National News Sir Keir Starmer

Village-Yellow said:
In the context of what we spend on the daily cost of illegal immigrants…. It’s peanuts.
Click to expand...

The government spends no money whatsoever on illegal immigrants.

If, as I suspect, you mean asylum seekers, then that is different. But they are NOT illegal immigrants despite what prats in the Reform Party/GB News/Daily Mail might tell you.
 
boogaloo said:
The government spends no money whatsoever on illegal immigrants.

If, as I suspect, you mean asylum seekers, then that is different. But they are NOT illegal immigrants despite what prats in the Reform Party/GB News/Daily Mail might tell you.
Click to expand...

You mean the people who throw away passports and land in this country illegally who we then spend a fortune housing in hotels?
 
boogaloo said:
The government spends no money whatsoever on illegal immigrants.

If, as I suspect, you mean asylum seekers, then that is different. But they are NOT illegal immigrants despite what prats in the Reform Party/GB News/Daily Mail might tell you.
Click to expand...


Take a read…

The government’s impact assessment at the most basic level put the economic burden of an illegal migration population of 1.2 million at £14.4 billion. Or 10% of the NHS budget.
 
Village-Yellow said:

Take a read…

The government’s impact assessment at the most basic level put the economic burden of an illegal migration population of 1.2 million at £14.4 billion. Or 10% of the NHS budget.
Click to expand...
Not sure if I fully understood (might need to read again), but that 1.2M conflates “unauthorised” and “illegal” immigrants - something which the start of the speech references. Ie “illegal” is a subset of “unauthorised” which also includes pending asylum seekers. The 1.2M number specifically references “unauthorised”, therefore also includes pending asylum seekers, not just “illegal”. Clear as mud, and about as convincing.
 
chuckbert said:
Not sure if I fully understood (might need to read again), but that 1.2M conflates “unauthorised” and “illegal” immigrants - something which the start of the speech references. Ie “illegal” is a subset of “unauthorised” which also includes pending asylum seekers. The 1.2M number specifically references “unauthorised”, therefore also includes pending asylum seekers, not just “illegal”. Clear as mud, and about as convincing.
Click to expand...

The numbers are certainly eye watering.

Maybe I shouldn't have referenced this topic as a cost comparison to saving British Steel as I didn't intend to make this a thing about immigrants. My bad and ill thought out reference.

My point was really just to suggest that given what we spend on so many other things that could be considered a drain on resources rather than a contribution to the economy, £700k per day is a dip in the ocean and worth doing until something more sustainable can be sorted.
 
Village-Yellow said:

Take a read…

The government’s impact assessment at the most basic level put the economic burden of an illegal migration population of 1.2 million at £14.4 billion. Or 10% of the NHS budget.
Click to expand...
"The Government’s impact assessment of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 estimated that the total cost of providing public services to a UK national is around £12,000 per person. Even the most basic calculations put the economic burden on the British taxpayer of an illegal migration population of 1.2 million at £14.4 billion. That is just shy of 10% of NHS England’s budget for this year. Imagine that cash injection on frontline services or to help people who are struggling with the cost of living."

That seems a somewhat false comparison. An illegal immigrant is not entitled to used the same public services as a UK national, so multiplying up the figure for that of £12k/day is bogus. An example of them not getting the same services - the asylum seeker who gave birth in an NHS hospital that has a £10k bill to pay.
 
OUFCGav said:
An example of them not getting the same services - the asylum seeker who gave birth in an NHS hospital that has a £10k bill to pay.
Click to expand...
Wait, isn't that the one who can allegedly only repay a penny per month or something?

She claimed asylum, got free medical treatment, had children in the UK without status to remain, was incorrectly billed (I say "incorrectly" because she had an active asylum claim), then the bill was cancelled.

and she even got an apology from the NHS trust FFS.

So to summarise, in a calm and totally not pissed off way, she did indeed get the same service... for free...
 
OUFCGav said:
"The Government’s impact assessment of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 estimated that the total cost of providing public services to a UK national is around £12,000 per person. Even the most basic calculations put the economic burden on the British taxpayer of an illegal migration population of 1.2 million at £14.4 billion. That is just shy of 10% of NHS England’s budget for this year. Imagine that cash injection on frontline services or to help people who are struggling with the cost of living."

That seems a somewhat false comparison. An illegal immigrant is not entitled to used the same public services as a UK national, so multiplying up the figure for that of £12k/day is bogus. An example of them not getting the same services - the asylum seeker who gave birth in an NHS hospital that has a £10k bill to pay.
Click to expand...

Back to my very original point because it’s been lost in the white noise… the cost of keeping British Steel going for now, pending any long term strategic plans was a no brainier compared to what we spunk on so much other stuff.

Whether it’s £12,000 or £1,200 to fund an illegal, the point remains.
 
Essexyellows said:
So we are buying the coking coal from China and it is being shipped here by boat?

FFS we`ve got tons of it in Cumbria 250 miles away..................... oh........ too many delays and the developer pulled out.

Feckin Governments bowing to the dream of "going green". :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The Coking Coal they were looking to mine in Whitehaven is apparently too high in Sulphur to be used in Scunthorpe anyway for the Steel they produce.
 
Marked Ox said:
The Coking Coal they were looking to mine in Whitehaven is apparently too high in Sulphur to be used in Scunthorpe anyway for the Steel they produce.
Click to expand...

The Sulphur is deemed to high thanks to "environmental limits" in the UK.

"If the British steel industry use too much, it risks exceeding the sulphur dioxide limits plants must adhere to. Sulphur dioxide causes acid rain."

Source: https://www.coalaction.org.uk/2021/02/01/wcmfacts/

Yet its acceptable to export it to be used elsewhere because acid rain is selective where it falls? 🤷‍♂️
 
Essexyellows said:
The Sulphur is deemed to high thanks to "environmental limits" in the UK.

"If the British steel industry use too much, it risks exceeding the sulphur dioxide limits plants must adhere to. Sulphur dioxide causes acid rain."

Source: https://www.coalaction.org.uk/2021/02/01/wcmfacts/

Yet its acceptable to export it to be used elsewhere because acid rain is selective where it falls? 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...
You make a strong argument for leaving it in the ground EY.
 
Maggie destroyed the steel industry & coal industry & car industry & every industrial thing that was going in this country. Now look what we have got f**k all. All cheap s**t imported in from other countries. At an expense .Every government since Maggie has helped destroy us ....
 
Last edited:
Toe knee said:
Maggie destroyed the steel industry & coal industry & car industry & every industrial thing that was going in this country. Now look what we have got f**k all. All cheap s**t imported in from other countries. At an expense .Every government since Maggie has helped destroy us ....
Click to expand...
You’re absolutely right—there’s a lot of nuance to the coal situation under Margaret Thatcher, and it often gets boiled down to just the miners’ strikes and the conflict with the unions. But economically, imported coal was indeed cheaper, and British coal was becoming increasingly expensive to mine due to geological and operational factors.

By the early 1980s, deep coal mining in the UK was less economically viable compared to cheaper, surface-mined coal from places like Australia, South Africa, and even the U.S. The Thatcher government used this economic rationale as part of the justification for pit closures. From their perspective, continuing to subsidize an uncompetitive industry didn’t make long-term sense, especially in a broader push toward market liberalization.
 
Toe knee said:
Maggie destroyed the steel industry & coal industry & car industry & every industrial thing that was going in this country. Now look what we have got f**k all. All cheap s**t imported in from other countries. At an expense .Every government since Maggie has helped destroy us ....
Click to expand...
Haha yeah much better before Maggie wasn't it - doing your supermarket shop by candlelight. Billions being spent to prop up British Leyland. Sitting in a coal mine for 20 years before dying of respiratory illness. Undertakers refusing to bury the dead.

Good times.
 
bazzer9461 said:
You’re absolutely right—there’s a lot of nuance to the coal situation under Margaret Thatcher, and it often gets boiled down to just the miners’ strikes and the conflict with the unions. But economically, imported coal was indeed cheaper, and British coal was becoming increasingly expensive to mine due to geological and operational factors.

By the early 1980s, deep coal mining in the UK was less economically viable compared to cheaper, surface-mined coal from places like Australia, South Africa, and even the U.S. The Thatcher government used this economic rationale as part of the justification for pit closures. From their perspective, continuing to subsidize an uncompetitive industry didn’t make long-term sense, especially in a broader push toward market liberalization.
Click to expand...

I miss Bazzerese, AI has ruined you Bazzer. 🙂
 
Essexyellows said:
So we are buying the coking coal from China and it is being shipped here by boat?

FFS we`ve got tons of it in Cumbria 250 miles away..................... oh........ too many delays and the developer pulled out.

Feckin Governments bowing to the dream of "going green". :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
It’s cheaper and that’s the problem
 
bazzer9461 said:
You’re absolutely right—there’s a lot of nuance to the coal situation under Margaret Thatcher, and it often gets boiled down to just the miners’ strikes and the conflict with the unions. But economically, imported coal was indeed cheaper, and British coal was becoming increasingly expensive to mine due to geological and operational factors.

By the early 1980s, deep coal mining in the UK was less economically viable compared to cheaper, surface-mined coal from places like Australia, South Africa, and even the U.S. The Thatcher government used this economic rationale as part of the justification for pit closures. From their perspective, continuing to subsidize an uncompetitive industry didn’t make long-term sense, especially in a broader push toward market liberalization.
Click to expand...
Your creative writing course is certainly worth the entry fee.
 
Marked Ox said:
What explains the previous 2 years' fall?
Click to expand...

I'm not concerned about the previous shower, if that is what you are getting at.

I'm concerned about the decisions that are being made now. We need decisions that improve the economy, not make it any worse.

Did the electorate not vote for the promised changes?

To keep looking back to apportion blame should not make this acceptable and is certainly not an excuse any longer.

The business sentiment at the moment is because of the autumn statement and it was immediately obvious it was going to be damaging. Forget any other "global challenges", they have been around for quite some time now, in one form or another.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Wallop
National News Sir Mo Farah
Replies
7
Views
2K
OUFCGav
OUFCGav
Oxymoron
Sport RIP Sir Sterling Moss
Replies
7
Views
3K
Sarge
Sarge
Northstandboy
Local News Sir Roger Bannister RIP
Replies
8
Views
4K
iambungle
iambungle
Back
Top Bottom