Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Youngian wrote: ↑Sat Sep 27, 2025 12:21 pm

Malcolm Armsteen wrote: ↑Sat Sep 27, 2025 10:59 am It's perfectly clear. The ID will be needed for employment, therefore irregular immigrants won't be able to enter the legit economy or access state services. That's it, the rest is hyperbole.

Black economy workers are paid in cash so I don’t see how an ID card would change that.
I can see how ID would make the country a more unattractive destination for would be illegals.

It won't. It isn't meant to.

Interesting insight on Labour's plan to revitalise the high streets.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... velling-up

The government has launched its Pride in Place strategy, which sees significant investment in disadvantaged communities across the country. It is also, says the newly minted housing, communities and local government secretary, Steve Reed, “putting working families in control of their lives and their neighbourhood”. This follows the English Devolution and Community Empowerment bill, which ploughs a similar furrow, legislating for, among other things, communities’ right to buy and ensuring sports venues are automatically listed as assets of community value.

The strategy is being broadly understood as Labour’s answer to Boris Johnson’s much-touted “levelling up”. The investment, Keir Starmer has said, will “get rid of the boarded-up shops, shuttered youth clubs and crumbling parks that have become symbols of a system that stopped listening”. Neighbourhoods and high streets are the place where the “change” promised by Labour’s winning manifesto must first manifest. It’s not all about the fastest-growing GDP in the G7: the strategy starts by asserting that the government’s “measures of success cannot just be shifts in national statistics but must include change that people see and feel in their local community”.

Labour MPs are praising the direct investment the fund will bring to their communities. The funding allocations have been decided by, among other things, the index of multiple deprivation and the lesser-known community needs index, which measures quality of available services. When communicating the policy to their constituents and local media, they are generally leading with the cash amount being funnelled into their areas, as well they should. Money is what makes things real: policies about duties and responsibilities that cost nothing are cheap in all senses of the word.

People working in what might be understood as the “progressive communitarian” space (including organisations such as Power to Change, the Independent Commission on Neighbourhoods, Locality and the Co-operative party) want to critique that narrative, however. They argue that Labour’s plans are different from the levelling-up funds because of the structures by which the money will be spent. It provides money and power.

“Nothing destroys political trust like money that comes and goes,” says Caitlin Prowle, head of politics at the Co-operative party, drawing a direct contrast with Johnson’s plan: “This isn’t just about investment in communities, it’s about a genuine shift in power and ownership. This money comes with new powers to shape and own community assets, so that even when funding fades, the community owns those places and can determine their future.”

I saw Antonia Bance the other day very pleased with the new money for Wednesbury.

Will it work? Maybe. But it's always framed as "responding to Reform", like Labour wouldn't have wanted to do it if the Tories were ahead in the polls. This all feeds into "Farage as the real power". If he does indeed fancy being the PM, which I'm not sure, he has a good response to any cut through. "They didn't care till I scared them into putting money in".

My MP was happy with the funding announced as well.

A great deal is going to depend on delivery, and specfically visible delivery. It’s all very well announcing 20 million knicker here and 20 million there, but unless the residents/voters can see the effect of that funding, their cynicism /hostility to the government will remain unchallenged.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Sat Sep 27, 2025 7:12 pm I saw Antonia Bance the other day very pleased with the new money for Wednesbury.

Will it work? Maybe. But it's always framed as "responding to Reform", like Labour wouldn't have wanted to do it if the Tories were ahead in the polls. This all feeds into "Farage as the real power". If he does indeed fancy being the PM, which I'm not sure, he has a good response to any cut through. "They didn't care till I scared them into putting money in".

It's about time Wednesbury got something. It seems that their last government funding was pre-decimalisation.

No surprise to anyone either.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Sat Sep 27, 2025 1:36 pm Usual helpful contribution by Matt Wrack.

The so-called ‘left behind’ communities are often talked about, but little is actually done to meet their hopes and their needs. In this bleak landscape, the far right stokes division – blaming migrants and refugees for the failings of government and the economy.
Ignoring this wake-up call is currently likely to deliver further major blows to Labour at elections next May. The prospect of Reform in government in some form is now not an unreasonable one.
The reality for millions is that despite its claims, the Labour government has failed to halt austerity, failed to invest in public services, and failed to tackle the cost-of-living crisis.
Deeply unpopular measures like the winter fuel changes and the two-child limit confirm people’s worst fears: that despite voting for change, things carry on under Labour much as before.
Billionaires get richer while the rest pay the price, and the next generation faces worse prospects than their parents.

"Claims" here meaning facts? Big fiscal expansion and increased spending on public services and investment. Trouble is it barely touches the sides at the moment, which may not be unrelated to the decades of neglect he just mentioned himself.

Matt is a teachers union leader these days, absurdly. Applying his own logic, if he wins, say a 5% pay rise, that would be rubbish because he'd failed to tackle the years of poor pay, and for many teachers it will feel like he's happy with austerity.

People like this must know they're talking rubbish. All out of pique, it seems because their Campaign Group mates have been excluded. And they spout this "all the same" rubbish, and profess to be worried about Reform?

The fact that WFA has been pretty much reserved is conveniently ignored. As for abolishing the two child benefit they should do it and I think they probably will. If it happens, it will be attacked by the right, and the left will talk about it for 10 minutes and then forget about it.

Youngian wrote: ↑Sun Sep 28, 2025 7:49 am No surprise to anyone either.

You’d expect a new economic model after one budget, wouldn’t you?

No interest in workers rights, capital investment, industrial policy. That would be considered bold economic thinking if one of their own had done it.

davidjay wrote: ↑Sat Sep 27, 2025 11:13 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Sat Sep 27, 2025 7:12 pm I saw Antonia Bance the other day very pleased with the new money for Wednesbury.

Will it work? Maybe. But it's always framed as "responding to Reform", like Labour wouldn't have wanted to do it if the Tories were ahead in the polls. This all feeds into "Farage as the real power". If he does indeed fancy being the PM, which I'm not sure, he has a good response to any cut through. "They didn't care till I scared them into putting money in".

It's about time Wednesbury got something. It seems that their last government funding was pre-decimalisation.

It’s for Friar Park in Wednesbury, which doesn’t exactly sound like the Hampstead of the West Midlands.

Swell, something else for Farage to be yapping about. Does perputual population growth raise GDP per capita? GDP yes, India has a higher GDP than Luxembourg but so what?

Year to 2024 sees UK record second largest population growth in 75 years https://www-bbc-com.cdn.ampproject.org/ ... 2djl9jem7o

This is pretty good, and actually accurate, on FB, from a bloke called Mike Shallcross :

Every Labour government follows a pattern.

1) Gets elected because things have got so bad not even the press can gloss over it.
2) Gets blamed for not solving everything within 12 months.
3) Gets lambasted by rich people for not prioritising increasing their wealth.
4) Gets lambasted by the trade unions for not fulfilling their shopping list.
5) Gets lambasted by the right, for even suggesting a hint of redistribution.
6) Gets lambasted by the left for not having a three year plan to magic Utopia into existence.
7) Gets completely monstered by the media, because 3.
Disheartens its membership which believes 6&7 would be instantly solved by ditching the Prime Minister and installing Bobson Duggnutt MP who does a lot of CLP fundraisers and says reassuring things about the spirit of 1945.
9) Incurs the wrath of a bovine electorate who are unsettled by the constant shouting around 2-8, and just want to be left alone to watch Strictly or whatever the fuck they do.
10) Spends 15 years navel gazing in opposition, before lovelessly rallying round someone who can actually function in the real world, while voters whimsically think 'actually some of the stuff they did was quite good, could we have something like that again?'
11) Rinse and repeat.

Rawnsley putting his finger on it in the Observer today :

https://observer.co.uk/news/columnists ... re-fantasy

Andy Burnham taking Keir Starmer’s crown is pure fantasy

It is a symptom of the dreadful pickle the Labour party finds itself in that the man most widely touted to supplant Sir Keir Starmer is not an MP and was passed over on both previous occasions when he applied to be leader. Andy Burnham makes little attempt to hide his desire to have another crack. The mayor of Greater Manchester is circling the prime minister like a peckish bird of prey eyeing up a rotting hunk of carrion. He is not the only pretender to the throne, but he is by far the most obvious about it. While he’s manifestly popular with a lot of Labour folk, admiration wanes when you talk to people in the party’s upper ranks. During an earlier period of Burnham manoeuvres, another of Labour’s mayors sardonically remarked to me: “If you know Game of Thrones, you’ll remember what happens to the King in the North.”

For those not acquainted with the sorcery-and-skulduggery epic, the King in the North marches southwards to seize power, only to be ambushed at a wedding and assassinated. With words as their arrows, Starmer loyalists are slagging off the Burnham prospectus for “aspirational socialism” as an opportunistic, naive and dangerous wishlist of leftish fantasies. Even if they have a point, these attacks are misguided because they make the prime minister’s people sound rattled and defensive.

Better, perhaps, to ask how a Burnham ascendancy is supposed to come about. There would have to be a byelection to get him back into parliament after an absence of more than eight years. The seat would have to be winnable and the party’s National Executive Committee would have to allow him to be the party’s candidate – which would entail sanctioning a costly and risky emergency contest to replace him as mayor. If he made it to the Commons, he would then need the support of at least 80 Labour MPs to mount a leadership challenge. During the long and bitter weeks that this would be playing out, the bond markets might have something awkward to say about our Andy’s suggestion that he’d rip up the fiscal rules. After making the leap of imagination necessary to see him as prime minister, and given his repudiation of much of the manifesto on which Labour took office, he’d then face monumental pressure to call a general election. “Labour MPs may be fed up with Keir,” says one party strategist. “But they are not turkeys who will vote for Christmas.”

Youngian wrote: ↑Sun Sep 28, 2025 3:09 pm Swell, something else for Farage to be yapping about. Does perputual population growth raise GDP per capita? GDP yes, India has a higher GDP than Luxembourg but so what?

If you suddenly had a load of people earning just below average, it would lower GDP per capita. But in terms of extra tax revenue to pay for pensions and geriatric care, it would be a good thing.

Jolly good

Migrants who want to remain in Britain will have to learn English to a high standard, have no criminal record and volunteer in their community, the Home Secretary is set to say...

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politic ... 50112.html

So, those people who wish to remain in the UK will have to demonstrate that they are so much better than Farage's flagwankers then? Certainly on the standard of English and criminal record front, which shouldn't be too hard. Volunteering in the community? Well, many immigrants already do good works in their local area organised through their church or mosque. What do the flagwankers do? Hang the British flag upside-down, vandalise roundabouts, and piss on war memorials.

When do we start deporting the flagwankers?

Unless you fall in love or come from a toilet of a country having a civil war, do most overseas workers want to settle? Instead of saving up from a job for a few years and then piss off back home where you can buy a house or farm for under 30 grand. There's an arrogance in all these hurdles that you should beg on your knees for the privilege of living among the warm and welcoming British people.

Did anyone else listen to Rachel Reeves speech in full today? I found it absolutely captivating - I couldn't drag myself away. This is astonishing because, 1) I'm not her greatest fan and 2) her voice usually grates on me and I usually find her delivery a bit flat and frankly dull. I don't know what's changed, maybe she has a new writer, maybe she's had some voice coaching, but she's transformed.

Lots of the world is very poor, not least the non-white parts of the former Empire, so moving to the UK long term remains very attractive. The exception to that might be people with more middle class roots, eg from Nigeria or India, which have (I think) large middle classes. I know some Africans who could afford it preferred to send their kids to (presumably fee paying) schools in Africa rather than inner city comprehensives in England. I'd guess those people keep a foot in both places more so than a poor immigrant from Sylhet or Kashmir.

I'll defend Shabana Mahmood a bit- she will know more than most of us about what life is like for people with poor English in (for want of a better word) ghettoes. This particularly affects women, both when they're dependent on husbands who speak English, and when they're English-raised themselves, and find their families held back by husbands who can basically only work with other people of the same ethnicity. Bengali girls now get very good school results, so it's not good when that happens to them.

But what's needed is an integration strategy, not a tough on immigrants strategy. It's right to stress language and lack of criminality- that's nothing new. But the idea you "earn it" by volunteering is a stretch for me. Working in a low paid job is quite enough. And a bit more imagination about ways integration might be promoted. There's no issue with children, even those who go to school with virtually only kids of their ethnicity, because the school system is outward looking. At most, maybe a game of football with some other kids might be needed. But for adults new to the country, I don't know.