Best Of

What is going on here ?

It is remarkable that the Building Safety Regulator is rejecting 70% of applications. For comparison, the planning system rejects around 10% of applications, including on large sites. This is because delays are very costly for developers, so they try extremely hard to be compliant.

A 70% rejection rate suggests that developers *don't know how* to meet the standards the BSR is enforcing, presumably because they are unclear or unmeetable. This is very concerning.
https://x.com/SCP_Hughes/status/1950564519111016667

This is the ultimate evolution of Process State thinking. People with no domain knowledge or skills create more and more regulations until doing anything legally and correctly becomes impossible.

So the cowboys and scumbags become the only ones who can “get things done”

Guess what happens after that?

Yes, you would have hoped that someone might have pointed out that the area we might find most use/need for the aircraft carrier is in the cold north so let’s test it, the crew, the planes etc under cold wet conditions. Does everything work when it’s caked in ice? Does the onboard heating work? Can planes land safely on a potentially icy deck.

No point sending it to any war with China as it won’t last long, won’t add much to the US fleet.

The cruise is to the fleshpots of SE Asia and the sunny climes of Australia because if they went north the Joint Force Lightning recruitment/retention situation would escalate from crisis to catastrophe.

Do a Napoleon “invasion of Egypt” effort and just don’t tell anyone, except the absolutely necessary bods, where the destination is until suitably far out on the journey.

Also, do these crews think that if they are sent somewhere they don’t like, say for example, to war (which is sort of their job), they can just say, “nah thanks, drop me off at the next stop please.”

Is the Navy so much worse than the Army at accepting that you just get sent to shitty places, that’s the job?

It's not the Navy that's the problem. Due to the J in Joint Force Lightning much of the engineering and support for F-35B which has to be embarked on a cruise is RAF or civvie. Such is the shortage of engineering 'talent' in the RAF they can choose not to be posted to the F-35 force in the first place and simply go to another posting to avoid even the possibility of going to sea. The recent NAO report on F-35 covers all this in agonising detail.

In the Navy you go where the fuck you are told and generally almost everyone does. In my day you used to get a draft on thick Admiralty paper with the anchor watermark that 'requested and required' you to go somewhere and that you would 'answer to the contrary at your peril'. It's probably all on an app now.

Starmer is adept at U-Turns so he should just admit cancelling Rwanda was a bad idea, sent totally the wrong message, and bring it make with a tweak and call it the Labour version.

Simply because Labour knows it wouldn't work just as the Conservatives probably did.

In truth, no one has come up with a coherent, legal, practical, workable and above all inexpensive solution to the problem of "the boats". If such a solution existed, it would have been implemented by either this Government or the last Government.

If withdrawing from the ECHR is the panacea some seem to think it would have been done by this Government or the last Government.

You could try the Greek response and immediately arrest and deport all those who come over illegally but that wouldn't stop them coming.

And, small boat crossings have increased 50% since it was cancellled.

Nice weather.

I doubt your average Afghan boat person has any idea of the Rwanda deterrent, or now, lack thereof.

Before the election Today had regular interviews with charity people in the Calais region and former border officials working with organisations who were very clear that the Rwanda plan was well known by asylum seekers and the threat of it was real to potential boaters.

I know that’s not ideal, something you really don’t like actually working, but the evidence was clearly there and with tweaks such as allowing successful applicants to come to the UK and non successful to stay in Rwanda or confirm and return to their county of origin, it might have worked very well but too many people were blinded to Rwanda because it was the Tories’ plan or frankly, they just don’t want to do anything about the problem.

Rwanda was appalling on so many fronts. It was a Johnsonian stunt which was amoral, Rwanda was not and is not a stable, safe and reliable destination and the project was absurdly expensive. Rwanda was a jolly jape concocted by Johnson and as I mentioned above, serious Tories in Cabinet hated the idea. That is not to say a more workable third party country arrangement is not viable, it is just on any measure, Rwanda wasn't the answer.

Rwanda does however serve a political function, it allows more enthusiastic right wingers to argue we should join Russia and Belarus and jettison the ECHR.

I had no problem with Rwanda.

Neither did Matthew Parris or Ken Clarke.

My only grip with it was successful applicants could not come to the U.K.

Much of the outrage was, and still is, performative. ‘Oh look at me, I’m being worthy’

But successful applicants go to Rwanda (well, 1% of them, anyway) was the heart of the policy.

Fascinating insight into “travelling with Trump” - from a hack who just spent five days on Air Force One

I know this will bitterly disappoint many PBers, but on this basis Trump is clearly not gaga. He takes five press conferences (unlike Biden), does hours of interviews, seems entirely lucid, and comes across as “in complete control”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2025/07/30/inside-donald-trump-scotland-trip/

The interesting point to me is that Trump / Starmer shared a helicopter, which seems wildly risky.

Other than that, to me it's journos (and arguably Starmer in some respects) allowing themselves to be treated like mushrooms by Trump. The Fox News on continuous play on the journo compartment in Air Force One, and the complete cut off of the press from the outside world to be kept in the Trump bubble, is interesting.

Starmer is adept at U-Turns so he should just admit cancelling Rwanda was a bad idea, sent totally the wrong message, and bring it make with a tweak and call it the Labour version.

Simply because Labour knows it wouldn't work just as the Conservatives probably did.

In truth, no one has come up with a coherent, legal, practical, workable and above all inexpensive solution to the problem of "the boats". If such a solution existed, it would have been implemented by either this Government or the last Government.

If withdrawing from the ECHR is the panacea some seem to think it would have been done by this Government or the last Government.

You could try the Greek response and immediately arrest and deport all those who come over illegally but that wouldn't stop them coming.

And, small boat crossings have increased 50% since it was cancellled.

Nice weather.

I doubt your average Afghan boat person has any idea of the Rwanda deterrent, or now, lack thereof.

Before the election Today had regular interviews with charity people in the Calais region and former border officials working with organisations who were very clear that the Rwanda plan was well known by asylum seekers and the threat of it was real to potential boaters.

I know that’s not ideal, something you really don’t like actually working, but the evidence was clearly there and with tweaks such as allowing successful applicants to come to the UK and non successful to stay in Rwanda or confirm and return to their county of origin, it might have worked very well but too many people were blinded to Rwanda because it was the Tories’ plan or frankly, they just don’t want to do anything about the problem.

Rwanda was appalling on so many fronts. It was a Johnsonian stunt which was amoral, Rwanda was not and is not a stable, safe and reliable destination and the project was absurdly expensive. Rwanda was a jolly jape concocted by Johnson and as I mentioned above, serious Tories in Cabinet hated the idea. That is not to say a more workable third party country arrangement is not viable, it is just on any measure, Rwanda wasn't the answer.

Rwanda does however serve a political function, it allows more enthusiastic right wingers to argue we should join Russia and Belarus and jettison the ECHR.

I had no problem with Rwanda.

Neither did Matthew Parris or Ken Clarke.

Ignoring the legalities for a moment (which you can't), the hope in the last Government was, pace Trident, Rwanda would act as a deterrent to those seeking to cross the Channel and enter the country illegally.

It was the biggest stick (well, not quite) the Government had to deter those who were trying to come over and there was some evidence it was acting as such a deterrent.

There was a big cost issue but the current situation has a big cost issue as well. Presumably we'd have assembled a plane load of illegals and then flown them out to Kigali - how many flights a week would we have seen? The idea we'd have flown three or four people on a plane to Kigali was ridiculous but the desperate desire of the last Government to show their plan was "working" led us to that point.

The other side of the issue was whether we would transport those already here from their (allegedly) four star hotel accommodation to something somewhat more rudimentary on the outskirts of Kigali and I'm sure that was under consideration before the Conservatives were swept away in July 2024.

It's not just about flying illegal migrants TO Rwanda - there's the small matter of returning those whose applications were successful (about half perhaps?) and sending the unsuccessful to some other country so in the end it was much more symbolic than serious, more propaganda than practical.

As I see it, Rwanda was about a washed-up headless chicken Government desperately trying to save its own skin, no matter what the cost to the country. Rwanda saw us coming, and Rishi walked straight into it.

Big Rish and the Gang preferred to campaign on the notion of Rwanda rather than the actuality. Their fucking idiotic legislation that said Rwanda was safe and Rishi wore size 13 shoes passed at the end of April 2024. They had two months where they could have launched Rwanda flights but chose not to. Why was that? It wasn't because they thought it was a fucking brilliant idea that was definitely actionable and effective.

Starmer is adept at U-Turns so he should just admit cancelling Rwanda was a bad idea, sent totally the wrong message, and bring it make with a tweak and call it the Labour version.

Simply because Labour knows it wouldn't work just as the Conservatives probably did.

In truth, no one has come up with a coherent, legal, practical, workable and above all inexpensive solution to the problem of "the boats". If such a solution existed, it would have been implemented by either this Government or the last Government.

If withdrawing from the ECHR is the panacea some seem to think it would have been done by this Government or the last Government.

You could try the Greek response and immediately arrest and deport all those who come over illegally but that wouldn't stop them coming.

And, small boat crossings have increased 50% since it was cancellled.

Nice weather.

I doubt your average Afghan boat person has any idea of the Rwanda deterrent, or now, lack thereof.

Before the election Today had regular interviews with charity people in the Calais region and former border officials working with organisations who were very clear that the Rwanda plan was well known by asylum seekers and the threat of it was real to potential boaters.

I know that’s not ideal, something you really don’t like actually working, but the evidence was clearly there and with tweaks such as allowing successful applicants to come to the UK and non successful to stay in Rwanda or confirm and return to their county of origin, it might have worked very well but too many people were blinded to Rwanda because it was the Tories’ plan or frankly, they just don’t want to do anything about the problem.

Rwanda was appalling on so many fronts. It was a Johnsonian stunt which was amoral, Rwanda was not and is not a stable, safe and reliable destination and the project was absurdly expensive. Rwanda was a jolly jape concocted by Johnson and as I mentioned above, serious Tories in Cabinet hated the idea. That is not to say a more workable third party country arrangement is not viable, it is just on any measure, Rwanda wasn't the answer.

Rwanda does however serve a political function, it allows more enthusiastic right wingers to argue we should join Russia and Belarus and jettison the ECHR.

I had no problem with Rwanda.

Neither did Matthew Parris or Ken Clarke.

Ignoring the legalities for a moment (which you can't), the hope in the last Government was, pace Trident, Rwanda would act as a deterrent to those seeking to cross the Channel and enter the country illegally.

It was the biggest stick (well, not quite) the Government had to deter those who were trying to come over and there was some evidence it was acting as such a deterrent.

There was a big cost issue but the current situation has a big cost issue as well. Presumably we'd have assembled a plane load of illegals and then flown them out to Kigali - how many flights a week would we have seen? The idea we'd have flown three or four people on a plane to Kigali was ridiculous but the desperate desire of the last Government to show their plan was "working" led us to that point.

The other side of the issue was whether we would transport those already here from their (allegedly) four star hotel accommodation to something somewhat more rudimentary on the outskirts of Kigali and I'm sure that was under consideration before the Conservatives were swept away in July 2024.

It's not just about flying illegal migrants TO Rwanda - there's the small matter of returning those whose applications were successful (about half perhaps?) and sending the unsuccessful to some other country so in the end it was much more symbolic than serious, more propaganda than practical.

After illegal entry NONE should qualify, they are economic parasites bleeding the country dry due to ineffectual effete woke politician's and liberal do gooders.

I saw a copper on the news last night stating that the folk being housed in one of these hotels had not committed any crime. So entering the country illegally does not constitute a crime?

Not a single one is working illegally on UberEats etc?

Starmer is adept at U-Turns so he should just admit cancelling Rwanda was a bad idea, sent totally the wrong message, and bring it make with a tweak and call it the Labour version.

Simply because Labour knows it wouldn't work just as the Conservatives probably did.

In truth, no one has come up with a coherent, legal, practical, workable and above all inexpensive solution to the problem of "the boats". If such a solution existed, it would have been implemented by either this Government or the last Government.

If withdrawing from the ECHR is the panacea some seem to think it would have been done by this Government or the last Government.

You could try the Greek response and immediately arrest and deport all those who come over illegally but that wouldn't stop them coming.

And, small boat crossings have increased 50% since it was cancellled.

Nice weather.

I doubt your average Afghan boat person has any idea of the Rwanda deterrent, or now, lack thereof.

Before the election Today had regular interviews with charity people in the Calais region and former border officials working with organisations who were very clear that the Rwanda plan was well known by asylum seekers and the threat of it was real to potential boaters.

I know that’s not ideal, something you really don’t like actually working, but the evidence was clearly there and with tweaks such as allowing successful applicants to come to the UK and non successful to stay in Rwanda or confirm and return to their county of origin, it might have worked very well but too many people were blinded to Rwanda because it was the Tories’ plan or frankly, they just don’t want to do anything about the problem.

Rwanda was appalling on so many fronts. It was a Johnsonian stunt which was amoral, Rwanda was not and is not a stable, safe and reliable destination and the project was absurdly expensive. Rwanda was a jolly jape concocted by Johnson and as I mentioned above, serious Tories in Cabinet hated the idea. That is not to say a more workable third party country arrangement is not viable, it is just on any measure, Rwanda wasn't the answer.

Rwanda does however serve a political function, it allows more enthusiastic right wingers to argue we should join Russia and Belarus and jettison the ECHR.

I had no problem with Rwanda.

Neither did Matthew Parris or Ken Clarke.

Ignoring the legalities for a moment (which you can't), the hope in the last Government was, pace Trident, Rwanda would act as a deterrent to those seeking to cross the Channel and enter the country illegally.

It was the biggest stick (well, not quite) the Government had to deter those who were trying to come over and there was some evidence it was acting as such a deterrent.

There was a big cost issue but the current situation has a big cost issue as well. Presumably we'd have assembled a plane load of illegals and then flown them out to Kigali - how many flights a week would we have seen? The idea we'd have flown three or four people on a plane to Kigali was ridiculous but the desperate desire of the last Government to show their plan was "working" led us to that point.

The other side of the issue was whether we would transport those already here from their (allegedly) four star hotel accommodation to something somewhat more rudimentary on the outskirts of Kigali and I'm sure that was under consideration before the Conservatives were swept away in July 2024.

It's not just about flying illegal migrants TO Rwanda - there's the small matter of returning those whose applications were successful (about half perhaps?) and sending the unsuccessful to some other country so in the end it was much more symbolic than serious, more propaganda than practical.

After illegal entry NONE should qualify, they are economic parasites bleeding the country dry due to ineffectual effete woke politician's and liberal do gooders.

I saw a copper on the news last night stating that the folk being housed in one of these hotels had not committed any crime. So entering the country illegally does not constitute a crime?