Best Of

I hope TSE isn't talking his book with all the anti-Badenoch threads. The reason she stays, in my opinion, is that her performance has improved and who are you going to replace her with? The Tories might be doomed whoever the leader is, but I think they'd be a lot better off sticking with Badenoch than bringing in Jenrick.

Nope.

I voted for Badenoch last year and want her to remain in place lest that human colostomy bag Jenrick takes over.

The point I was trying to make is that whilst Badenoch’s performances have improved the Tories are still doing worse than the 2024 GE.

That’s what is focussing the minds of Tory MPs.

I have the feeling that Reform’s numbers have a lot of air in them, as the analytics people say. So tricky to weigh up, as it’s like an outsider in a horse race going twenty lengths clear; it should come back to the pack, but maybe it won’t

It would be tough on Kemi if Reform collapsed in scandal after she’d been removed. Her successor would probably have a Sir Keir style open goal at the next election

Isn't it likely that one of the factors keeping the Tory polling figure low is that it is impossible to know whether a person should vote Tory to help keep Reform out, or vote Tory to help put Reform in?

As long as that polling figure figure is low, the question of voting Tory to have a Tory government doesn't arise; like with voting LD.

No different leader will resolve that issue unless they tell us. It can only be resolved by Reform collapse, or Tory decisiveness.

Surely if your voting Tory but don't like Reform much, at this point you're mainly voting Tory in the hopes of a Tory - Ref coalition where the Tories are able to be a moderating influence on a Ref government.

There's virtually no hope of a Tory majority unless something big changes. If you don't want a rightish government, why are you voting Tory at all?

To be fair, as a Ref voter this would probably be my preferred outcome - Ref are needed to fix immigration, but with Tory influence to ensure they cut spending rather than increase the state.

More generally - why do people constantly treat politics like a team sport, where they back their team through thick or thin, regardless of how useless they are.

I couldn't care less about the fate of any of the UK's political parties, I care about the policies which they enact on the country.

IMHO, the country needs:
Net zero immigration for an extended period (until house prices are back to sanity).
Massive shrinkage of the state, coupled with a fairly massive reduction in the tax burden, and also a very reduced deficit.
Deregulation across most spheres of life.

I'll vote for anyone who looks like they might deliver some of that, or failing that is least likely to deliver the opposite. I couldn't care less what colour label they wear as they are doing it.

This is however slightly tempered by a belief that leopards aren't given to changing their spots - e. g. whatever the Labour Party says before elections about not increasing taxes, you can be can be sure that if elected they'll tax, spend and borrow like it's going out of fashion, because that's what they always do.

If a Reform government is not high spend (somewhere in the middle of the western European pack as % of GDP) I shall eat my hat.

Me too. I think they'll probably fix immigration, and might manage some of the more straightforward deregulation required, and that will be about it. It's still better than the alternatives, which are unlikely to make progress towards any of my desired destinations.

There is no party serious about reducing the size of the state, or even attempting to balance the books, although they Tories occasionally make some of the right noises - for that reason, a Ref-Tory coalition is probably my prefered outcome.

I wouldn't want the Tories to have a majority on their own, see my comments about leopards and spots.

Immigration is down 75% from the Boriswave already.

still circa 50K illegals coming in on boats and costing a fortune, that has to be stopped.

Yes, and in terms of what voters care about this is far more important.
Much of the Boriswave was made of of Ukrainians and Hong Kongers. Few people objected to that.
Voters have a distinct hierarchy of the sorts of immigration they'll accept. We've reduced immigration of the sort people don't mind but we're still getting the immigration which is politically toxic: the unskilled, the chancers, the criminals and the fanatics.

Many of these people are refugees fleeing death and torture. The UK takes fewer refugees than many other countries. Many refugees go on to make significant positive contributions to their host country.

Should we invade France if they're causing the death and torture of refugees?

You keep making this point but it is idiotic. Every country needs to do its share in terms of accepting refugees. France already has 50% more refugees than we do, relative to their population.

So who determines what our share is and whom we should accept?

I would far rather we accept people, safely, via bringing people over from refugee camps near to conflicts, like David Cameron suggested, than accept people who pay people smugglers who drown people in the Channel.

What about you?

And which scale you look at changes things dramatically, relative to per square km, I'm pretty sure we take considerably more than France does.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c70989jrdweo says...

A total of 109,142 people applied for asylum in the UK from July 2024 to June 2025.

The top three countries with the most people claiming asylum were Germany with 190,000, France with 158,000 and Spain with 155,000.

The UK ranked at number five for asylum claims when compared alongside 26 other European countries, with populations over one million.

When adjusted for population size, the UK ranks at number 11 for asylum applications per 100,000 people.

They then give a graph for European countries with the highest asylum applicants per 100,000 residents:

Greece: 686
Belgium: 332
Spain: 321
Switzerland: 280
Ireland: 262

The UK, also shown, ranks 11th with 160 applicants per 100,000 residents. Data is from July 2024 to June 2025

You suggest, however, that "relative to per square km, I'm pretty sure we take considerably more than France does." So...

UK: 244,376 km2
France: 632,702.3 km2, but that's including French Guiana etc. European France is 543,940 km2
Germany: 357,114 km2
Spain: 506,030 km2

So, asylum seekers per area gives us...

UK: 0.45
France: 0.25, but European France, if we presume no aslym seekers to French Guiana, not certain what the figures are there, comes to, is 0.29
Germany: 0.53
Spain: 0.31

Therefore, yes, we take more than France (and Spain) per area, but still less than Germany, and I've not done the figures, but I presume we're still way below Greece and Belgium.

The Boriswave is the confounder. We allow legal migration, illegal migration and asylum to be conflated by bad actors. And people never want to actually look and understand data.

I get it. People see migrants fleeing from (checks notes) France and wonders why they don't stay there and claim asylum. One reason was revealed on QT last week - often they have been refused by other nations along the way...

they don't get the benefits and free housing , etc in those other safe countries. Soft touch for any chancer.

Er... yes, they do. For example...

https://domasile.info/en/what-social-rights-do-i-have-as-an-asylum-seeker-in-france/

What social rights do I have as an asylum seeker in France?

As an asylum seeker, you will benefit from social rights during your procedure. This means that you are normally entitled to: health cover (social security), reduced transport fares, accommodation, a monthly allowance (ADA ) in the form of a payment card which does not allow you to withdraw money but only to pay in certain authorized stores.

It's similar in Germany.

Re malcolmg's comment, I am repeatedly disappointed by the ability of people to confidently opine on matters of which they are completely ignorant. Perhaps AI thinking is actually pretty close to human thinking!

Can you explain then when things are so good in France and Germany why these people pay thousands and risk their lives to come to the UK. Not hard to guess why and it is not the weather.

Genuine question: why? Is it the benefits? The racism? They can't speak French/German? Other?

The reasons typically given are:

1) They already have friends, family or contacts in the UK
2) They can speak English reasonably well, or at least better than other European languages
3) It's relatively easy to get work in the UK even if you can't speak the lingo that well. The lack of ID cards helps with that.

Which, when you think about it, are exactly the reasons you or I would have for choosing a particular country to head for if we had to leave the UK in a hurry.

All invalid reasons because the countries they are moving from are safe.

Viewcode asked what motivates them, and those are the reasons typically given. Motivation doesn't stop with physical safety; most people want to optimise their lot in life.

If, for example, I had to flee the UK, I'd head for Germany because I have contacts there and speak the language. That might involve passing through France, but I wouldn't want to stop in France because I don't know anyone there and I don't speak French. So I'd do my damndest to get into Germany even if I were physically safe in France.

Whether those reasons are "valid" or not is a different matter and depends on the criteria that you are applying. But those are the reasons.

The French want Russian assets frozen in France to be exempt from the reparations loan. Fuxsake, this is never going to happen.

Didn’t a bright spark say during the American Revolution that “we must hang together or surely we will hang apart”.

Unfortunately, as ever, national concerns in Europe take precedence over the good for the continent. France with their protectionism, Spain and Ireland with their obsession with Gaza over the real threat, Hungary and Slovakia with its leaders beholden to Putin. At least Germany has made the post Merkel switch to reality and the Baltic, Poland and Scandinavia/Nordic nations are being pragmatic.

We will likely fudge spending and end up with an approach that isn’t optimised for the real threat.

Putin knows all this and even though he would be on a hiding to nothing if he tried to roll into Poland and the Baltic when his army is incapable of winning in Ukraine as it is but he will play a long game and benefit from disunity and selfishness.

Britain probably not best placed to advise others on European unity, unfortunately.

That sounds like the whole history of European 'unity' with each country looking for its own advantage over the other members of the Union

Oh sure, and the French are the absolute worst but I think it takes a certain lack of self awareness to think that a country that has done more than any other in recent years to weaken European unity and advance Putin's divide and rule strategy has any credibility in this space.

In terms of defence Britain has done far more to strengthen Europe than any of the traditional EU major players. You only have to look at the JEF or the Mutual Defence Pact that the UK signed with Sweden and FInland prior to their accession to NATO. This is proper practical stuff rather than just talking about it. And it cannot be hindered by the pro-Russian elements within the EU.

Germany has provided more military support to Ukaine than we have and the EU overall has provided over EUR80bn, more than the US and five times what we have.

Firstly I wasn't talking just about financial aid to Ukraine as should have been obvious from my mentioning the JEF so stop moving the goalposts.

And secondly, given the EU economy is about 5 times larger than the UKs that looks like we are pretty much on a par in terms of support for Ukraine.

Why are you so desperate to do down the UK just for the sake of your precious EU?

I could ask why are you so desperate to deny that Brexit was a project supported by Putin and designed to weaken the EU? Or why are you so keen to talk up our contribution to defending Europe while denying the role of other countries? You initially said we had done "far more" to strengthen European defence than any EU member and you now say we are "on par" in terms of our support for Ukraine, the current front line in our defence of Europe. And you say I am the one moving the goalposts...
The people "doing down" the UK are Putin's useful idiots who supported a disastrous exit from the EU that has left us poorer and weaker on the world stage.

I didn't deny the contribution of other countries. You are the only one here trying to claim that we have weakened defence and security.

And don't misquote me (what am I saying, you can only make and argument by misquoting people)

I did not say, "any EU member", I said "any of the traditional EU major players". I phrased it specifically that way because I am aware that the Eastern EU countries have done far more than the UK or anyone else.

So stop lying, stop misquoting and stop being such a fucking tool for the EU.

We are doing less than Germany, in terms of defence funding for Ukraine. Are they not a "traditional EU member player"?
I have had a lot of respect for you as a poster but in the last couple of days you have indulged in a number of unpleasant ad hominem attacks when I have posted on the subject of Brexit, which is a shame.
I will nevertheless continue to argue that the UK has been weakened by Brexit, that Europe has been weakened, divided and distracted by it, and Russia has been the main beneficiary. This is not because I am some starry eyed EU fanatic, as you seem to imagine, but because I can see the reality of what has happened in the last nine years. It is driven by what I see as our national self interest. One of the many delusions of Brexiteers is to imagine they have some kind of monopoly on patriotic sentiment. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The French want Russian assets frozen in France to be exempt from the reparations loan. Fuxsake, this is never going to happen.

Didn’t a bright spark say during the American Revolution that “we must hang together or surely we will hang apart”.

Unfortunately, as ever, national concerns in Europe take precedence over the good for the continent. France with their protectionism, Spain and Ireland with their obsession with Gaza over the real threat, Hungary and Slovakia with its leaders beholden to Putin. At least Germany has made the post Merkel switch to reality and the Baltic, Poland and Scandinavia/Nordic nations are being pragmatic.

We will likely fudge spending and end up with an approach that isn’t optimised for the real threat.

Putin knows all this and even though he would be on a hiding to nothing if he tried to roll into Poland and the Baltic when his army is incapable of winning in Ukraine as it is but he will play a long game and benefit from disunity and selfishness.

One of my fears is that Ukraine cannot keep up this intensity of warfare indefinitely, and that as the support from Europe falters, they may reach a breaking point before Russia does. And then, when Russia wants to have another go at Europe, they will benefit from Ukrainian industry and the Ukrainian people that they have coerced into fighting for them.

Europe reeks of a desperation for peace. It only emboldens Russia to push for more.

Zelensky has already said he would agree to a ceasefire on current lines, as has Europe but Putin wants more than that which they reject

Russia can keep on pushing for more because Putin has the security of knowing that he can offer a ceasefire at any time, and there is no question that it will be accepted. There is thus no risk for him that in pushing for more he might risk Russian becoming overextended and losing some of what he has. The European desperation for peace thus encourages Putin to prolong the war.

The only way to break out of this dynamic is to commit to a strategy for victory.

If Europe were that desperate for peace they would already have accepted Putin's preferred peace terms.

There is zero chance of forcing Russia out of Ukraine until Trump leaves office and a new Democrat President might give the extra funds and arms needed for Zelensky to be able to do so, at best a ceasefire on current lines is all that can be done for now

That's just not true.
While I acknowledge it's unlikely, since their various leaders are just too cautious, Europe has the capacity on its own to defeat Putin. But it would require a serious collective commitment which isn't yet there.

It's not impossible that the Trump overreach and outright hostility towards Europe leads to the penny dropping.
I'm not betting on it but it's considerably more than a non zero chance.

It would need massive austerity and slashing of welfare states and health budgets or massive tax rises to fund massive increases in European arms manufacturing to send to Ukraine which European electorates just aren't willing to do. The slight increase in defence budgets already approved is all they will back but that can at best ensure stalemate, not victory without US support as well

In fact, the financial commitment would not need to be huge. Poland has shown that it can be done.

I know people scream and shout about trivial things, but leadership means you sometimes have to say "piss off. There are bigger fish to fry."

There's no reason why I would, but I don't know what the Tories are offering in Wales. I know what Labour has offered - 20mph speed limits etc. I believe Plaid are broadly the same, but in a nationalist way. Reform are the opposite, wanting to revive heavy industry. What are the Tories for there? All I know is that they recently deposed their leader for being too right wing (is my reading). Why do they want power there?

That highlights the underlying problem for the Conservatives, perhaps going back a couple of decades. What do they want and who are they for? If you want right wing populism, Reform are going to do it better. If you want paternalism with half an eye on the pennies, the Conservatives have little appeal now. Kemi, like several of her predecessors, is stuck in a no-mans-land between the two.

Labour have got a massive problem. Centrist dads in constituencies that don't have a Waitrose or a Gail's isn't a winning coalition. But it's better than the one the Conservatives have.

Labour's problem is that it has a culture, built on its founding story/myth, of being a party that represents the working classes when, for white voters at least, it no longer commands that constituency but now represents the educated working middle classes.

The French want Russian assets frozen in France to be exempt from the reparations loan. Fuxsake, this is never going to happen.

Didn’t a bright spark say during the American Revolution that “we must hang together or surely we will hang apart”.

Unfortunately, as ever, national concerns in Europe take precedence over the good for the continent. France with their protectionism, Spain and Ireland with their obsession with Gaza over the real threat, Hungary and Slovakia with its leaders beholden to Putin. At least Germany has made the post Merkel switch to reality and the Baltic, Poland and Scandinavia/Nordic nations are being pragmatic.

We will likely fudge spending and end up with an approach that isn’t optimised for the real threat.

Putin knows all this and even though he would be on a hiding to nothing if he tried to roll into Poland and the Baltic when his army is incapable of winning in Ukraine as it is but he will play a long game and benefit from disunity and selfishness.

One of my fears is that Ukraine cannot keep up this intensity of warfare indefinitely, and that as the support from Europe falters, they may reach a breaking point before Russia does. And then, when Russia wants to have another go at Europe, they will benefit from Ukrainian industry and the Ukrainian people that they have coerced into fighting for them.

Europe reeks of a desperation for peace. It only emboldens Russia to push for more.

Zelensky has already said he would agree to a ceasefire on current lines, as has Europe but Putin wants more than that which they reject

Russia can keep on pushing for more because Putin has the security of knowing that he can offer a ceasefire at any time, and there is no question that it will be accepted. There is thus no risk for him that in pushing for more he might risk Russian becoming overextended and losing some of what he has. The European desperation for peace thus encourages Putin to prolong the war.

The only way to break out of this dynamic is to commit to a strategy for victory.

If Europe were that desperate for peace they would already have accepted Putin's preferred peace terms.

There is zero chance of forcing Russia out of Ukraine until Trump leaves office and a new Democrat President might give the extra funds and arms needed for Zelensky to be able to do so, at best a ceasefire on current lines is all that can be done for now

That's just not true.
While I acknowledge it's unlikely, since their various leaders are just too cautious, Europe has the capacity on its own to defeat Putin. But it would require a serious collective commitment which isn't yet there.

It's not impossible that the Trump overreach and outright hostility towards Europe leads to the penny dropping.
I'm not betting on it but it's considerably more than a non zero chance.

It would need massive austerity and slashing of welfare states and health budgets or massive tax rises to fund massive increases in European arms manufacturing to send to Ukraine which European electorates just aren't willing to do. The slight increase in defence budgets already approved is all they will back but that can at best ensure stalemate, not victory without US support as well

It really wouldn't. Russia's GDP is approximately $2.2trn. EU GDP is $21trn and ours is another $3.6 trn so our combined GDP is comfortably more than 10X Russia's. Russia had a massive advantage in terms of stored hardware at the start of the war but that is now almost completely exhausted. What is required is the will and in particular the willingness to break with the US by acting unilaterally and contrary to their apparent wishes. That is not an easy decision given the role the US has played in our defence for 80 years now but I think it is inevitable that break will come.

The French want Russian assets frozen in France to be exempt from the reparations loan. Fuxsake, this is never going to happen.

Didn’t a bright spark say during the American Revolution that “we must hang together or surely we will hang apart”.

Unfortunately, as ever, national concerns in Europe take precedence over the good for the continent. France with their protectionism, Spain and Ireland with their obsession with Gaza over the real threat, Hungary and Slovakia with its leaders beholden to Putin. At least Germany has made the post Merkel switch to reality and the Baltic, Poland and Scandinavia/Nordic nations are being pragmatic.

We will likely fudge spending and end up with an approach that isn’t optimised for the real threat.

Putin knows all this and even though he would be on a hiding to nothing if he tried to roll into Poland and the Baltic when his army is incapable of winning in Ukraine as it is but he will play a long game and benefit from disunity and selfishness.

Britain probably not best placed to advise others on European unity, unfortunately.

That sounds like the whole history of European 'unity' with each country looking for its own advantage over the other members of the Union

Oh sure, and the French are the absolute worst but I think it takes a certain lack of self awareness to think that a country that has done more than any other in recent years to weaken European unity and advance Putin's divide and rule strategy has any credibility in this space.

In terms of defence Britain has done far more to strengthen Europe than any of the traditional EU major players. You only have to look at the JEF or the Mutual Defence Pact that the UK signed with Sweden and FInland prior to their accession to NATO. This is proper practical stuff rather than just talking about it. And it cannot be hindered by the pro-Russian elements within the EU.

India is about to start producing drones for Russia's war in Ukraine. Europeans are desperately talking about peace to keep in with Trump, but the peace talks seem to be only a diversion to stop Europe from using frozen Russian assets to fund Ukraine's fight for survival.

The situation feels really bleak, and reportedly Starmer was the driving force behind pushing the target data for NATO's new 5% spending target out to 2035, so the British PM is a main component in the axis of denial in Europe that is holding it back from grasping the reality of the precarious position Europe is in and of taking decisive action to turn things around.

What's the good news?

Starmer should take a leaf out of President Trump's book and warn Modi that any drones will trigger the immediate cancellation of all Indian visas. He won't, of course. Something something international law.

Partly, but mostly realpolitik that we aren't the USA and even the USA struggles with its demands from countries the size of India.

Actually Britain and America are equally important for the Indian diaspora. Russia, on the other hand, is not.

Good luck convincing Modi to take orders from Starmer.....

Modi depends on a lot of NRI money and the UK has a huge and fairly enthusiastic support base for Modi. Banning all types of work and student visas as well as suspending the new trade deal would be appropriate IMO. Maybe even putting up restrictions on visitor visas. I say this as a British Indian so it brings me little joy to suggest such measures but supplying Russia with drones that will be used to kill people in Ukraine is beyond acceptable and we shouldn't accept it. Even if it means our tourist and education sectors suffer for a while.

The French want Russian assets frozen in France to be exempt from the reparations loan. Fuxsake, this is never going to happen.

Didn’t a bright spark say during the American Revolution that “we must hang together or surely we will hang apart”.

Unfortunately, as ever, national concerns in Europe take precedence over the good for the continent. France with their protectionism, Spain and Ireland with their obsession with Gaza over the real threat, Hungary and Slovakia with its leaders beholden to Putin. At least Germany has made the post Merkel switch to reality and the Baltic, Poland and Scandinavia/Nordic nations are being pragmatic.

We will likely fudge spending and end up with an approach that isn’t optimised for the real threat.

Putin knows all this and even though he would be on a hiding to nothing if he tried to roll into Poland and the Baltic when his army is incapable of winning in Ukraine as it is but he will play a long game and benefit from disunity and selfishness.

One of my fears is that Ukraine cannot keep up this intensity of warfare indefinitely, and that as the support from Europe falters, they may reach a breaking point before Russia does. And then, when Russia wants to have another go at Europe, they will benefit from Ukrainian industry and the Ukrainian people that they have coerced into fighting for them.

Europe reeks of a desperation for peace. It only emboldens Russia to push for more.

IMHO, enough of Europe is willing to back Ukraine so as to enable them to keep fighting. Of course, we need to do more than that. Just turn on the taps, in terms of supplying money and munitions.