[Tubby Isaacs]

The full thing on the NHS reforms is worth reading.

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org. ... s/overview

They're certainly right about chaotic announcements. But they do allow that there is a lot of duplication, confused accountability, and there should be much less of that without NHS England, with a much clearer structure. One of the points made is that the improvements may not be felt before the next election. Perhaps this is the Government has underestimated the speed they'll work, or perhaps this is a genuine long term change that will pay off, of the sort that people say they want politicians to do.

And there's this.

As a further indication of how poorly planned this NHS reorganisation has been, a row has broken out between NHSE and the government over the money required to pay ICB staff’s redundancy packages. Rachel Reeves reportedly refused Wes Streeting’s request to provide the NHS with £1.3 billion (bn) of additional funding to cover that cost.30
As a result, ICBs are reporting that they will not be able to lay off staff in this financial year, given existing allocations.31 That has left systems in suspended animation, unable to go ahead with reforms and with staff having little motivation or incentive to deliver the government’s agenda while there is so much uncertainty over their own roles.

Is that bad planning or is that the Health Secretary trying to get more money out of the Chancellor? Presumably there's some middle ground between no redundancies now and 12,500. The Chancellor and Chief Secretary are within their rights, I'd say, to argue that health has had a lot more money than other areas (and did under Johnson-Sunak) so perhaps it could organize better. Easy to say from here, of course.

[kreuzberger]

I. Didn't. Vote. For. This.

[mattomac]

Problem with any kind of reform like this is Chris Phillip turns around and says “we would turn it around in a week”

Like they didn’t in 14 years of mostly dacronian Home Secretaries but that’s the position you take.

There are some quite obvious things that you’d expect but they are framed in an absolutely stupid tone, such as Asylum seekers should be expected to work. Oh really how do they do that currently? With all the crap blocking it.

Welcomed that she mentioned more safe routes mind. Probably the carrot in the shit. Should be at least two review stages as standard.

Does feel a bit like “well we’ve had our Hitler” type bollocks and climate change is fundamentally going to change all this anyhow and governments seem short sighted on that.

[Boiler]

I. Didn't. Vote. For. This.

I certainly didn't vote for a Labour Party whose new immigration policies get the endorsement of Tommy fucking Robinson...

[Boiler]

Also, what's this about?

Digital IDs will be compulsory for right-to-work checks, which will be extended to self-employed and sub-contracted workers, and those in the gig economy

Does that include folk like myself?

[Tubby Isaacs]

Reselling tickets for profit to be outlawed in UK government crackdown

Touts – and ordinary consumers – will no longer be able to charge anything more than price at which they purchased ticket

This sounds almost too good to be true. Is it enforceable like this? I don't mean old school touts with black eyes hanging out round the Astoria, I mean industrial online selling. If it's possible, why hasn't it happened before?

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2025/ ... -crackdown

[Tubby Isaacs]

Warren's doing his best.

[The Weeping Angel]

By no means am I a fan of much of what has been announced (The 20-year thing can fuck off for one thing). However, isn't having safe routes one of the things that has been called for? In fact, if they announced this rather than the other stuff, I think the reaction would have been better.

[Boiler]

By no means am I a fan of much of what has been announced (The 20-year thing can fuck off for one thing).

I don't know when my father applied for naturalisation in this country but it was granted twenty years after he arrived.

The safe routes is good - but confiscating jewellery? Really?

[Tubby Isaacs]

Is that true? Or is that based on something vaguer about using assets?

[Abernathy]

Seems that using valuable possessions appropriated from asylum applicants such as jewellery to part-fund the cost of accommodation has occurred in Denmark. The word is that it won’t happen in the UK - it would be a PR disaster, let’s face it - though it does seem to be the case that asylum seekers’ other “assets” will possibly be in the frame.

[The Weeping Angel]

Mahmood ruled it out.

[Abernathy]

I note that the term “illegal immigrants” is being freely bandied about, by Labour politicians as well as just the usual suspects.

I think we need a clear definition of just what that term means.

Seekin asylum is not “illegal”.

[kreuzberger]

This vague "safe routes" afterthought is obviously good, so long as there is a workable solution.

Robbing destitute, destitute people and burning the self-same ladder used by your own parents, while parading around in a turquoise twin-set, is Trumpery on steroids.

If there is a kernel of truth in this, she can go fuck herself, along with her useless party of spineless government.

"Smash the gangs"? We were conned. I'm out.