Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

[scaramanga]

You want me to list out the things that don't incur VAT?

Guess what's top of the govt's list of things that don't incur VAT.......

Education.

tossers.

 

[Finney Is Back]

maybe consider them as people just like people consider you as a person. They aren't less than me or you. And at some point all of our ancestors had to migrate to survive.

I do consider them as people and I have compassion for people who are in terrible situations through no fault of their own. But that doesn't answer my question. What is our 'fair share' and with which countries do we share our 'fair share' responsibility with?

If we answer that question then we can start to work out the numbers and the finances required to ensure that an asylum system works.

We can then start to total up the number of people living in intolerant countries where there is not real respect for human rights and come up with the number of people that may want to take the opportunity to move to a country where human rights actually are respected and you have equal rights whether you are male, female, other, gay, straight, christian, muslim, hindu, jew, budhist, mormon, atheist or agnostic.

We can then work out how each of those countries that are going to do their 'fair share' of taking the load will cater for the (likely) tens of millions of people each will have to incorporate into their population. Then medium to long term planning can be shaped around how and where those countries will build the housing, the schools, the health provision, the other services and of course how to pay for all of that. If that medium to long term planning doesn't happen then it will never work as only sticky plasters will be applied instead of real structural change occurring and there will end up being resentment as a minimum and likely far worse.

Of course we also have to consider that people will continue being born in the intolerant countries where human rights aren't respected, with those countries perhaps becoming even more intolerant when the people who are more tolerant leave and therefore the provision the tolerant 'fair share' countries must make will have to continue to increase.

 

[Finney Is Back]

Yes lots of people live in poor countries. We are talking about asylum seekers and refugees, some of which the UK has had a hand in causing. That is a shocking post.

I don't think it is about people living in 'poor' countries at all. I think it is about people living in countries where there is no respect for human rights. You say my post is shocking but you haven't attempted to answer the question I posted in it. What is a 'fair share' and with which other countries does the UK share that 'fair share' with?

Does taking on "whatever unit of measurement a fair share is" each month/year/decade improve the situation in the backward, illiberal countries the people are escaping from? What is your proposed medium to long term solution?

 

[Finney Is Back]

Breathtaking.

Thanks. But, again, what is a 'fair share'? and which countries does the UK share that 'fair share' number with?

 

[Baleforce]

Is anyone shocked by this?

‘Deeply shocking’: Nigel Farage faces fresh claims of racism and antisemitism at school

Bafta-winning director among contemporaries urging contrition and apology from Reform UK leader, who denies the allegations

www.theguardian.com

He's a racist man who has been saying racist things his entire life.

 

[thfcsteff]

Sorry I don’t know what you mean by your comment that I’ll have to ‘try harder than that’?

All good. Let's just say I think VAR would've caught it if you didn't see it ;-). Only you know if you meant to go in studs up or it was unfortunate timing

To go on to the figures you have links to it is difficult to interpret much from those (especially now that universal credit has replaced other forms of income support. Something I did see from the Joseph Rountree Foundation is that larger families with 3 or more children have consistently faced a higher rate of poverty (45% of children in large families were in poverty in 2022/23). That does indicate to me that too many people who cannot provide for their family are having multiple children despite not being able to afford having multiple children.

It is an enormous mire. Thus why any assumptions made about the nature of those having more than X amount of kids versus their circumstances and reasons becomes part of that quagmire. Context is everything. I think where things are heading is that there is absolutely going to be a movement where some believe we need to forcibly 'limit' the amount of children that a family can have (the Chinese did it for decades - maybe longer - and were roundly pilloried). Thus it looks like we are reaching an era where the much-feared 'government control over your life' will take on a bigger guise.
With regards to birthrate, I keep hearing that we are actually dipping too low!

Am I happy seeing children grow up in poverty? Absolutely not, it sickens me, and to that I end I would happily wager that I likely give far more to charity both through my company and personally than perhaps anyone on this forum (and by that I mean giving financially, giving opportunity and giving time).

I have no doubt that is somewhat true (I'm sure there are a few here who match you, but yes, in all I've read you strike me as an incredibly fair and decent person so this doesn't surprise me)...

However, I personally feel that we have a clear problem in this country where too many people expect the state to provide for them and their families instead of having the expectation that it is their job to to provide for themselves and their family.

IMO, the conditioning of that situation lies as much with 30-odd years (possibly more) of neglecting a more egalitarian approach to everything such as education, housing, and health. By that I do not mean (in any way) anti-capitalism, I am all for people being free to make their own wealth and amass some capital via their skill and hard work. But we currently have an system which is weighted so heavily towards so few that inequities are everywhere, and it becomes easy to write off complainents caught within as people who simply 'expect' or 'demand'. Personally, I think it is in society's best interests to support society in order for the overall health and welfare of the world we live in to be decent. I understand that it is not a utopia, that there are going to be some spongers and arseholes (they exist in the top few percent too) but we have to aim in that direction.

There are many, many genuine cases of people who cannot provide for themselves. If we lived in the perfect society, those people would never be unsafe or go hungry or cold. However, in order to ensure that happens we need to try to get to a point where the resources are being diverted to those truly needy and not those who put their family in poverty by making certain choices.

This I agree with. The key to me there is judgement versus reality versus assumption. It is a minefield. What standard and scale do you apply to (essentially) a 'means test' (which in itself is somewhat controversial)? Some of the poorest choices I can think of i.e. gambling, are directly associated with marketing + perception of success + desperation + potential addiction. Whilst it is a choice to gamble, some people don't have the gene. I think it gets very very complicated personally...

 

[thfcsteff]

Thanks. But, again, what is a 'fair share'? and which countries does the UK share that 'fair share' number with?

I want to give a proper answer to this question as I do find our discussions fruitful/interesting (hopefully you do too). Give me a few days or so (on the road and can only find time for one long reply today LOL)...

 

[Rorschach]

I don't think it is about people living in 'poor' countries at all. I think it is about people living in countries where there is no respect for human rights. You say my post is shocking but you haven't attempted to answer the question I posted in it. What is a 'fair share' and with which other countries does the UK share that 'fair share' with?

Does taking on "whatever unit of measurement a fair share is" each month/year/decade improve the situation in the backward, illiberal countries the people are escaping from? What is your proposed medium to long term solution?

The short answer is that the UK has the responsibility for dealing with every asylum seeker or refugee that arrives under international law, whether they are from brickhole countries or not. The exact numbers would depend on a myriad of factors, including the UKs own history with those countries. What would be considered fair would likely change per country, IMO. When they should return is a completely different discussion.

Let me ask you this: should the UK take a higher percentage of Palestinian refugees because it supplied weapons to the Israeli aggression? The answer to this one question is complicated by so many factors that we might fill a hundred threads with opinions related to this one conflict. This cannot be an arbitrary number plucked out of a minister's head is my point.

 

[Finney Is Back]

The short answer is that the UK has the responsibility for dealing with every asylum seeker or refugee that arrives under international law, whether they are from brickhole countries or not. The exact numbers would depend on a myriad of factors, including the UKs own history with those countries. What would be considered fair would likely change per country, IMO. When they should return is a completely different discussion.

Let me ask you this: should the UK take a higher percentage of Palestinian refugees because it supplied weapons to the Israeli aggression? The answer to this one question is complicated by so many factors that we might fill a hundred threads with opinions related to this one conflict. This cannot be an arbitrary number plucked out of a minister's head is my point.

Sorry but you haven't answered my question at all. In fact you have completely avoided it. I think people tend to avoid that question because they know that if they had to stand behind a number it would be absolutely huge and be all too evident how unsustainable it is.

So let's go again.... How many is the UK's 'fair share'? (let's say per annum to set a unit of measurement) and which other countries in the World are we sharing that 'fair share' with? Once we get a number then we can start to work out the logistics and see if we can make the finances add up.

To say it cannot be an arbitrary number completely ignores the fact that we already have an arbitrary number in operation. That arbitrary number at present is the amount of people who can muster up enough money to pay organised crime groups to smuggle them across Europe and then ultimately across the channel and then make a claim (whether true or not) that they are persecuted in whatever illiberal backwater, lack of human rights place they claim to originate from. At present those numbers are only limited by the length and danger of the journey and (more so) by the ability of asylum seeker's to raise the money to pay the organised crime groups who do the people smuggling (hence the very high percentage of arrivals being men).

If we are to move to a system where we allow people to seek asylum from their home country, or perhaps an official UN operated refugee camp, then the number of people seeking to come to the UK would absolutely sky rocket, likely well beyond the number that we could actually safely accommodate (house, educate, provide health and social care - things that are already reaching breaking point in the UK). We can't just sleepwalk into that without knowing what the parameters of that requirement should be?

Should the UK take a higher percentage of Palestinian refugees? Do you mean a higher percentage of Palestinians than people from other countries (Eritrea or Sudan or Iran for example?) or do you mean take a higher percentage of Palestinian's than other 'fair share' countries?

I think Israel purchase a very small amount of their military equipment from the UK (less than 1%). Almost all of their equipment comes from the US and Germany with Italy being the third largest supplier (but they themselves only being around 1%). Are you saying you want to start to put in rules around the UK only allow asylum for people from countries where arms sold from the UK are involved in a conflict? If so then that could stop people being persecuted in some extremely illiberal, backwater brickholes from being able to claim asylum here which doesn't seem the right thing to do to me.

 

[Rorschach]

Sorry but you haven't answered my question at all. In fact you have completely avoided it. I think people tend to avoid that question because they know that if they had to stand behind a number it would be absolutely huge and be all too evident how unsustainable it is.

So let's go again.... How many is the UK's 'fair share'? (let's say per annum to set a unit of measurement) and which other countries in the World are we sharing that 'fair share' with? Once we get a number then we can start to work out the logistics and see if we can make the finances add up.

To say it cannot be an arbitrary number completely ignores the fact that we already have an arbitrary number in operation. That arbitrary number at present is the amount of people who can muster up enough money to pay organised crime groups to smuggle them across Europe and then ultimately across the channel and then make a claim (whether true or not) that they are persecuted in whatever illiberal backwater, lack of human rights place they claim to originate from. At present those numbers are only limited by the length and danger of the journey and (more so) by the ability of asylum seeker's to raise the money to pay the organised crime groups who do the people smuggling.

If we are to move to a system where we allow people to seek asylum from their home country, or perhaps an official UN operated refugee camp, then the number of people seeking to come to the UK would absolutely sky rocket, likely well beyond the number that we could actually safely accommodate (house, educate, provide health and social care - things that are already reaching breaking point in the UK). We can't just sleepwalk into that without knowing what the parameters of that requirement should be?

Should the UK take a higher percentage of Palestinian refugees? Do you mean a higher percentage of Palestinians than people from other countries (Eritrea or Sudan or Iran for example?) or do you mean take a higher percentage of Palestinian's than other 'fair share' countries?

I think Israel purchase a very small amount of their military equipment from the UK (less than 1%). Almost all of their equipment comes from the US and Germany with Italy being the third largest supplier (but they themselves only being around 1%). Are you saying you want to start to put in rules around the UK only allow asylum for people from countries where arms sold from the UK are involved in a conflict? If so then that could stop people being persecuted in some extremely illiberal, backwater brickholes from being able to claim asylum here which doesn't seem the right thing to do to me.

I did answer it, just not to your liking. I responded that it is too complicated a question to be answered by someone like me on a football forum, and each case needs to be considered individually. If you don't like that answer then so be it.

 

[Finney Is Back]

I did answer it, just not to your liking. I responded that it is too complicated a question to be answered by someone like me on a football forum, and each case needs to be considered individually. If you don't like that answer then so be it.

No you didn't answer it. Any actual answer would've been to my liking as it would've provided a reference number that we could then debate whether that number was 'fair' and also whether it is affordable/supportable.

You instead completely avoided answering the question.

I'll say here that you were the one that mentioned the words 'fair share'. Surely if you are going to make a point about whether or not the UK does/doesn't/would/wouldn't accept their "fair share" then you need to define what the fair share actually is?

 

[Rorschach]

No you didn't answer it. Any actual answer would've been to my liking as it would've provided a reference number that we could then debate whether that number was 'fair' and also whether it is affordable/supportable.

You instead completely avoided answering the question.

I'll say here that you were the one that mentioned the words 'fair share'. Surely if you are going to make a point about whether or not the UK does/doesn't/would/wouldn't accept their "fair share" then you need to define what the fair share actually is?

You haven't accepted my answer, not that I didn't answer it. We are going around in circles. Have a good one.

 

[Finney Is Back]

You haven't accepted my answer, not that I didn't answer it. We are going around in circles. Have a good one.

So your answer is 'it is too complicated a question to answer'. Maybe it's just me(?) but I see that as not answering the question at all.

If it is too complicated to be able to define what a 'fair share' is then why did you make a statement in an earlier post about the UK potentially avoiding taking in it's fair share? How can you make a statement about a 'fair share' if you have no opinion on what a fair share actually is?

 

[thfcsteff]

I want to give a proper answer to this question as I do find our discussions fruitful/interesting (hopefully you do too). Give me a few days or so (on the road and can only find time for one long reply today LOL)...

@Finney Is Back

So I just looked back at where my Harry Pearce 'breathtaking' quote was aimed. It was not at the 'fair share' question (in all honesty that is an enormous question to even begin answering). No, it was aimed at the following:

"How many billions of people live in backward, illiberal brickholes? With which countries do we share responsibility for the people in those backward, illiberal brickholes?"

It was the double-use of phrase 'backward, illiberal brickholes' which floored me. Personally, I think there are many better ways to describe 'backward, illiberal brickholes' in conversation.

 

[Finney Is Back]

Ah Ok. I did wonder if it was that bit in particular. I'll give you my reason for using the term that I did....

I consider illiberal places to be backward. Anywhere that doesn't give equal rights to those based on sex, sexuality or religion (or lack of) are illiberal in my opinion (and that is before you realise that many of the places that do not give equal rights also have all sorts of other flagrant abuses of human rights). So that is backward and illiberal covered. The brickhole bit - well I consider anywhere without equal rights to be a brickhole. That includes places like the UAE that some people think are great places to be/live. I consider them to be brickholes and I have practiced what I preach here as I have turned down extremely lucrative job offers and extremely enticing (from a tax perspective) offers to relocate myself and/or my businesses to that location.

 

[Rorschach]

So your answer is 'it is too complicated a question to answer'. Maybe it's just me(?) but I see that as not answering the question at all.

If it is too complicated to be able to define what a 'fair share' is then why did you make a statement in an earlier post about the UK potentially avoiding taking in it's fair share? How can you make a statement about a 'fair share' if you have no opinion on what a fair share actually is?

Of course it is complicated. There are countless considerations to make. That I would put an arbitrary number on an arbitrary event/country/disater/whatever would effectively undermine my own point about politicians putting arbitrary numbers on the Uk's intake. So I'm sure that is not scratching your itch but it is how I see it. Anyway I won't be continuing with this debate.

I just see @thfcsteff clarification on what he found offensive with your post and let me also clarify that is also the bit I found pretty offensive.

 

[Finney Is Back]

Of course it is complicated. There are countless considerations to make. That I would put an arbitrary number on an arbitrary event/country/disater/whatever would effectively undermine my own point about politicians putting arbitrary numbers on the Uk's intake. So I'm sure that is not scratching your itch but it is how I see it. Anyway I won't be continuing with this debate.

I just see @thfcsteff clarification on what he found offensive with your post and let me also clarify that is also the bit I found pretty offensive.

I know it is complicated. I just wonder how you can make a quote of 'fair share' while having no idea how to define a fair share.

If we can't put numbers on the UK's intake then how can we ever devise, cost out, finance and then implement a coherent policy?

Do you disagree with my point that the number we take is already completely arbitrary?
Do you disagree that instead of that arbitrary number currently being filled by those who are most needy it is instead being filled by those who are most able to pay the organised crime group smugglers?

If you find offensive the term "backward, illiberal brickhole" to describe places with no respect for human rights where where people are persecuted for not being a particular race, religion, sex, sexuality or political alignment (which I believe are the reasons for claiming asylum), then what term would you prefer to be used? Do you feel that the places people are claiming asylum to move from are forward thinking, liberal paradises?

 

[Gazza]

I know it is complicated. I just wonder how you can make a quote of 'fair share' while having no idea how to define a fair share.

If we can't put numbers on the UK's intake then how can we ever devise, cost out, finance and then implement a coherent policy?

Do you disagree with my point that the number we take is already completely arbitrary?
Do you disagree that instead of that arbitrary number currently being filled by those who are most needy it is instead being filled by those who are most able to pay the organised crime group smugglers?

If you find offensive the term "backward, illiberal brickhole" to describe places with no respect for human rights where where people are persecuted for not being a particular race, religion, sex, sexuality or political alignment (which I believe are the reasons for claiming asylum), then what term would you prefer to be used? Do you feel that the places people are claiming asylum to move from are forward thinking, liberal paradises?

Just seems many asylum seekers are men fleeing countries. I know some believe women should stay home but I think it’s taking it too far …. Relax it was a joke.

 

[Jurgen the German]

@Finney Is Back

So I just looked back at where my Harry Pearce 'breathtaking' quote was aimed. It was not at the 'fair share' question (in all honesty that is an enormous question to even begin answering). No, it was aimed at the following:

"How many billions of people live in backward, illiberal brickholes? With which countries do we share responsibility for the people in those backward, illiberal brickholes?"

It was the double-use of phrase 'backward, illiberal brickholes' which floored me. Personally, I think there are many better ways to describe 'backward, illiberal brickholes' in conversation.

Illiberal is pretty accurate. brickholes maybe not the most polite word to use I don’t disagree with the rest.

 

[Jurgen the German]

Sorry but you haven't answered my question at all. In fact you have completely avoided it. I think people tend to avoid that question because they know that if they had to stand behind a number it would be absolutely huge and be all too evident how unsustainable it is.

So let's go again.... How many is the UK's 'fair share'? (let's say per annum to set a unit of measurement) and which other countries in the World are we sharing that 'fair share' with? Once we get a number then we can start to work out the logistics and see if we can make the finances add up.

To say it cannot be an arbitrary number completely ignores the fact that we already have an arbitrary number in operation. That arbitrary number at present is the amount of people who can muster up enough money to pay organised crime groups to smuggle them across Europe and then ultimately across the channel and then make a claim (whether true or not) that they are persecuted in whatever illiberal backwater, lack of human rights place they claim to originate from. At present those numbers are only limited by the length and danger of the journey and (more so) by the ability of asylum seeker's to raise the money to pay the organised crime groups who do the people smuggling (hence the very high percentage of arrivals being men).

If we are to move to a system where we allow people to seek asylum from their home country, or perhaps an official UN operated refugee camp, then the number of people seeking to come to the UK would absolutely sky rocket, likely well beyond the number that we could actually safely accommodate (house, educate, provide health and social care - things that are already reaching breaking point in the UK). We can't just sleepwalk into that without knowing what the parameters of that requirement should be?

Should the UK take a higher percentage of Palestinian refugees? Do you mean a higher percentage of Palestinians than people from other countries (Eritrea or Sudan or Iran for example?) or do you mean take a higher percentage of Palestinian's than other 'fair share' countries?

I think Israel purchase a very small amount of their military equipment from the UK (less than 1%). Almost all of their equipment comes from the US and Germany with Italy being the third largest supplier (but they themselves only being around 1%). Are you saying you want to start to put in rules around the UK only allow asylum for people from countries where arms sold from the UK are involved in a conflict? If so then that could stop people being persecuted in some extremely illiberal, backwater brickholes from being able to claim asylum here which doesn't seem the right thing to do to me.

I’ve always wondered why the likes of Jordan, Egypt and the other Arab countries don’t take more Palestinian refugees in.