Credit deflation and the reflation cycle to come (part 9)

[Pip321]

4 minutes ago, Lightscribe said:

Well they’ve long gone from my area as well as the depots (I should think now the majority of the nation buys their milk from the supermarket)

But can they afford a house being a ‘milkman’ now is more the point I was making. 

And the equivalent ‘milkman job’ today is ‘Data Analyst’ which requires a degree. 

My lad owes £30k student loan…i keep wondering whether to repay it or whether to leave it because he is deliberately earning a lower amount to limit repayments, at 35 it disappears in 15 years time. Maybe just drip feed him £30k over that time for holidays, extras etc. 

I am Gen X and a huge believer in the fact there was a hardship pre millennium (ice on windows, old cars, second hand clothes and furniture) and also some younger people don’t help themselves but overall the new generation really have been shat on. We did not have ‘stuff’ but we had opportunity to lift ourselves up…..today just buying a house is meant to mean you have reached the next level. 

 

[invalid]

10 hours ago, Pip321 said:

 

I know I left work at 50 despite a good office job and good pay. Also pay in my 50’s is the wealth creation period but I just felt I wouldn’t be paid enough for my very precious time. Work needs to be better rewarded. 

 

 

Your precious time, I could not agree more. It's our very most precious and valuable asset. We all have a finite supply of it and we are powerless to stop the relentless draw down of it. Sadly many only realise the value of it once its gone.

 

Back to houses, gold, wages, working couples, hours worked etc, I find these to all be good metrics for living standards. And what they all show is a decline.

Ideally things should have progressed. For example, anyone on a basic job (working a standard 35hr week) should by now be able to afford to buy a modest house, for one parent to stay home to look after children and to be able to afford days out, modest holidays the occasional meal out etc.

In order to reward hard work and encourage progression, those in higher skilled jobs who may have spent a few years studying or training for the job, or those in basic jobs who put in extra hours, or those where both couple choose to work should be able to enjoy a higher standard of living. Bigger detached houses, holidays if so desired, a premium car etc. The point is that it needs to be above the basic level, how you spend the extra money is your choice.

I think that this was a possible outcome for the UK to be if it had been better managed since say around 1990, or even back to the 80's to include North Sea oil and gas. Easy with hindsight of course, very unlikely to have happened, but possible, I believe.

Going forward from today, I no longer think this sort of outcome is possible. The UK no longer has the assets and resources to increase wealth and instead we have a growing population which is consisting of a growing percentage of low skilled, unemployable and incompatible culture, morals and beliefs.

So we import the worst while at the same time exporting jobs via globalisation, the lie of globalisation being that no one wanted to do those jobs and that it would make us all richer (the 1% did of course get rich).

 

To keep somewhat on topic, we know what has happened, we know where we are. What is important is what happens next and how we can keep ahead of the game. As ever, a big thank you to @DurhamBorn and everyone who posts on this thread, amazing stuff.

[Harley]

11 minutes ago, Jesus Wept said:

Cheers 🍻 - I may watch that.
 

Could be - or the alternative:

Once we get 20-30% falls the falls will go much further as leverage unwinds and margin calls - 50%

I would also say that once the (when the never before seen huge shock and awe) QE starts on the mega scale required -   commodities will go into a secular bull - inflation / stagflation going into double digits as there is a “dash to assets”.

Stocks will ‘recover’ nominally but will drop precipitously in real terms against gold / commodities. 
 

Not sure on the timing of this - the election year is a real curve ball. I’d say sooner rather than later. I think they will have TrumP a real shit sandwich. 

Yes, it's important to look for falls in real (not nominal) terms, whatever "real" is (ref my thoughts on "value").  That has been going on for a while in many areas (not just because of inflation but currencies, etc too).  So a crash may only be obvious in real terms although it could easily be big enough to see in nominal (and therefore far worse in real!).

If I recall, the talk here is of equity and PMs, not really other asset classes.  It has been my long held hypothesis we will have stagflation of which higher commodity prices will be a feature and I see no reason to change that atm.  As the interview mentioned, while everything gets dragged down in an equity fall, recent history suggests PMs (etc this time?) recover and move on once margin calls, etc have been covered.

Any new President will have a problem to deal with (similar happening here).  The discussion then led into UBI and CBDCs which I also agree with.  UBI but via a CBDC, etc.  Arguably we had a taste of UBI during covid.  I have no problem if benefits alone were provided through a (working!) mechanism which better ensured they are spent correctly (although could just be a working(!) debit card type setup) but I doubt it will stop there nor deal with the amounts currently given to some.

In a way UBI/CBDC would be akin to rationing/discounting, just the other way round.  I mentioned some time ago about the blue stickered items in the Tahiti supermarket and that we could see similar discounting on essentials. here.  With UBI/CBDCs though it will be targeted at the "favourable".  It seems Canada is the place to watch atm.

But I digress from the video.

[DurhamBorn]

1 hour ago, Bobthebuilder said:

Milkmen still exist, I get milk, eggs, and butter delivered every week. Just picked mine up from the front door just now. Milk still comes in bottles that I rinse out and put back by the door.

I worked on the milk from 14 until 17ish.Started at 4.30am.Two other mates on the van,and three other vans used the same fridges.We did the posh small town 2 miles from our town.Loved it in summer.Great laugh,and it kept you very very fit,we used to swing off the van when it was going at a good speed.Still my best mates the lads i worked with on there.There was a lass we used to see most mornings jogging,stunning she was,we used to bang on the van for him to stop when we saw her to enjoy the view.Years later i was in the Mardi Gras nightclub in Darlington and this beauty came up to me said you dont remember me do you.Im the jogger you used to see on the milk van.I used to get up early to jog past you waiting for you to ask me out,but you never did so i gave up.We had a good chat but she had a bloke then.My mate off the van when i told him "the jogger wanted to fuck you all that time and you didnt even get to sniff it you fuckin spaz" 

 

Edited April 13 by DurhamBorn

[Axeman123]

24 minutes ago, Jesus Wept said:

Not sure on the timing of this - the election year is a real curve ball. I’d say sooner rather than later. I think they will have TrumP a real shit sandwich. 

I think "they" will want the peak ahead of the election so Trump can't get any credit for it, but the real shitstorm far enough past the election that Trump will struggle to convince people it was baked in before he took office. A rough outline could be indexes peak by August, slide ~10% by the election in November and another ~10% by the innauguration in Jan without any real panic before regaining half the loss quite sharply with Trump crowing about it, before the real leg down begins.

[sleepwello'nights]

5 minutes ago, invalid said:

 

Your precious time, I could not agree more. It's our very most precious and valuable asset. We all have a finite supply of it and we are powerless to stop the relentless draw down of it. Sadly many only realise the value of it once its gone.

 

 

That is only available if you have the necessities. For much of history man has had to devote his time to providing the basics. Only a few would be able to retire in their 50s if we still had to toil to provide the basics. 

Watching the market sniper video I wonder if  Iinvested into commoditiies whether I would be  able to escape the effects on the economy if it did collapse as feared. Would having the money be suffiicient to be able to purchase food from empty supermarket shelves. Would electricity still be on at the flick of a switch. 

There are many disaster scenarios that were discussed on TOS when I first encountered the site. Communities would fracture and I doubt having a well chosen portfolio would prevent suffering many ill effects.

[Pip321]

26 minutes ago, DurhamBorn said:

On the Russian metals ban,its really just the first stage in them trying build up metals companies in the west.Froneman from Sibanye has been warning western leaders that they need to assist the miners because China etc are undercutting and will end up owning all the metals for EVs etc.Nickel has been smashed and western producers underwater killing the industry.Norilsk Nickel the huge producer in Russia this is aimed at is also the worlds biggest palladium producer.Now thats not under the ban,but what will happen is they will divert more and more off exchange to China so there will be less and less palladium at spot so everyone else will end up paying more on exchange.Froneman said they wouldnt close Stillwater in the US for political reasons,even at loss making prices.He knows whats coming.Norilsks palladium production has already fallen because they could not import equipment,though that will change over time as they buy more from China etc.

This thread always said re-tooling etc would drive this inflation cycle and its proving correct.However,i did not expect it would mean two blocks emerging where it was as in the open.

Of course all these actions help destroy the value of western Fiat in the short to medium term.The long term depends on if we do develop full supply chains.

This multi polar world is insanity for ordinary people,but it suits the western elites just fine.

 

Thanks…..I mean I knew the metals ban wasn’t to stop funding for ‘Putins war’ because if that was the case they would have sorted out real deterrents a couple of years ago. Lots of leaders loving this war….money to be made. 

I think, Maybe not immediately,  but the metals sanctions means ‘metals are important, economically and practically significant’ so they are a long buy.

They don’t sanction soft shit…they sanction energy (and now metals) and it’s a great way for us to see what’s important in the world and buy it. 😉

[Calcutta]

5 minutes ago, Axeman123 said:

I think "they" will want the peak ahead of the election so Trump can't get any credit for it, but the real shitstorm far enough past the election that Trump will struggle to convince people it was baked in before he took office. A rough outline could be indexes peak by August, slide ~10% by the election in November and another ~10% by the innauguration in Jan without any real panic before regaining half the loss quite sharply with Trump crowing about it, before the real leg down begins.

They poison the wells before a change in president. Then the new guy gets the blame/credit and an excuse to achieve nothing from their manifesto.

Happened 99/00 when Bush was coming in, happened 07/08 when Obama came in to save the day, looks like it's happening 23/24.

The media seem happy to let Trump win, he'll be left holding the bag.

It's all a pantomime.

I wish I had more examples, I'm sure they exist, but they're the only ones I've watched in real time so some of the older hands will have to remember the others.

[Bobthebuilder]

1 minute ago, sleepwello'nights said:

That is only available if you have the necessities. For much of history man has had to devote his time to providing the basics. Only a few would be able to retire in their 50s if we still had to toil to provide the basics. 

 

5 minutes ago, DurhamBorn said:

I worked on the milk from 14 until 17ish.Started at 4.30am

 

35 minutes ago, Lightscribe said:

But can they afford a house being a ‘milkman’ now is more the point I was making. 

A couple of my mates still work in the diary business in rural Dorset, early start and long days. There's still a cleaning station in a village where they wash out the tankers before they go and get re filled, loads go through that as the closest other one is in Bristol, so its still a good money maker.

As for these types buying a house it has never happened, they all ended up in council houses due to the agriculture ties. I am not sure if that will ever be a good life as they will always have to rent, maybe they will get housing benefit when they retire, but they are hardly living the high life.

Just had one of them message me this morning about horses for the bookies today, Vaniller, Kittys Light, Mr Incredible, Foxy Jacks and Noble Yeats winner from 2 years ago at 20/1, is the word from the shires.

[Castlevania]

42 minutes ago, DurhamBorn said:

 

This multi polar world is insanity for ordinary people,but it suits the western elites just fine.

 

I disagree. The multipolar world is very good for the ordinary working man. Globalisation not so much. Since the fall of the Iron Curtain who’s benefitted? Not the ordinary working man.

[Butthead]

3 hours ago, honkydonkey said:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/jobs/earn-salary-over-100k-but-still-feel-broke/

Our friends who live in a council house diagonal to us go on three holidays a year and have a brand new car. I had far more money as a single mum. I used to have my nails done, my hair done, regular waxes. That’s not even on my radar anymore. My last haircut I won as a prize in a raffle. I was so happy. 

Tick tock. 

What is the current solution for reading such links without a subscription? 12 Ft latter doesn't deal with them anymore.

[DurhamBorn]

3 minutes ago, Butthead said:

What is the current solution for reading such links without a subscription? 12 Ft latter doesn't deal with them anymore.

https://archive.ph/

They get lots of info from us so....

Edited April 13 by DurhamBorn

[Onsamui]

3 hours ago, Jesus Wept said:

“You’ll be selling your children’s kidneys and prostituting you wife just to stay alive in the coming fiat collapse”

Hahaha ! He’s a funny fucker. 

Irritating, could not watch.

[onlyme]

13 hours ago, Errol said:

Just means that China, India etc get it all. Like the oil. It won't cost Russia any revenue at all.

Latest round of sanctions are actively targeting the banks as well as suppliers who are exporting to Russia (in particular from China). The banks seem to be the key, if the US can successfully block a Chinese bank's transactions abroad (into the US in particualr) for breaking those sanctsions then they are going to be pretty careful not to transgress those rules.

[AlfredTheLittle]

Another good article in the Telegraph today. Not directly relevant to any particular share (other than G4 and Serco perhaps) but certainly relevant to the collapse of the UK:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/13/immigration-asylum-courts-home-office-rwanda/

 

Quote

‘I spent a day in Britain’s asylum courts – and found out why the system is fundamentally broken’

We no longer know who lives in the country, are unable to remove those with no right to be here and lack a plan to resolve the situation

Sam Ashworth-Hayes13 April 2024 • 8:00am

Related Topics

• Immigration, 
• Migrants, 
• Migrant crisis, 
• Home Office, 
• Border Controls

 

 

To the layman, this week’s story that an Afghan sex offender could be given refugee status because his behaviour towards women may put him at risk in his home country is absurd. For those used to Britain’s asylum system, it’s par for the course. 

After all, just a few weeks ago we heard a similar tale, when the Clapham attacker Abdul Ezedi was granted asylum despite his criminal convictions. As a former immigration official noted of that decision: “It’s not a glitch that you get sex offenders let in the third time around. It’s how the system is meant to work.”

Over the last year, immigration has hardly left the headlines. Politicians nominally in control of the country have fulminated about the abuses of the asylum system that have seen small boat crossings surge, bringing 29,437 people to our shores last year, and on course for a new record high in 2024. They’ve watched as changes to the legal migration system sent the inflow soaring to 1.2 million, and started to unwind the mistakes they made with dependent visas for students and care workers. 

In the last few days, focus has shifted back to the Rwanda plan. Having come to grief in the Supreme Court and the House of Lords, Rishi Sunak is now threatening to leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) should the human rights court block the scheme. 

James Cleverly and Rwanda's Foreign Minister Vincent Biruta exchange documents after signing a new treaty to send asylum-seekers to the African nation CREDIT: BEN BIRCHALL/POOL/AFP via Getty Images

But even if the planes start taking off, there’s another problem waiting. While Westminster can design whatever immigration policy it likes, it appears increasingly unable to enforce it on the ground. 

A day in court

The best way to understand what this means is to see it first hand. Immigration and asylum tribunal cases are open to the public. If you’re willing to set aside a few hours, you can sit in the gallery and see what Britain’s immigration system looks like in practice.

What you may not be able to do is find out how the case is resolved. First-tier immigration and asylum tribunal decisions are not published. The only way to get access to the result is to apply directly to the president of the court, and hope they decide in your favour.

The cases I saw were chosen at random, with no indication of their contents beyond the broad codes given in the list of hearings – HU for human rights claims, PA for what we would call loosely asylum cases.

The immigration court I chose sat off a roundabout opposite a Tesco superstore. Outside, planes taking off and landing at Heathrow rumbled overhead. Inside, the courtrooms were quiet enough for the ticking clocks on the wall to be audible. Green signs in three languages warned those waiting their turn not to eat, smoke or drink. 

Most of the attendees sat in groups, chatting in apparent good humour. A few were tense and alone. A lost-looking interpreter tried to work out which of the courts he was meant to be attending, and staff members shuttled back and forth directing people to hearing rooms. They were polite, friendly and highly taken aback that someone had turned up to listen to cases. One security guard audibly swore when told by another why I was there. 

The first case turned out to be a tourist who had overstayed. She had come from India for a holiday with her husband in 2021, visiting children who had emigrated to the UK. Her husband had sadly died during their visit. Struggling to cope, she had been staying with their children since. Now, in 2024, years later with her right to stay long expired, she was fighting to stay permanently.

Human rights laws appeared to present a promising avenue for her representative to argue that she would face significant obstacles to functioning on her own in India, and so could not be made to leave.

To start with, she was receiving therapy for depression in the UK, and it was argued that mental health issues were unlikely to be as well cared for in India. One child gave evidence as a witness. Despite having lived in the UK for 18 years, they were deemed to have limited English skills, so the interpreter stayed to assist them. The point was hammered home that the woman had said she would “end her life” if made to leave.

Other medical issues were discussed and disputed. The Home Office presenting officer did their best to make the case against allowing her to stay, although it was interesting to note that facts or assertions were rarely directly disputed. When the lawyers examined the notes entered as evidence, it was unclear in one instance whether the doctor had actually seen the patient, or merely written down the description given by the daughter. Nobody appeared to have simply checked directly with the surgery.

In addition, while her family could afford to pay for a carer, and her own financial security would not be an issue, she would lack emotional support. Her family in India consisted of a single sister, who was old, and to whom she no longer talked. Not only that, but, as her representative reminded the court, the Home Office advised against travelling in the country as a lone woman. Would we really send her back to that?

At this point, alarm bells should be ringing. It should not be possible to enter on a tourist visa, stay for years, and then avoid deportation by claiming the need to access public health services, or arguing that you could not possibly function in the country you’d spent your life in. Even the most compassionate among us would surely argue that we cannot be expected to take on the cost and burden of caring for the citizens of other countries in their old age, rather than expecting their government or family to fulfil their own obligations.

Yet these tactics do seem to work; cutting people off from NHS services, or forcing them to return to their life as it was can be intolerable to our compassionate state, which instead invites them to stay. This urge sometimes leads to absurd outcomes. In one case, an illegal migrant who raped a woman at knifepoint avoided deportation after a tribunal found he would “experience genuine difficulties being able to access a regular supply of his necessary medications”, and be at “real risk of social isolation and stigmatisation”. Better, instead, to let him live in Britain.

A long stay

The second case was again picked at random; of the two due to begin when the first ended, it was the one that started soonest. Again, it was a straightforward case of overstaying. The appellant had been given a 14-month study visa, and failed to leave on time. The visa was issued in 2007. Rather than stay for 14 months, she had stayed for 17 years.

This hearing followed a slightly different format. The appellant’s representative laid out their case. The judge listened. The Home Office presenting officer remained silent because they weren’t there; the department had chosen not to send anyone to attend. 

Again, the health of the applicant was raised. They had a serious and extensive operation scheduled to take place on the NHS; if they were sent back to India, this plan of treatment would be significantly disrupted, even if they were able to afford it. 

In this case, the second obstacle was that deportation would constitute a major disruption to her married life. In the time she had stayed in the UK, she had married an Afghan man who had taken British citizenship. He, in turn, would most likely be unable to join or even visit her in India.

After all, not only did he lack Indian citizenship, he would most likely be refused any application to even visit the country: in his time in the UK, had received a prison sentence of 11 years for a serious offence. Even if India decided to let him in, the British authorities would look askance at letting him leave: he had been released on an extremely restrictive licence.

Given this, the argument went, and considering that if the appellant was forced to return to India, she would likely be able to return to the UK on a spousal visa, did her overstay really warrant the disruption removing her would cause? After all, the Home Office had made no effort to enforce her removal for 17 years, even when she had applied for (and been denied) the right to remain in 2013. 

Although it was possible to sympathise with this argument, it also raised some difficult questions. How had it been possible to stay in Britain for so long when the Home Office had been made explicitly aware of the overstay? After all, it was the length of her stay that had led to her developing the ties which were now being used to argue against ever removing her; had she been swiftly removed a decade ago, there would be no claim to continuity of married life, or of NHS treatment. And on that topic, how was it that the British taxpayer had found itself providing her healthcare?

Welcome to the Hotel Britannia

People come to Britain for a reason. You do not push a dinghy into the waters of the channel, or spend your life savings on a plane ticket to Heathrow for nothing. The attractions are straightforward: the world speaks English, work is easy to find, and if you can get into the country you have a good chance of staying. 

Take the asylum seekers crossing the Channel. They aren’t coming because they’ve been misled by cunning people smugglers. They’re doing it because Britain is a good place to lodge a claim. Before appeals, France accepted just 28 per cent of the claims it evaluated in 2022. Spain was a little more generous at 42 per cent. Denmark accepted 52 per cent of the 985 applications assessed. 

Britain accepted a full 76 per cent of the 23,870 claims it resolved, making 1,625 more grants of asylum than Austria despite processing 15,130 fewer applications. No country with more cases resolved had a higher grant rate than the UK.

Our generosity doesn’t stop there. If your claim is denied – or even if you have no claim at all, and simply fail to leave when your visa expires – you may well be able to stay. The problem with Britain’s borders, at the most basic level, is simple: we don’t know who’s here, and when we do, it’s very hard to make them leave.

In 1998, Britain stopped checking the documents of people leaving the country as it was “an inefficient use of resources”. While we had some idea of who was coming in, we no longer knew if they were leaving. It would take until 2015 for exit checks to be reintroduced. By 2017, two years worth of data had been gathered, showing 10 million people whose leave to remain in the UK had expired. For 601,222 of these, there was no evidence of their departure.

To lose one passenger might be considered careless; to lose half a million is farcical. Some of these people may have left the country, travelling through the Common Travel Area with Ireland, or using different documents, or simply falling through holes in the collected data; 201,301 records for people leaving the UK couldn’t be accurately matched to an inbound journey. But of the remainder, some will have decided to remain in the UK, living underground.

How large this population is a matter for guesswork; in 2005, the Home Office believed some 430,000 people were living in Britain without the right to be here. No subsequent estimate has been published.

What we do know is that the number has likely grown substantially since then. The last publication on exit checks, showed that 3.8 per cent of people who required visas to enter the UK were not recorded as leaving on time — a little under 92,000 people in 2019/20.

Removals blocked

Counting people in and out might make it easier to find those who overstay. But even if it did, we would still find it difficult to remove them. While immigration has risen to record highs, the number of people being removed from the country has fallen by 21,000 since 2009. Enforced removals, in particular, have plummeted. While this has been partially offset by a rise in voluntary removals, the overall trend is clear: the Government is finding it increasingly hard to remove those with no right to live in the country.

Take failed asylum seekers. Just 41 per cent of those who made a failed claim for asylum between 2010 and 2020 had been removed from the UK by June 2022. Among their number was the Liverpool bomber Emad al Swealmeen, who had his asylum claim rejected in 2015. The Home Office failed to deport him, allowing him to mount a fresh claim in 2017, which was rejected in 2020. A year later, he was still in Britain, and still free to attempt his attack on a hospital.

Part of the problem is simply one of resources. Real terms funding for removals fell by 11 per cent between 2015-16 and 2019-20. This year, the planned funding for immigration enforcement is just £537 million, or a little over 13 per cent of the £4 billion spent on supporting asylum seekers in the UK.

Given the mismatch between the scale of the challenge and the resources allocated, it’s little surprise that the National Audit Office found in 2020 that immigration enforcement teams lacked the capacity to fulfil their tasks; enforcement visits had fallen from 20,000 a year in 2015 to just over 11,000 in 2020.

Detention capacity is also an issue. The stream of appeals and challenges means detention spaces are quickly filled, and there is little political appetite for dealing with this issue; attempts to impose limits on the right to appeal in the Rwanda Bill were rejected by the Government. If anything, the overwhelming direction of policy has been to reduce the use of detention further. 

In 2019, immigration minister Caroline Nokes wrote that the Government was committed to “a material reduction in the number of people detained an the length of time they spend in detention”, boasting that “by summer 2019, the immigration detention estate will be almost 40 per cent smaller than it was four years ago”, and that “95 per cent of those who are liable for removal are managed in the community”.

This has consequences. When the Government declared in January that it had resolved the backlog of asylum cases, it turned out that 17,000 cases had been resolved simply because the Home Office had lost touch with the claimants. Of the 5,000 immigrants originally identified for removal to Rwanda, meanwhile, only 700 are still in regular contact with the government. Without resources to keep tabs on people — and ensure they leave when necessary — the Government is fighting a losing battle in its attempts to maintain our borders. 

Perhaps most troublesome, however, is the role of the legal system. As the National Audit Office noted, less than half of enforced returns planned in 2019 actually took place, with late legal challenges often blocking the process. 

Rishi Sunak’s latest tilt at the ECHR is merely the latest in a long series of clashes between the Government and the courts. In the view of legal critics, judicial empire-building has slowly expanded the range of potential obstacles to deportations, making it difficult to ensure that flights can actually get off the ground. These delays, in turn, can eventually provide grounds for claims to permanent residency. It hardly helps, as one observer noted, that the Government appears to be extremely cautious in assessing its ability to challenge bad case law, or test the limits of international law.

A system on trial

Both of the cases we saw in court illustrated a major problem for immigration enforcement: when the Government is slow to remove people, they will tend to build up grounds for staying in the UK. The classic example is the asylum seeker who, when their initial application is denied, finds a sudden urge to join a church, finds Jesus, and with him a potential fresh claim for staying in the UK. 

The difficulties with credulous clerics accepting conversions at face value have been covered elsewhere; the broader problem of people building claims to stay in the UK, whether on the basis of religious persecution, the right to a family life, or some other combination remains. So too does the problem of the Home Office failing to examine stories in depth.

It certainly does not help that, as we saw above, the Home Office does not always send a presenting officer to tribunals. The share of cases where no presenting officer attended has been above 10 per cent for five of the last six quarters. This can put judges in a difficult position; their job is to listen to and evaluate adversarial arguments, rather than to conduct inquiries of their own. When only one side is making a case in person, it is difficult for this system to work. 

Even when the Home Office does attend, one expert noted that it often lacks the staff and expertise to properly analyse cases. Immigration cases can be dismissed on relatively superficial grounds, even as the department fails to conduct the investigations necessary to spot outright fabrications. 

Take the example of a political separatist. In assessing such a case, the expert said, the Home Office would tend to rely on evaluating documents. If a claimant said they had been beaten in their home country, and presented papers from a hospital, the Home Office would scrutinise them for spelling errors, wrong dates, and obvious inconsistencies. What it would not do, said the expert, was check that the hospital actually existed. 

A welcoming environment

These problems are not new. In this context, it’s little wonder that the Government hit on the idea of the hostile environment: if you can’t stop people from coming in, and you can’t deport them, you can at least make it hard for them to be here, deter future arrivals and hope they leave on their own. Checks on immigration status were introduced for renting properties and taking jobs.

While this succeeded in creating difficult headlines for the Conservative party — and shifting part of the cost of border enforcement to the businesses and landlords who found themselves on the immigration frontline — evidence for its success in encouraging people to leave is thin. 

Part of this is beyond the government’s control; as one expert put it, “people still stick it out as it’s worth it”. The benefits of living in Britain are considerable, and very few will trade them in for an easier time with the paperwork in a much poorer country. Far better to live in a sublet apartment, working cash jobs, than to return home. 

Even so, there is low-hanging fruit for the Government to pick, should it so choose. As the then-immigration minister Robert Jenrick noted, the practice of gig economy companies allowing “unchecked account sharing” makes it easier for illegal working to take place. Targeting the companies enabling these practices for immigration enforcement – and levelling massive fines where possible – would end that rapidly. 

The NHS passport to stay

Also ripe for reconsideration is the UK’s own system of doctors without borders. In both of the court cases we examined earlier, access to healthcare was presented as a major obstacle to removing the claimant from Britain. 

As things stand, the NHS is effectively open to the world. Anyone can register with and see a GP, regardless of immigration status. Emergency healthcare is provided without charge. Secondary care is different; in theory, those without the right to stay should pay for the treatment they receive. Anything considered urgent is delivered, and payment may be chased later. 

Even this barrier may be more permeable than it appears. As the BMA helpfully notes, whether treatment is urgent is “the doctor’s decision alone”, and consists of anything that “cannot wait until the person can be reasonably expected to leave the UK”. As the Government’s guidance sets out, when an illegal migrant can be expected to leave is often unclear, leaving room for ambiguity over what care might qualify. Hospitals, in turn, can choose not to pursue debts in some circumstances, while the Home Office is under no compulsion to refuse immigration applications from those who have accrued them. 

Destination unknown

So even if Rishi Sunak withdraws from the ECHR, and rewrites human rights law in the next nine months to make Rwanda work, there are still real barriers to stopping the flow across the Channel, or fixing the holes in our borders.

We would still be unsure who is actually living in Britain. Enforcement would still be underfunded and overwhelmed. Deportations would still face huge legal barriers, with a Home Office poorly equipped to evaluate cases. And the pull factors drawing people from around the world would remain.

Yet as a depressing day in the asylum courts reveals, nobody should be satisfied with the status quo. A situation where the state is no longer sure who lives in Britain, is unable to remove those with no right to be here, and seems to lack any realistic plan for bringing the situation under control is not sustainable.

 

[Chewing Grass]

Speaking of 'metals' the Welsh Gold premium has always fascinated me due to the influence of 'romance', the 'royals' and the media.

20x the value of regular gold...

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/rare-gold-just-sold-20-13963951

[DurhamBorn]

42 minutes ago, Castlevania said:

I disagree. The multipolar world is very good for the ordinary working man. Globalisation not so much. Since the fall of the Iron Curtain who’s benefitted? Not the ordinary working man.

Yes,but they have set up our system to need it but no reform of welfare etc,so it will be the working man who gets stuffed here.I agree its been bad for most working people,but turning away now will take 30 years,and the inflation will hit the workers hard,unless they stop all migration.

[Axeman123]

1 hour ago, sleepwello'nights said:

Watching the market sniper video I wonder if  Iinvested into commoditiies whether I would be  able to escape the effects on the economy if it did collapse as feared. Would having the money be suffiicient to be able to purchase food from empty supermarket shelves. Would electricity still be on at the flick of a switch. 

The collapse will be worst in the old money countries, whereas simulataneously there will be a economic golden age in up and coming ones. So long as your assets aren't trapped in the failing countries just move somewhere better IMO. Think of it like rotation between asset classes, just with your physical residency.

[Lightly Toasted]

27 minutes ago, Butthead said:

What is the current solution for reading such links without a subscription? 12 Ft latter doesn't deal with them anymore.

 

[JREWING]

June said:
After tax, Daniel brings in £4,100 a month. After paying our mortgage and our bills, we are on the line. We’re not living month-to-month or day-to-day, we’re living hour-to-hour. 
Our mortgage is £2,200 a month. Daniel also has to pay child maintenance support of £1,200 a month to his ex-wife. Our gas and electricity bill is £400. The price of petrol is wild and for both of us that’s about £150 a month. I have a nanny on a Tuesday for £10 an hour – which is cheaper than the local nursery – but that still leaves me in the red because I don’t get paid enough to cover childcare. The water has gone up to £200 a month and our council tax has risen too. 
Daniel does bar work on the side and we live off of the cash-in-hand that brings in. He worked at one posh function and one of his boss’s friends was there and recognised him. On Monday morning, he got called in to his boss’s office and he had to admit he was really struggling. The boss said: “You get paid £100,000 a year, how are you struggling?”
We don’t go out, there are no luxuries, no holidays. The bills and the mortgage are paid and then there’s nothing. I can’t remember the last time we went on holiday, out for dinner or just had a drink in the pub. We’re not victims but it would be nice to have some extra money which is ridiculous because, on paper, we earn a lot I’d like not to have holes in my knickers and I’d like my husband to be able to pay the £16 a month for his football subs.t of money.

At least now I know my missus is not the only one; feels quite liberating that someone on 100k a year shares our same problem.... 

[Chewing Grass]

3 minutes ago, JREWING said:

June said:
After tax, Daniel brings in £4,100 a month. After paying our mortgage and our bills, we are on the line. We’re not living month-to-month or day-to-day, we’re living hour-to-hour. 
Our mortgage is £2,200 a month. Daniel also has to pay child maintenance support of £1,200 a month to his ex-wife. Our gas and electricity bill is £400. The price of petrol is wild and for both of us that’s about £150 a month. I have a nanny on a Tuesday for £10 an hour – which is cheaper than the local nursery – but that still leaves me in the red because I don’t get paid enough to cover childcare. The water has gone up to £200 a month and our council tax has risen too. 
Daniel does bar work on the side and we live off of the cash-in-hand that brings in. He worked at one posh function and one of his boss’s friends was there and recognised him. On Monday morning, he got called in to his boss’s office and he had to admit he was really struggling. The boss said: “You get paid £100,000 a year, how are you struggling?”
We don’t go out, there are no luxuries, no holidays. The bills and the mortgage are paid and then there’s nothing. I can’t remember the last time we went on holiday, out for dinner or just had a drink in the pub. We’re not victims but it would be nice to have some extra money which is ridiculous because, on paper, we earn a lot I’d like not to have holes in my knickers and I’d like my husband to be able to pay the £16 a month for his football subs.t of money.

At least now I know my missus is not the only one; feels quite liberating that someone on 100k a year shares our same problem.... 

More or less the same here but I have given up, at 60 next year it isn't worth flogging yourself to death for the extra effort to be taxed at 50% plus. Likewise promotion in my industry is like committing suicide due to the stress.

[JREWING]

3 minutes ago, Chewing Grass said:

More or less the same here but I have given up, at 60 next year it isn't worth flogging yourself to death for the extra effort to be taxed at 50% plus. Likewise promotion in my industry is like committing suicide due to the stress.

I'd rather go without rather than go to work to earn money to spend on stuff I don't really need or stuff I do just to fill time which cost earn't money. A walk by the water is free, five hours in the pub is 40 quid and a shit hangover the following day.

[Butthead]

13 minutes ago, JREWING said:

June said:
After tax, Daniel brings in £4,100 a month. After paying our mortgage and our bills, we are on the line. We’re not living month-to-month or day-to-day, we’re living hour-to-hour. 
Our mortgage is £2,200 a month. Daniel also has to pay child maintenance support of £1,200 a month to his ex-wife. Our gas and electricity bill is £400. The price of petrol is wild and for both of us that’s about £150 a month. I have a nanny on a Tuesday for £10 an hour – which is cheaper than the local nursery – but that still leaves me in the red because I don’t get paid enough to cover childcare. The water has gone up to £200 a month and our council tax has risen too. 
Daniel does bar work on the side and we live off of the cash-in-hand that brings in. He worked at one posh function and one of his boss’s friends was there and recognised him. On Monday morning, he got called in to his boss’s office and he had to admit he was really struggling. The boss said: “You get paid £100,000 a year, how are you struggling?”
We don’t go out, there are no luxuries, no holidays. The bills and the mortgage are paid and then there’s nothing. I can’t remember the last time we went on holiday, out for dinner or just had a drink in the pub. We’re not victims but it would be nice to have some extra money which is ridiculous because, on paper, we earn a lot I’d like not to have holes in my knickers and I’d like my husband to be able to pay the £16 a month for his football subs.t of money.

At least now I know my missus is not the only one; feels quite liberating that someone on 100k a year shares our same problem.... 

I'm not disputing the overall problem, but £400 per month on gas/electric and £200 per month on water are both extreme. Both can definitely be reduced just by being more thoughtful about usage.

There are plenty of people out there who have always had an attitude of "I earn well so I don't need to think about the small stuff, I just do what I want". They need to start thinking about the small stuff; energy efficiency, putting on a jumper, using the washing machine once per week when it's full, hand-washing dishes, ALDI and LIDL, yellow labels etc. It'll save them a few hundred a month.

[Errol]

41 minutes ago, onlyme said:

Latest round of sanctions are actively targeting the banks as well as suppliers who are exporting to Russia (in particular from China). The banks seem to be the key, if the US can successfully block a Chinese bank's transactions abroad (into the US in particualr) for breaking those sanctsions then they are going to be pretty careful not to transgress those rules.

China isn't going to stop supplying or assisting Russia. End of story. They know the West's game and exactly what is at stake.

[Shamone]

13 hours ago, AlfredTheLittle said:

I bet your grandad got up earlier than any of the people you mention and did more physical work. We all think we're clever because we sit at computers all day, but in reality what do any of these jobs produce, except more numbers for more people to pore over at their computers.

Do you work in pubic sector?