UK Politics - Weeny, Weedy, Weaky

[Manfred Belheim]

Of course my link is, but that has very little to do with disproving the assertion that migration has a low impact on the economy in general - mainly because that's explicitly mentioned in said article as a point of summary. EEA migrants are a net positive generally, and non-EEA migrants are a negative, generally, but it doesn't seem the margins are in any way drastic or excessive. Which begs the question of the additional surcharge considering that this demographic will additionally be paying tax the same way everyone else does. What exemptions exist only apply to EEA countries as a rule, and / or countries that have a bilateral agreement with the UK.

Well health tourism is a thing and it costs money. If this helps pay for that, and perhaps even acts as a disincentive, then that answers the question that is allegedly being begged. And I already gave the answer to the part about them paying the same tax in the reply to Amazon Queen.

Regardless, seems a bit silly to mock criticisms of such an excessive surcharge when you yourself don't even know if it's reasonable or not.

I don't know if the specific level of it is reasonable, but I know that the principle is. The criticisms largely seem to be about the principle.

Adjustments are expected. The doubling or tripling of a particular cost are not what you would typically call "adjustments". As little as six months ago, the difference of even £20 a month to me - a UK national who pays tax in full and doesn't actually use the NHS a great deal - was a significant factor in my monthly budget. This is anecdotal, but that's all we have here.

Larger adjustments are surely more likely with new things. Established things like house prices, petrol prices, electricity, or even the cost of cod and chips can have some pretty large "adjustments" too. How it personally affects your budget doesn't seem to be relevant.

If your council tax was doubled because of some, I dunno, mumbo-jumbo about austerity impacting council budgets (insert whatever plausible reason you'd like), would you call that an adjustment?

Well it would literally be an adjustment, so yes. Whether or not I would think that adjustment was warranted would be another matter of course, but you know. I wouldn't immediately suspect a conspiracy without even looking into it though.

To your bit about "short-term workers", seems a bit weird to assume they're all non-EEA migrants. As tax is a communal pot, as you rightly point out, why is this specifically targeting migrants from specific regions vs. migrants that stay here for a specific period of time?

I wasn't assuming they were all non-EEA migrants. The fact is EEA migrants are exempt, presumably for reasons of treaty. Whether or not you think that's fair is a different matter entirely, but since your own link suggests EEA migrants are a net economic positive that might also be a reason for exemption. The fact is it seems to be targeting the group that are creating the additional demand, which in principle seems fair enough doesn't it?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Well, you get points for self-awareness. If I'm being charitable.

Brilliant exchange as ever aelf. Please continue to stick around and provide such stimulating conversation for many years to come.

It was unnecessarily catty, yes, but if you want a response that doesn't engage your post in a similar tone, when the Government is in desperate need for foreign health workers to continue propping up the NHS during a health crisis, pressing ahead with a new law to charge those workers for the temerity to work here is indeed despicable.

It's not that it was catty, it's that it was completely irrelevant and had nothing to do with what I said. If you want to make posts like that then go ahead, but we already have aelf and Senethro for that sort of thing.

But also... are we really in desperate need of foreign health workers? And hasn't it just been announced they will be exempt from these charges anyway? So... the thing that is despicable, isn't happening? Okay.

 

[aelf]

I take it back. I think a bit of self-reflection is desperately needed here.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Well health tourism is a thing and it costs money. If this helps pay for that, and perhaps even acts as a disincentive, then that answers the question that is allegedly being begged. And I already gave the answer to the part about them paying the same tax in the reply to Amazon Queen.

In the minds of Daily Mail readers perhaps. The evidence is that most immigrants pay more in tax than they use in public services. Immigants working here are paying taxes like everybody. They are then being charged for a service they may not use. That is despicable.

I don't know if the specific level of it is reasonable, but I know that the principle is. The criticisms largely seem to be about the principle.

The principle is we are going to tax you more because you are foreign and it will please the xenophobic element of our populace. That isn't reasonable.

 

[Arakhor]

But also... are we really in desperate need of foreign health workers? And hasn't it just been announced they will be exempt from these charges anyway? So... the thing that is despicable, isn't happening? Okay.

It isn't now, after a Govt U-turn just 24 hours after they insisted they were pressing ahead with the issue, and that rather suggests that we are indeed in desperate need of foreign workers, because no government willingly makes very public U-turns for no reason.

 

[Gorbles]

Well health tourism is a thing and it costs money. If this helps pay for that, and perhaps even acts as a disincentive, then that answers the question that is allegedly being begged. And I already gave the answer to the part about them paying the same tax in the reply to Amazon Queen.

I don't know if the specific level of it is reasonable, but I know that the principle is. The criticisms largely seem to be about the principle.

Larger adjustments are surely more likely with new things. Established things like house prices, petrol prices, electricity, or even the cost of cod and chips can have some pretty large "adjustments" too. How it personally affects your budget doesn't seem to be relevant.

Well it would literally be an adjustment, so yes. Whether or not I would think that adjustment was warranted would be another matter of course, but you know. I wouldn't immediately suspect a conspiracy without even looking into it though.

I wasn't assuming they were all non-EEA migrants. The fact is EEA migrants are exempt, presumably for reasons of treaty. Whether or not you think that's fair is a different matter entirely, but since your own link suggests EEA migrants are a net economic positive that might also be a reason for exemption. The fact is it seems to be targeting the group that are creating the additional demand, which in principle seems fair enough doesn't it?

You seem to be mixing up my posts with other peoples, I didn't talk about a conspiracy.

The principle is arguable, as I've already tried to point out. Your argument is that you think it targets the right demographic, but the only correlation you have is a vague negative estimate of impact on our GDP by non-EEA migrants. This isn't by itself a link to the NHS or its funding in the slightest. You'd have to assume that the same demographic was also uniquely some kind of burden on our health services as well, or offer evidence to that kind of argument.

I also disagree that it's an adjustment. Doubling £200 to £400 is not an adjustment, by definition. Adjustments are meant to be minor; small tweaks. Not radical overhauls representing significant shortcomings in budget. I also believe the government is capable of extracting this money without hitting a demographic that doesn't seem to have proven links to being a burden on our healthcare system. It just seems to be a convenient scapegoat based on how easy it is to line up public sentinments against migrants. Even if it wasn't, I don't think it's going to help, because you're demanding money from the people least likely to be able to afford it. That's hardly going to help them become better-integrated into the UK. It's not going to solve any problems. Certainly, given the Conservative's tendency to sign off on privatising aspects of the NHS, it's kinda rich to source this from regular people regardless of who they are or where they come from. Speaking in terms of principle.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Still trying to make yourself feel better about voting Tory, eh Manfred?

The cruelty is the point

 

[aelf]

Nah, I don't think he's cruel. Just callous, bitter and stubborn. Like a lot of Tory-types.

 

[Arakhor]

Let's try to steer clear of discussing other people, eh?

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Nah, I don't think he's cruel. Just callous, bitter and stubborn. Like a lot of Tory-types.

I don't know, the Conservative party and it's voter minions sure do seem to ideologically like the idea of putting pain upon certain sections of society.

Let's try to steer clear of discussing other people, eh?

What are you attempting to say?

 

[Arakhor]

I'm saying "discuss the post, not the poster". What do you think I'm saying?

 

[really]

So various senior ministers are defending Cummings. Its bananas.

Suella Braverman MP
@SuellaBraverman
'Protecting one’s family is what any good parent does. The
@10DowningStreet
statement clarifies the situation and it is wholly inappropriate to politicise it.'
The UK attorney general defending a blatant breach of lockdown.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

I'm saying "discuss the post, not the poster". What do you think I'm saying?

Do you think it's possible or even desirable to discuss a topic whilst maintaining a level of detachment that requires you to sacrifice both your own humanity and emotions and engage in psychic self mutilation, as if we are all robot?

I'm trying to say

 

[Arakhor]

So various senior ministers are defending Cummings. Its bananas.

Better yet was No 10 blatantly saying that Durham police did not do as they claimed (formally speaking with Cummings).

 

[Hrothbern]

So various senior ministers are defending Cummings. Its bananas.

Suella Braverman MP
@SuellaBraverman
'Protecting one’s family is what any good parent does. The
@10DowningStreet
statement clarifies the situation and it is wholly inappropriate to politicise it.'
The UK attorney general defending a blatant breach of lockdown.

How does that work in UK Law ?

Say Cummings is in court and the arguments used by Nr 10 discharge him.
Is that then the jurisprudence that every citizen can violate the lock down rules because of 'Protecting one’s family is what any good parent does" etc ?

 

[Arakhor]

Well, she's "only" the Attorney-General, so she doesn't control the courts. She's responsible for advising the government and I think has some sort of oversight over criminal prosecutions, but judges still follow established precedent, whilst taking government guidelines into consideration.

 

[really]

How does that work in UK Law ?

Say Cummings is in court and the arguments used by Nr 10 discharge him.
Is that then the jurisprudence that every citizen can violate the lock down rules because of 'Protecting one’s family is what any good parent does" etc ?

If I was a defence lawyer I would be using it.

I should say she is the AG for England and Wales only. Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own as they have different legal systems.

What does that mean?
Who knows - the UK constitution is a make it up as you go along job.

 

[AmazonQueen]

If I was a defence lawyer I would be using it.

I should say she is the AG for England and Wales only. Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own as they have different legal systems.

What does that mean?
Who knows - the UK constitution is a make it up as you go along job.

And its in that tradition that the UK government is making its coronavirus guidelines up 1 news conference at a time.

 

[Arakhor]

So, Johnson has decided that Cummings acted “responsibly, legally and with integrity”, basically saying that lockdown (and the accompanying law) is only for people that the Govt says it is for. I wonder how Tory MPs are right now considering whether to submit letters of no-confidence to the 1922 committee.

 

[Colon]

Had a glance at the front pages of The Telegraph and the Daily Mail. They don't seem to be behaving like Fox News would over a matter like this, which is a relief. (it's actually kind of nice to see the Mail's trademark BOLD HYPERBOLE when it involves someone you don't like)