Olly Robbins has just nuked the premiership of Sir Keir Starmer

[ProudAmberTurtle]

What are the implications of Olly Robbins’s testimony for Starmer?

There was so much in his testimony that was damaging but surely the worst was that:

• He was instructed by No. 10 to find an ambassador's job for Starmer's then director of communications, Matthew Doyle
• He was told not to tell the foreign secretary about this
• Robbins considered leaving his role because this request was so unusual and inappropriate
• Doyle was then suspended from the Labour Party due to his links with a convicted paedophile (not Epstein).

And on Mandelson, he said there was "constant pressure" for him to fast-track the appointment, there was no interest in the vetting from the PM, concerns about the vetting were dismissed by No. 10 and Mandelson had already been given IT access that should only have been granted after the vetting process.

What can Starmer do now? Say Robbins was lying?

Yes but we should restrict this encouragement to people who are UK citizens or can pay for their own kids. Like most other normal countries. I bet the Hugenots weren't encouraged to have more than two children and that those extra children would be financially supported by everyone else as forced to by the state?

Remember...the context of these particular posts Im replying to is the removal of the 2 child benefit cap. Which is unaffordable anyway.

The context is state education itself is 7000 -8000 per child and the NHS on top and apparently it costs parents on average about 1000 just to send their kids to school. So in the greater scheme of things a top up for poor children isn’t that big of a deal, even if it 4K per child odd. It’s more an investment towards their future and future of society. State is spending 22 billion on students and absolute huge amounts on the healthcare needs of the elderly and pensions. So not sure how a few billion of investment into poor kids is such a big deal? Also if you don’t pay up in early years, it just costs society more later and schools/NHS end up picking up the cost and some prison services too potentially as poverty is linked to crime. It was shown that it never acted as a deterrent or incentive to have kids, that is why they reintroduced it.

The plague and great fire of London killed a lot of people and the Huguenots whilst initially facing xenophobia settled well and quickly and many eventually formed part of the mercenary class. Their kids were educated in the trade and I think the king actually encouraged it all. The Weavers are the oldest London livery company and have plenty of info on the Huguenots.

How many Huguenots were supported by taxpayers out of interest? Bearing in mind we are discussing benefits.

Do you think with a population of nearly 70 million and an increasing number of economically inactive UK citizens we should be encouraging non UK citizens who are also economically inactive to have more children? Why would that be a sensible strategy to turn around the UK economy?

Go look up the Royal Bounty!

Im not hugely interested in historic and irrelevant immigration at this current moment on this particular thread. I'm more interested in the current huge population squeezed on to this poor island and whether the tax base is sufficient to financially support all the economically inactive people in this country.

Thanks though. Helpful.

We have a lot of economically inactive people but % wise, its not really significantly higher than in times past.

On population growth, the 3.8m people let into the UK by Bojo then Sunak, is and was a national scandal, with long term issues for the UK.

Thankfully Labour have reduced this to less than 200k pa but still too many for our infrastructure.

Most were low skilled, large numbers of dependents, very little visa enforcement (though that has improved under Labour) so few will ever return.

These Labour Party Reform chasers have ruined the Labour Party, and they haven’t even made themselves popular, which was of course the objective.

What are Labour Party reform chasers?

Agree. The Boris wave was a disaster. Let's hope Labour extend the period before they all get ILR.

I'm starting to get "mild anxiety" thats 2 things you have agreed with me on recently......

I knew it would unsettle you......😊

The leadership of the LP, who tragically chase Reform politics and carry them out first. I have no respect for them.

What Reform policies have Labour chased?

Labour still support the NHS, wont deport people granted asylum or LTR/EU citizens living here.

Labour seek co-op with EU/France over migrants, Reform would gun them down if they could.

Night and day between the two of them.

“Boris” wave is Reform jargon! Trump calls it Bidenwave and the right in France calls is Macronwave.
There was a lot of immigration immediately post Covid from countries with stringent and debilitating Covid lockdowns. Plenty of these people have and will be economically useful if given a chance.
Some of the people who came here contribute massively, eg tons of people from Hong Kong as well. Would be really stupid to deny long term visas to all of them in some sort of right wing blanket way.

Also what exactly are the legal rights of eg some the care workers from Commonwealth countries who arrived? Some of the politicians may want to check out the laws of our own country first…

Yes many countries saw similar after Covid.

I didn’t really see exactly when it originated but it’s surprising ‘Boris wave’ was picked up so readily by the left including media as it’s a Reform campaigning line.

Also, Labour are endlessly saying “let me be very clear “, which going on to answer a different question than the one asked. Not clear at all, and disrespectful to audiences.

In fairness they all do it. But they shouldn’t.

Also this whole nonsense about St George! I mean it’s a very bizarre saint not sure how true most of the legend is and had very little to do with England, never set foot here during his lifetime. That is why it didn’t take off much and also obviously the history with GB more widely. I mean if you want a saint and a big hooha pick a better one?
I would pick someone like Florence Nightingale for England, just seems far more relevant to modern day England and more recent history and would be good to have a female and COE. Given again that is primarily the female regents who did most of the heavy historical lifting from Elizabeth I to II to Queen Victoria.

Not quite sure what St George has to do with this debate but he was a favoured saint of the Christian crusaders and he was known in this country in the 11th century. He became the favoured saint of Edward III and later Henry V and Edward VI. He was seen as a warrior saint. The people somewhat had him foisted upon them but he’s popular all over Europe and who doesn’t like a dragon story? Of course the talk of a holiday is a distraction but when did politicians not do this? Thatcher was saved by a war with Argentina!

The point is St George is not particularly or uniquely English, at all! So I get that Reform want an English national day but the underlying saint, well it is stretching.

Like the subtle hint to the Falklands…

I’m not really following this, the patron saint has been around for ages

Well, Jesus has never been to the Vatican either.