Council Elections

[OneTealShaker]

The first declared seats going to Reform.

Reform +2
Labour -1

Buckle up people.

"For every 100,000 fewer immigrants per year, we lose £7 billion."
This really doesn't make sense. So every immigrant contributes £70,000?

I quite like Restore

By the time the general election comes round people living in reform councils will never vote for them again

This is one of those number quotes that are meaningless without a lot of explanation.

Is it £7bn a year or maybe £7bn over 10 years?

How do they count contributing? Is it simply tax, NI, visa fees and NHS surcharge? That might be plausible if the target is £7k on average. But maybe an estimate is made for the economic activity that is generated by 100,000 people that wouldn't be replaced if they weren't here.

I don't know but I find discussions like this a very interesting starting point and welcome seeing views that are different to my own. But it's not a great format for in depth analysis and discussion. Would quickly get a bit boring.🙂

Pleased to say that in the local council elections this week I stood in Newcastle upon Tyne for Party of Women and beat

• Lib Dems x 3
• Tory x 1

I had help leafleting from Let Women Speak members living in Newcastle, North Tyneside, Co Durham and Northumberland - the latter LWS member also being my election agent.

We pushed leaflets through 1,600 letterboxes out of 5,700 in the Ward (28%), reaching approx 28% of 7,500 constituents (2,100).

(I have rounded those figures very slightly.)

Ballot papers returned: 2679 (Turnout 35.6%)

I got 75 votes: 3% of votes.

Theoretically:
• as I got 3% of the vote after reaching 28% of voters
• then I might have got just over 10% of votes if we had leafleted all voters.

That would also have put me ahead of two Labour and two Independents as well as the three Lib Dems and the Tory that I beat.

It really brings home to me how important it is to get Party of Women election leaflets out to people, ie.

• over 10% of voters who received my Party of Women leaflets voted for me! ❤️

The other POW Candidates in the local elections were:

• Bev White: St Neots
• Tara Hughes: Stockport

I don't know yet how they got on in their elections.

https://www.partyofwomen.org/our-candidates

ps. Party of Women vs Women's Equality Party

Party of Women has nothing whatsoever to do with the now defunct "Women's Equality Party".

WEP was for "all women" (ie. "women" included men who say they are women) and was heavily funded by a well-heeled Google Engineer, who has explained that he bankrolled WEP as an "affirmation" opportunity for his trans-identified adult son.

Party of Women, by contrast, advocates for actual women - and for safeguarding children. POW relies entirely on Membership Fees and occasional modest donations. More support would be welcomed to help us to pay for leaflets, etc. and to reach more voters in future:

https://www.partyofwomen.org/memberships

Just as valuable, if you do not have money to spare you can still help by promoting POW, posting leaflets through doors, etc. 🙏

Mostly we organise via Let Women Speak Locals, which is free to join:
https://www.letwomenspeak.org/locals

We need more women to stand for POW and to support POW candidates. The path to getting elected is a very long one but also very productive in terms of informing the general public!

To no benefit to us.

I'm guessing you know better than the people that research for this for a living?

https://ukandeu.ac.uk/immigration_is_down_should-_the_government_be_happy/

Read the research for yourself:

https://ukandeu.ac.uk/immigration_is_down_should-_the_government_be_happy/

It’s like Brexit all over again. These people were wailing and crying racist at everyone then. And they’re still doing that now. Imagine what they’ll be like at the next GE.

And look how great life is now... Brexit was indeed a massive success those Brexit voters were so right to vote for it... just in case you're not sure I am being sarcastic here

Depends on your banking arrangements. Stablecoins have lots of potential uses, particularly transferring money cross border.

Reasons, reasons, reasons? Nice. I'm just back from seeing my dad who is very unwell. ALL his carers have been immigrants. And they have been unfailing cheerful and polite, treating him with dignity and respect. It's almost as if not all immigrants are rapists and murderers?

I couldn't do a 14 hour shift doing care work, maybe you could? Paid a pittance no doubt, but utterly invaluable work. Until we break the grip of corporate power, and start rebuilding state provision, this work will not pay enough for UK workers to take on the job in the numbers we need.

You'll get no argument from me that the job should be paid enough to be attractive to UK folk, but as soon as the profits diminish, private equity will be off to the next thing. Buying up thousands and thousands more homes maybe, driving up rents even more?

Do you think immigrants are to blame for successive governments failing to build sufficient housing over decades? You're directing the blame in the wrong place, and anyone voting for the Tories or Reform at a national level are voting for more of the same. Ironically, I'll likely do very well under a Reform government, a huge tax cut, and I already have private healthcare. It's not me I worry for.

Not enough information in there. It cites top level people earning £100k, and low level £24k.
There will be multitudes more immigrants on the £24k compared to the few on the £100k.
Add in non-working spouses and kids, and it’s not looking so rosy.

So less people employed to pay taxes that pay for council services..... You're an ai fan then.
Short termism and ripping up rights harms everyone.

You know AI is just automation, don’t you? Like factory machinery and steam engine in the previous centuries. It’s not a woo woo scary concept.

Automation doesn’t mean fewer people employed and less taxes. It means exactly the opposite. Higher productivity, more jobs in newer sectors and higher employment leading to higher tax receipts.

It’s worth thinking for yourself rather than just repeating soundbites.

Hilarious you telling people to think for themselves when you've been hoodwinked into believe Reforms lies and soundbites...

Well this is weird! I posted at 15:48 and bookmarked my post. I can where my post should be in my Mumsnet Bookmarks but the post itself has completely disappeared. There is no notice from Mumsnet in this thread that it has been deleted - it has just gone into a black hole!

I have assumed that since a PP was allowed to post about her son standing and being elected as a Green Party candidate that it is permitted for Mumsnetters to report personal involvement in the local elections.

Trying again . . .

Pleased to say that in the local council elections this week I stood in Newcastle upon Tyne for Party of Women and beat

• Lib Dems x 3
• Tory x 1

I had help leafleting from Let Women Speak members living in Newcastle, North Tyneside, Co Durham and Northumberland - the latter LWS member also being my election agent.

We pushed leaflets through 1,600 letterboxes out of 5,700 in the Ward (28%), reaching approx 28% of 7,500 constituents (2,100).

(I have rounded those figures very slightly.)

Ballot papers returned: 2679 (Turnout 35.6%)

I got 75 votes: 3% of votes.

Theoretically:
• as I got 3% of the vote after reaching 28% of voters
• then I might have got just over 10% of votes if we had leafleted all voters.

That would also have put me ahead of two Labour and two Independents as well as the three Lib Dems and the Tory that I beat.

It really brings home to me how important it is to get Party of Women election leaflets out to people, ie.

• over 10% of voters who received my Party of Women leaflets voted for me! ❤️

The other POW Candidates in the local elections were:

• Bev White: St Neots
• Tara Hughes: Stockport

I don't know yet how they got on in their elections.
https://www.partyofwomen.org/our-candidates

ps. Party of Women vs Women's Equality Party

Party of Women has nothing whatsoever to do with the now defunct "Women's Equality Party".

WEP was for "all women" (ie. "women" included men who say they are women) and was heavily funded by a well-heeled Google Engineer, who has explained that he bankrolled WEP as an "affirmation" opportunity for his trans-identified adult son.

Party of Women, by contrast, advocates for actual women - and for safeguarding children. POW relies entirely on Membership Fees and occasional modest donations. More support would be welcomed to help us to pay for leaflets, etc. and to reach more voters in future:
https://www.partyofwomen.org/memberships

Just as valuable, if you do not have money to spare you can still help by promoting POW, posting leaflets through doors, etc. 🙏
Mostly we organise via Let Women Speak Locals, which is free to join:
https://www.letwomenspeak.org/locals

We need more women to stand for POW and to support POW candidates. The path to getting elected is a very long one but also very productive in terms of informing the general public!

Congratulations, you are fighting the good fight against misogyny and far left ideology.

@MabelRoyds yep. They don’t want to look behind the curtain to see the real Nigel. He doesn’t really give a shit about the UK population.

Jonathan Portes analyses the latest ONS immigration statistics

Incidentally, Jonathan Portes was one of the bright sparks who instigated mass immigration under Tony Blair;

EU enlargement and the big miscalculation

In 1999, an unlikely group of revolutionaries came together in the warren of nondescript offices and meeting rooms that make up the Cabinet Office...

“It was your typical sort of civil service thing – four bright civil servants being asked to think big thoughts about the future of the UK,” remembers the unit’s then deputy director, Jonathan Portes...

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/mar/24/how-immigration-came-to-haunt-labour-inside-story

Deja vu.

"Suddenly, around this time in 2009, the cabinet concluded – on a split decision – that it had to change tone on immigration, as ministers recognised that the pace of change was an issue in some localities and for some people the numbers mattered. Jacqui Smith, who attended this cabinet meeting, emphasises the point: “I used to tell the cabinet, ‘There’s an enormous distinction in the way people feel about immigration between those who live in London or other big cities and those who live in places like my old constituency of Redditch. I don’t think you understand the cultural and emotional impact of sudden change. This isn’t people being racist, but they see their country changing.’”

It reminded me too of Trevor Phillips' 2015 Channel 4 documentary,

Things We Wont Say About Race That Are True
https://archive.org/details/things-we-wont-say-about-race-that-are-true

Also on YouTube with, unaccountably, a faint watermark of the Let Women Speak website URL:

Well he's a mathematician (it says so in the interesting article you link to), he was asked to look at the numbers, and there is no doubt a strong economic argument for immigration. We don't have the cost of schooling and healthcare. But of course, that needs to be balanced against the social impacts too.

It's the job of the government to mitigate the impacts of immigration, and they have all failed. This is what happens under neoliberalism, when you rely on the market instead of building state provision. And yes, we should have implemented the controls we had when in the EU. Baffles me that we didn't. I'm in favour of controlled immigration that fills a specific need.

So, can you critique the numbers in the report rather than just smear the author?

Blair and co made a mistake in bringing in mass immigration. Yes, there may be an economic argument for it, arguably. But the social impacts are more important.

And now we have rising unemployment, wages stagnating especially in the lowest paid sectors, a strain on our public services and growing sectarianism and division.

A lot of the issues we face today can be traced back to Blair as mentioned above, plus his bright idea to encourage all kids to go to university. Now the majority are depressed because they've racked up £24k of debt and ended up working in retail (nothing wrong with it but you don't need to get into debt) and their journalism degree is not relevant.

@ListenToTheFacts ”Now the majority are depressed because they've racked up £24k of debt ”

It’s a lot closer to £50k nowadays.