Election Year or Fear!

[ramAnag]

GP. A thought on the National living Wage. Starmer has increased the National Minimum wage, correct? As you so rightly say, living wage is linked to median earnings and has been determined by the Low Pay Commission since 1997. Now, if the minimum wage is higher, then those on it will be earning more. That higher minimum earnings rate will affect the level of the National Living Wage as the Minimum wage is a part of the data used by the LPC since 1997 to assess the level of the National Living Wage. Ergo, increasing the Minimum wage will increase the Living Wage figure.

Logic tells me that Starmer increasing the Minimum Wage will have an upwards effect on the Living Wage.

He/they also changed the Low Pay Commission?s brief to factor in the cost of living, begin levelling the gap between youth and adult rates and end exploitative zero hour contracts, but these are improvements some choose to ignore in their rush to demonise Starmer.

[Geoff Parkstone]

GP. A thought on the National living Wage. Starmer has increased the National Minimum wage, correct? As you so rightly say, living wage is linked to median earnings and has been determined by the Low Pay Commission since 1997. Now, if the minimum wage is higher, then those on it will be earning more. That higher minimum earnings rate will affect the level of the National Living Wage as the Minimum wage is a part of the data used by the LPC since 1997 to assess the level of the National Living Wage. Ergo, increasing the Minimum wage will increase the Living Wage figure.

Logic tells me that Starmer increasing the Minimum Wage will have an upwards effect on the Living Wage.

As far as Im aware changes to the NMW as well as the NLW are recommended by the LPC as part of its routine practices and not determined by the PM - although I guess there is likely a process for HMG to override LPC recommendations.

My understanding of median is that it is the 50% value that separates the upper and lower 50% elements of the dataset. Thus a small change to the low end earnings in the lower 50% dataset (and indeed the same is true of the upper end of the upper 50% dataset) would be unlikely to change the median earnings level, although it would change the mean.

eg if we have a dataset 5,5,5,8,8,9,10,10,10,12,12 the median is 9 (the value at the midpoint of the total dataset). (The mean is 8.55)

If we increase the low end values to 6,6,6,8,8,9,10,10,10,12,12 the median value is still 9. However the mean does indeed increase to 8.82.

[Andy_Faber]

As far as Im aware changes to the NMW as well as the NLW are recommended by the LPC as part of its routine practices and not determined by the PM - although I guess there is likely a process for HMG to override LPC recommendations.

My understanding of median is that it is the 50% value that separates the upper and lower 50% elements of the dataset. Thus a small change to the low end earnings in the lower 50% dataset (and indeed the same is true of the upper end of the upper 50% dataset) would be unlikely to change the median earnings level, although it would change the mean.

eg if we have a dataset 5,5,5,8,8,9,10,10,10,12,12 the median is 9 (the value at the midpoint of the total dataset). (The mean is 8.55)

If we increase the low end values to 6,6,6,8,8,9,10,10,10,12,12 the median value is still 9. However the mean does indeed increase to 8.82.

Thank you Sir Humphrey

[MadAmster]

Meanwhile, Trump and Rubio are again saying that a deal with Iran looks imminent (my words based on what they've said). How many times is this that they have been close, according to the US and "Talks? What talks?" from the Iranians.

My take on the whole shebang is that he's backed himself into a corner he can't get out of. He's said they'd destroyed Itan's nuclear weapon building capability a few months back. Then they had to bomb lots of places to stop them getting a nuke very soon depsite the Pentagon saying Iran was nowhere near creating a nuke. Bibi has been screaming Iran was close to getting a nuke for 34 years and the Pentagon say they're not. I believe the Pentagon.

Iran now wants a Nuke it seems and they will only sign a peace deal that allows them to continue enriching uranium. They also want control of the Strait of Hormuz. They also want to charge tankers 2M dollars for using the Strait. They also want the easing of sanctions to be part of any peace deal.If, and it's a big un, there is a deal, it's looking pretty certain that Iran will come out of Trump's little excursion much better off than they were before it. The rest of the world will be worse off and DJT will claim victory. If presented to Hollywood as a potential film script, you'd get laughed at yet it looks ike it's happening.

[MadAmster]

Seems we're not the only ones that believe Trump lies... His score on PolitiFact does not make good reading for him.

Pretty much all Donald Trump does is lie. His score on PolitiFact is horrendously bad. As of writing this on May 22, 2026, they’ve fact-checked 1,157 comments he’s made. Only 3% were rated “True,” and 7% “Mostly True,” while 76% were rated “Mostly False,” “False,” or “Pants on Fire.”
76%!
That’s roughly three out of every four comments they’ve fact-checked from Donald Trump being rated as lies.

[Geoff Parkstone]

What about the other 14%

[swaledale]

Who suggested that incomers would be paying NI or tax. My point is that those leaving would have been paying it - hence HM Treasury worse off

Given the bulk of legal immigration is for workers, not sure how you work out that immigrants wont be paying NI or income tax, plus of course there is the NHS surcharge.

The NHS surcharge is calculated based on the length of visa being applied for, and costs

£1,035 per year, or a reduced fee of
£776 per year, for applicants under the age of 18 at the time of the application
£776 per year for a student or Youth Mobility Scheme

You may be correct that those leaving paid more in tax and NI then those coming, though I'd be interested to see any evidence to this effect. Some will be high earners, but the majority are probably not unless you knowdifferent of course.

Apart from seasonal agricultural workers, who are on temporary visas, the bulk of immigration is for skilled workers where there is a proven shortage.

[Andy_Faber]

Given the bulk of legal immigration is for workers.

Be nice if you could provide provenance for that as all independent analysis I can find suggests otherwise. I quote from one:

While a substantial number of people come to the UK for work, it is not the majority reason for immigration. Based on the most recent data, study visas outnumber work visas, and when looking at the total migrant population, only a minority are principal work visa holders.

[swaledale]

Be nice if you could provide provenance for that as all independent analysis I can find suggests otherwise. I quote from one:

While a substantial number of people come to the UK for work, it is not the majority reason for immigration. Based on the most recent data, study visas outnumber work visas, and when looking at the total migrant population, only a minority are principal work visa holders.

You are correct in that study visas outnumber employment visas. But in the main, those that come to the Uk to study (and pay handsmely for the privilige and are a net contributor to the Uk economy) are only here on a temporary basis and will return to their country of origin. They are also not able to bring family members with them except in very exceptional circumstances.

I'm unsure what is meant by the total migrant population, given I was discussing the last 12 months?

In terms of those that immigrated in the last 12 month recording period, then arise from study visas (which as I've pointed out the majority are temporary migrants) the majority were indeed for employment purposes, with a minimum salary requirement, except for specific occupations such as health or social care.The 3rd In terms of family visas, again there is now a minimum salary requirement and strict conditions in place before family members are granted visas.

Again I'm unsure as to what you mean by independent analysis, there are various versions, which as is expected are slanted by whatever agenda the organisation reporting them is following. But using Government statistics and cross checking with other sources the view that only a minority are principal work visa holders is false, unless of course one is including study visas.

[Geoff Parkstone]

Why all the chatter about what sort of visas these people have? The problem is those that dont have visas at all

[MadAmster]

Why all the chatter about what sort of visas these people have? The problem is those that dont have visas at all

There wouldn't have been a problem with visaless boat folk if idiots hadn't voted Leave and then have that compounded by Johnson deciding to scrap the "returns" clause that the EU offered to keep from the Dublin Agreement. It was the scrapping of that clause that convinced the vast majority of the boat folk to make the journey for the simple reason that they knew the UK COULDN'T SEND THEM BACK.

[Geoff Parkstone]

That may be true MA but that was best part of 7 years ago and one cant keep blaming history. In a sense the reason is irrelevant to the debate for how to address it now, as you cant reinvent the past, sadly. Learn from it and move on for sure, but attributing blame is only useful if that attribution opens up a solution.

Now if the solution is "rejoin the EU" I wonder if any conditions imposed by the EU would include a "returns clause". I very much doubt it since the French, germans, Italians etc dont want the ****ers either

[MadAmster]

The solution would appear to be either a full rejoin or something just short of that to appease the Leavers. A return to the "returns clause" should be part of any deal but, as you say, the EU doesn't want 'em either.

Having said that, from, I believe, June 12th, there's a new EU Law where they change what happens at the outer borders of the EU. All asylum seekers and refugees will be stopped at the outer borders. Claims will be looked at seriously and with some speed. Photos, fingerprints and DNA will be taken. Those either unlikely to or definitely not going to get asylum will be sent back whence they came (or that's the plan, anyway). Those who have a decent chance of getting claims accepted will be allowed in. That means the UK is "only" really in danger of those currently hanging about in France waiting to cross to the UK. The newer ones will be integrated into the EU countries. That's the idea anyway. Will it succeed? One hopes so but there will be no breath holding on my part.

[swaledale]

Why all the chatter about what sort of visas these people have? The problem is those that dont have visas at all

Because your original response to a decline in net imigration made the claim that there would be a net loss to HMRC as many of those incoming wouldn't pay NI or income tax and those outgoing would have been. I did specifically ask you for your evidence or reasoning for this, which not suprisingly you failed to provide.

Are they a problem though? Or at least are they the problem that Farage and co have made out? They actually form a very small perentage of total migrants and we accept much less than other comparable European countries.

In terms of those that claim asylum, which is the majority of those coming here without visas, as MA has said the piss poor Brexit agreement scrapped the returns agreement with the EU, that Government also refused an offer by the french to ahve a centre in france near calais that would process Asylum claims.

In addition as was discussed on here a while ago, there are very few legal routes for people to claim asylum, those that exist are very restrictive. Add to that the requirement that a person actually has to be in the UK to make an asylum claim and what you get is people smugglers using small boats.

The vast majority could be stopped quite simply by opening up legitimate routes to claim asylum, and processing claims quickly but this government is scared of doing that becuase farage will go on the attack claiming they are making it easy for people to get in.

[Geoff Parkstone]

A government with a massive majority is scared of an individual with a handful of MPs and what you continually claim to be falling support across the electorate??

Make sense, big boy. On the one hand Farage is no threat. On the other hand he can stop Starmer doing something simply by looking a bit askance. I no longer wonder why Starmer is called spineless. Thanks for clarifying. Or is it people like you continually making excuses for a lame duck leader of a party with a massive majority in parliament?