Best Of

The reason the Rwanda policy was so wicked is that even if you were a legitimate refugee, you were not allowed in the UK.

How can anyone justify that?

Because people fleeing France in dinghies leads to drownings in the Channel.

Stopping boat crossings saves lives.

We should be taking refugees from camps not whoever survives a boat crossing.

But it is whether they are a refugee or not, so why does it matter how they got here? If they are legitimate they should be allowed in, doesn't matter if they're from a camp.

It's the ones that aren't legitimate that need to be removed.

It matters because allowing in those who make the boat crossing encourages others to do the same which means inevitably more deaths in the Channel.

Why are those who risk their and other's lives in the Channel more deserving of being here than those who have gone to a camp and done the right thing?

I would support a 1:1 exchange policy. Absolutely nobody who crosses by the Channel is permitted to remain in the country whether they are a legitimate refugee or not instead they will be exchanged with a legitimate refugee who needs refuge who is flown here safely and without risking anyone's life or encouraging others to do so either.

https://x.com/tomhfh/status/1857535988764922212

The Telegraph can reveal that a group of Lords, led by the former Foreign Office minister Lord Bellingham, is planning to help Mr Trump by forcing the Government to hold a referendum of Chagossians in the UK on the deal before it can take effect.

So does Soverignty means that when Trump says "jump", we ask "how high?"

Your justification for the original Chagos Surrender was “well the Americans wanted it, what choice did we have”

I told you this was bullshit. It is bullshit. And now the Americans are overtly asking for something different and suddenly they are “interfering in our sovereignty”

No one wants this deal apart from China, maybe Mauritius and woke twats like you

For the rest of the world it is a disaster and that includes the chagossians THEMSELVES. They would prefer to be British citizens in British territory with British rights. But better access to the atolls

That can be arranged without handing over 600,000 sq km of the Indian Ocean to China

Kemi Badenoch says Keir Starmer is 'cowardly'

"I don’t think he can mansplain anything to me... He is also quite cowardly, because he relies on his back benches to attack me when I can’t respond, because I can only speak when I am questioning him."

https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1857527253518659774

She shouldn’t be whining. This worries me

Starmer is a feeble communicator with no charm and a narrow mind. And he is defending an already dire government. She should be able to beat the crap out of him

Shape up, Kemi

Opposition is a very different game to government. You don't have actions to defend, but everything else about it is much harder.

Not many ex-ministers really learn to play the new rules well. None of the Labour 2010 crew did, really. Hague did a bit, but not enough for it to do him any good. Maggie did... in the end. And she had been around the block already in Parliamentary terms. Kemi B has known nothing but government.

It’s far too early to write her off

But my fear was and is that she is a lightweight globalist with some mildly anti woke ideas which tickle Tory members. Plus she is pretty and black which seems like fun…. But isn’t enough by itself to put it mildly

In there anything else to Kemi?

Let’s hope she grows into the role

Also, to be fair to Tories the choice was PITIFUL

Personally I’d have gone for Priti Patel or Suella but I accept my tastes are quirky

The choice was between someone setting out a very clear policy direction and platform for Government who was an 'unlikeable Tory boy' (albeit who polled more favourably than Kemi) and someone who had all the optics right, and was planning to triumph by sheer force of personality. It was a clear choice, and Kemi, for all her undoubted talent, wasn't it.

Now Trump has come in and is turning the world upside down, Sir Shitebag is getting let off the hook at PMQs, and Farage is going to be the beneficiary.

However, Kemi it is and Kemi it must stay. Naturally I think she needs to adopt some robust right wing policies, though I will admit to not being an unbiased observer. Start with setting out a farming policy based around incentives for FOOD PRODUCTION and of course cutting out this inheritance tax bollocks. Jeremy Clarkson. Barbour gilets. That's low hanging fruit for the Tories and it has a good wider message of lowering food prices.

I’d be quite happy with Farage as PM in 2028

But you’re out of the country most of the time. Some of us have to here all the time.

Kemi Badenoch says Keir Starmer is 'cowardly'

"I don’t think he can mansplain anything to me... He is also quite cowardly, because he relies on his back benches to attack me when I can’t respond, because I can only speak when I am questioning him."

https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1857527253518659774

She shouldn’t be whining. This worries me

Starmer is a feeble communicator with no charm and a narrow mind. And he is defending an already dire government. She should be able to beat the crap out of him

Shape up, Kemi

Opposition is a very different game to government. You don't have actions to defend, but everything else about it is much harder.

Not many ex-ministers really learn to play the new rules well. None of the Labour 2010 crew did, really. Hague did a bit, but not enough for it to do him any good. Maggie did... in the end. And she had been around the block already in Parliamentary terms. Kemi B has known nothing but government.

It’s far too early to write her off

But my fear was and is that she is a lightweight globalist with some mildly anti woke ideas which tickle Tory members. Plus she is pretty and black which seems like fun…. But isn’t enough by itself to put it mildly

In there anything else to Kemi?

Let’s hope she grows into the role

Also, to be fair to Tories the choice was PITIFUL

Personally I’d have gone for Priti Patel or Suella but I accept my tastes are quirky

The choice was between someone setting out a very clear policy direction and platform for Government who was an 'unlikeable Tory boy' (albeit who polled more favourably than Kemi) and someone who had all the optics right, and was planning to triumph by sheer force of personality. It was a clear choice, and Kemi, for all her undoubted talent, wasn't it.

Now Trump has come in and is turning the world upside down, Sir Shitebag is getting let off the hook at PMQs, and Farage is going to be the beneficiary.

However, Kemi it is and Kemi it must stay. Naturally I think she needs to adopt some robust right wing policies, though I will admit to not being an unbiased observer. Start with setting out a farming policy based around incentives for FOOD PRODUCTION and of course cutting out this inheritance tax bollocks. Jeremy Clarkson. Barbour gilets. That's low hanging fruit for the Tories and it has a good wider message of lowering food prices.

I’d be quite happy with Farage as PM in 2028

Off topic, but relevant given discussion on immigration earlier today. I can understand a fear of net migration figures in the hundreds of thousands, but what I find worthy of contempt is when this discussion is divorced from any real understanding of why people are migrating. Today's 'The Take's from Al Jazeera discusses the experiences of women in Sudan: https://pca.st/episode/7874d751-b1e2-4a45-888b-7d8f3f60f9fb.

To summarise, with apologies for the language: women are being raped at such scale by the RSF that suicide statistics are on the rise as women choose to take their own lives rather than fall into the hands of RSF
fighters. Is it any surprise that people want to migrate away from this?

Of course a reasonable response is that sexual violence is such an incredibly common historical fact that it is the modern western world that is unusual for its relative safety for women. That may be true, but I find it grossly unjustifiable to argue that this relative safety should be open only to those who happen to be born in the right part of the world.

This isn't really an argument for migration - I think it is a really poor solution for everyone concerned - but those who simultaneously argue against migration and against development support for places like Sudan are criminals, in my view.

Regrettably, however, the experience of Sweden suggests that as well as importing those sheltering from rape they have also been importing a not inconsiderable number of rapists.

As I said I'm not making a pro-immigration argument. I'm making the argument that we will never reduce the pull of international migration whilst there are parts of the world in the situation Sudan is currently in. Trying to stop migration in
this context will destroy the ethical basis of
our nation states as we take more and more
extreme measures to try to stop people arriving here, having escaped from there.

I disagree

Nation states are an artificial construct to support the residents of a given patch of land. While the residents might wish to expand the population for economic or ethical reasons they do not have an obligation to do so.

Your model implies an ethical obligation to pursue equality of outcomes on a global basis, which I suspect few would sign up to

A long while back I was at a city diner. At a table with the great and good.

Brexit was surfacing as a discussion - it was the period when we had something like no government…. I diverted the conversation. I bought up the subject of one of Cameron’s spads who had argued the above - he didn’t see why the inhabitants of the U.K. should come first over people in worse situations around the world.

Most of the great and good at the table endorsed this view. An exception was an HAC officer, who like me, was half in the can and had a sense of humour.

He suggested that this variable allegiance thing sounded great. And due to an exercise that weekend, he would shortly be in charge the one of the largest body of armed men and women in London. So what should he do?

The jokes between him and myself accelerated with the horror on the faces around us. We stopped when we realised that some were taking us seriously*.

They seriously thought that the allegiance of those below was an iron law. And that of the rulers to the ruled wasn’t.

I bet you ruined a few evenings! Naughty!

You'd have thought the bit where we were discussing using the Operation Angel - the plan to mobilise the TA in an emergency, run by a one armed colonel in Defence Ministry - would have blown the joke. Obviously, not enough Tom Cruise fans at the table.

Be fair it took me a minute. Although "Long live sacred England" does have quite the ring to it... 😃

One thing I did love about that movie. The Guardian review said that the portrayal of the German generals made them out to be a bunch of neurotics obsessed with status & infighting, like a bunch of soon to be fired actors.

Which is exactly how they came across in the history books. I mean, FFS, they sent a bloke with about 3 fingers to carry the f**king bomb. Couldn't they have found a large fit bloke, who could have totted 50Kg of fun into the bunker? They only had 10 million candidates for the job....

It needed someone with access to the war room to place the bomb, not just any schmuck.

It very nearly worked, though what would have happened if it had been successful who knows?

Off topic, but relevant given discussion on immigration earlier today. I can understand a fear of net migration figures in the hundreds of thousands, but what I find worthy of contempt is when this discussion is divorced from any real understanding of why people are migrating. Today's 'The Take's from Al Jazeera discusses the experiences of women in Sudan: https://pca.st/episode/7874d751-b1e2-4a45-888b-7d8f3f60f9fb.

To summarise, with apologies for the language: women are being raped at such scale by the RSF that suicide statistics are on the rise as women choose to take their own lives rather than fall into the hands of RSF
fighters. Is it any surprise that people want to migrate away from this?

Of course a reasonable response is that sexual violence is such an incredibly common historical fact that it is the modern western world that is unusual for its relative safety for women. That may be true, but I find it grossly unjustifiable to argue that this relative safety should be open only to those who happen to be born in the right part of the world.

This isn't really an argument for migration - I think it is a really poor solution for everyone concerned - but those who simultaneously argue against migration and against development support for places like Sudan are criminals, in my view.

Regrettably, however, the experience of Sweden suggests that as well as importing those sheltering from rape they have also been importing a not inconsiderable number of rapists.

As I said I'm not making a pro-immigration argument. I'm making the argument that we will never reduce the pull of international migration whilst there are parts of the world in the situation Sudan is currently in. Trying to stop migration in
this context will destroy the ethical basis of
our nation states as we take more and more
extreme measures to try to stop people arriving here, having escaped from there.

I disagree

Nation states are an artificial construct to support the residents of a given patch of land. While the residents might wish to expand the population for economic or ethical reasons they do not have an obligation to do so.

Your model implies an ethical obligation to pursue equality of outcomes on a global basis, which I suspect few would sign up to

A long while back I was at a city diner. At a table with the great and good.

Brexit was surfacing as a discussion - it was the period when we had something like no government…. I diverted the conversation. I bought up the subject of one of Cameron’s spads who had argued the above - he didn’t see why the inhabitants of the U.K. should come first over people in worse situations around the world.

Most of the great and good at the table endorsed this view. An exception was an HAC officer, who like me, was half in the can and had a sense of humour.

He suggested that this variable allegiance thing sounded great. And due to an exercise that weekend, he would shortly be in charge the one of the largest body of armed men and women in London. So what should he do?

The jokes between him and myself accelerated with the horror on the faces around us. We stopped when we realised that some were taking us seriously*.

They seriously thought that the allegiance of those below was an iron law. And that of the rulers to the ruled wasn’t.

I bet you ruined a few evenings! Naughty!

You'd have thought the bit where we were discussing using the Operation Angel - the plan to mobilise the TA in an emergency, run by a one armed colonel in Defence Ministry - would have blown the joke. Obviously, not enough Tom Cruise fans at the table.

Be fair it took me a minute. Although "Long live sacred England" does have quite the ring to it... 😃

One thing I did love about that movie. The Guardian review said that the portrayal of the German generals made them out to be a bunch of neurotics obsessed with status & infighting, like a bunch of soon to be fired actors.

Which is exactly how they came across in the history books. I mean, FFS, they sent a bloke with about 3 fingers to carry the f**king bomb. Couldn't they have found a large fit bloke, who could have totted 50Kg of fun into the bunker? They only had 10 million candidates for the job....

https://x.com/thenewsagents/status/1857445960684798296

"Calling Trump an authoritarian fascist is all hyperbole."

Lord Peter Mandelson dismisses claims that Trump fuels 'fear and division,' noting that most Americans care more about living costs.

Terrible conflation of arguments there.

It is entirely possible to argue - as I have done previusly - that most Trump supporters are voting for him out of a combination of economic malaise and desperation. This is more acute in the US than the UK due to the lack of any form of safety net.

But it is also entirely possible to argue - as again I have done - that Trump himself is a self serving authoritarian fuckwit (I won't use the overblown fascist claim) who actually cares not one jot for the electorate and is simply clever enough to use their economic difficulties as a means of gaining power.

A clever authoritarian uses the desperation of the electorate to get himself power. This is exactly what Trump has doen.

Wasn't that the tactic used to gain power by that chap in Germany with the Charlie Chaplin moustache? Uncanny.

Off topic, but relevant given discussion on immigration earlier today. I can understand a fear of net migration figures in the hundreds of thousands, but what I find worthy of contempt is when this discussion is divorced from any real understanding of why people are migrating. Today's 'The Take's from Al Jazeera discusses the experiences of women in Sudan: https://pca.st/episode/7874d751-b1e2-4a45-888b-7d8f3f60f9fb.

To summarise, with apologies for the language: women are being raped at such scale by the RSF that suicide statistics are on the rise as women choose to take their own lives rather than fall into the hands of RSF
fighters. Is it any surprise that people want to migrate away from this?

Of course a reasonable response is that sexual violence is such an incredibly common historical fact that it is the modern western world that is unusual for its relative safety for women. That may be true, but I find it grossly unjustifiable to argue that this relative safety should be open only to those who happen to be born in the right part of the world.

This isn't really an argument for migration - I think it is a really poor solution for everyone concerned - but those who simultaneously argue against migration and against development support for places like Sudan are criminals, in my view.

Regrettably, however, the experience of Sweden suggests that as well as importing those sheltering from rape they have also been importing a not inconsiderable number of rapists.

As I said I'm not making a pro-immigration argument. I'm making the argument that we will never reduce the pull of international migration whilst there are parts of the world in the situation Sudan is currently in. Trying to stop migration in
this context will destroy the ethical basis of our nation states as we take more and more extreme measures to try to stop people arriving here, having escaped from there.

Afghan woman are even more deserving of our help than those in Sudan. What is being done to them is truly evil.

Of course you’re right

But how exactly do we change the situation in Afghanistan or Sudan? We can’t. We tried and we can’t

All we can do is stop these hideous misogynistic ideas being imported into the west which means an end to migration from conservative Islam starting tomorrow

But of course that is “racist” or “Islamophobic” so we continue to slowly absorb these monstrous attitudes