lot of Tory votes in london where they feel unheard in strong Labour areas, and the same for all the Hippies voting green but never getting more than 1 seat max, or Reform voters with more than 10% of the vote and I imagine it will be 0/1 seats.

Would do wonders for debate about things like housing costs too if you had PR then people would feel they could vote for a national HPC party to protest against ridiculous HPI and actually get some representation in the House, rather than feeling they have to vote for either the blue or red wing of the Homeowners Party as we do now. And those MPs would be focussed on that subject and bringing it to the forefront of debates rather than having to go along with the position their party has had to take so as not to upset the wrinkleys and the NIMBYs

 

My hope this time is that the Tories get kicked to the curb, Labour get in with a massive majority, realise there is no room to manoeuvre because everything is so wrecked and so when the next election comes down the track 5 years later, the country is in just as bad a state (because 5 years isn't long enough to turn anything around) and their poll figures are heading the same direction the Tories did, they have to run it on a platform of promising to bring in PR in their second term.  I can't see how else we ever get to PR because no party who is riding high in the polls would ever want to bring it in. Because it would punish the party (even if it would benefit the country) 😕

Edited January 19 by Bear Necessities

[hurlerontheditch]

2 hours ago, Bear Necessities said:

Because of the first past the post "democracy" we live under, that 12% for Reform would end up with 0 or maybe 1 seat because of their vote spread out thinly across the country.

It is ridiculous that we still put up with this way of doing things instead of some kind of proportional representation.

I'm far more towards the other end of the political spectrum personally (but don't want to debate that in here), but I would fully support PR "even" if it means Reform getting 12% of seats (and Green getting 7% etc) Even if it meant a far right or far left party getting 2 or 3 or 5%. Because the whole point is that it represents everyone and not just the party that I prefer (or should that be despise slightly less?)

It just seems like such a better system where every vote actually counts for something and everyone gets representation. and the house is full of differing voices and shades of grey rather than just black and white, right and wrong shouting matches (but where both sides always seem to agree that HPI = good.)

No wonder people don't vote. I spent my entire childhood in a part of the country where you could stick a blue rosette on a sack of horsesh*t and it would get elected so every time my parents voted red it felt like a waste of time.  (and there are a lot of places where you can switch those red and blue rosettes and it's the same story. I'm sure there are a lot of Tory votes in london where they feel unheard in strong Labour areas, and the same for all the Hippies voting green but never getting more than 1 seat max, or Reform voters with more than 10% of the vote and I imagine it will be 0/1 seats.

Would do wonders for debate about things like housing costs too if you had PR then people would feel they could vote for a national HPC party to protest against ridiculous HPI and actually get some representation in the House, rather than feeling they have to vote for either the blue or red wing of the Homeowners Party as we do now. And those MPs would be focussed on that subject and bringing it to the forefront of debates rather than having to go along with the position their party has had to take so as not to upset the wrinkleys and the NIMBYs

 

My hope this time is that the Tories get kicked to the curb, Labour get in with a massive majority, realise there is no room to manoeuvre because everything is so wrecked and so when the next election comes down the track 5 years later, the country is in just as bad a state (because 5 years isn't long enough to turn anything around) and their poll figures are heading the same direction the Tories did, they have to run it on a platform of promising to bring in PR in their second term.  I can't see how else we ever get to PR because no party who is riding high in the polls would ever want to bring it in. Because it would punish the party (even if it would benefit the country) 😕

PR will not happen i think. which is a shame. I used to live in a country that had it and it does reflect the mood of the nation. Yes it causes deadlocks etc but parties then need to learn to compromise and make deals

[Bear Necessities]

 

22 minutes ago, hurlerontheditch said:

PR will not happen i think. which is a shame. I used to live in a country that had it and it does reflect the mood of the nation. Yes it causes deadlocks etc but parties then need to learn to compromise and make deals

Yes it's a real shame. My hopes for it are just a pipe dream I think as it's hard to see a scenario where it would be proposed by those in power (who are often only in power because we don't have PR)

The system we have at the moment just feels like one party gets in only when the other party has run things into the ground, or run out of road, or can't face the challenges required, and then spends 5 years reversing a lot of the policy of the last lot, and bringing in short term policies that they hope will get them elected 5 years later, which means there is no long term thinking, everything is "good cos we are doing it" or "bad because the other side did it".  Not to mention the huge feeling of disenfranchisement a lot of people experience because their vote doesn't make a difference and they feel the main parties are two sides of a (home-ownerist) coin. 

It would be very refreshing if you had smaller parties with a voice bringing forward debate on things like immigration and HPI and other issues, that then those from both big parties could discuss and make compromises on without this automatic "well we are the opposition so of course we oppose it" nonsense.  Good ideas should be heard and approved regardless of this panto hero and villain nonsense they do now. and bad ideas could be discussed and shot down in the same way.

"Mood of the nation" is a good phrase, I like that.

Edited January 19 by Bear Necessities

[nero120]

34 minutes ago, hurlerontheditch said:

PR will not happen i think. which is a shame. I used to live in a country that had it and it does reflect the mood of the nation. Yes it causes deadlocks etc but parties then need to learn to compromise and make deals

Agreed, the UK has never been a true democracy. The British elite would NEVER allow British subjects to determine the fate of the nation.

[Dyson Fury]

3 hours ago, Bear Necessities said:

Because of the first past the post "democracy" we live under, that 12% for Reform would end up with 0 or maybe 1 seat because of their vote spread out thinly across the country.

It is ridiculous that we still put up with this way of doing things instead of some kind of proportional representation.

You are probably correct.  But it does not necessarily follow that a vote for Reform UK is a wasted one.

Look at the 2015 General Election.  In the runup to that el3ection, UKIP was polling comparably to Reform UK now.  In the event, 3.88 million votes (12.9% of the total) was enough to win only 1 seat (of the 2, won in by-elections, that they were defending).  For the LibDems, 2.4 million votes (7.9%) was enough to win 8 seats.  The SNP's 1.45 million votes (obviously localised in Scottish constituencies) was enough to win them 58 seats. 

But it was the existence of UKIP, their consistent opinion polling numbers, and their high votes in local elections, that scared David Cameron into promising a referendum on EU membership, in an attempt to avoid losing more voters to UKIP.  So the core aim of UKIP was achieved despite winning hardly any seats.

[Bear Necessities]

9 minutes ago, Dyson Fury said:

  So the core aim of UKIP was achieved despite winning hardly any seats.

That's a very good point.

[Orb]

46 minutes ago, nero120 said:

Agreed, the UK has never been a true democracy. The British elite would NEVER allow British subjects to determine the fate of the nation.

Wasn't there a referendum on PR?