London’s #Stratford railway station recorded the most passenger entries and exits with 14 million in 2020-21 - a year that saw Britain’s passenger usage drop 78% compared to the previous year.
A poll by YouGov for The Times finds that 40 per cent of people say they would vote yes in another referendum, a drop of one point compared with the company’s last survey in May.
The proportion of people who would vote no remained at 46 per cent, while 9 per cent said they were unsure, up by one point. The remainder would not vote or refused to say.
I'm contemplating that I shall have to vote SNP to remove Peppa Pig from Downing street and his local lickspittle Duguid. That doesn't mean I would vote Yes for independence (though I do support a 2nd referendum as that is the clear electoral mandate given in May).
I'm also contemplating that my likely vote for another party rather invalidates my personal membership criteria for the Libems...
So you've finally completed your journey from Labour to SNP, then. Not very much of a Unionist, in the end. You betrayed the Labour party and now you're going to betray the UK. There's a special place in hell for turncoats like you.
No more than what many PBers who also have told Africans to have fewer kids have said.
However despite being a diehard constitutional monarchist I do respectfully take a slightly different view on this to his royal highness.
Africa has the lowest carbon emissions of any continent on earth oiutside Antartica so I don't think has much negative impact on the environment from its birthrate. Protecting endangered species is also more to do with rangers and stopping poachers and the ivory trade than the African birth rate and HRH should focus on the good work he has done on that
Your dissent has been noted and details will be sent to the Lord Chamberlain. Although given who this currently is, he is perfectly well aware already of your views. And everything else you do.
@HYUFD you can't be a part-time, pick and choose monarchist. Either you support everything they do because they are the monarchy or you line up with those who would have a different system.
He's a diehard Henry VIII-ist. Or was. Imagine how Henry VIII would react to this nonsense from him.
The idea that all skills shortages can be filled by increasing wages is bonkers. Some can be filled that way, sure. But borders get in the way. Otherwise the richest cities on Earth would never have any skills shortages. The truth is there are a finite amount of chefs who have permits to work in London and that cohort has been massively reduced by restrictions on immigration (eg Brexit). That’s a simple fact. We need people.
As countries become more advanced and more productive, lower productivity jobs get priced out of the market. That's a good thing.
If the restaurant business in question brings a sufficiently high value to its customers, then it can put up prices and pay its chefs more. If it can't do that then it's because other businesses are producing more value. When it goes out of business then average productivity will be higher.
People have been bemoaning low productivity UK for decades. Now we are actually leaving the low productivity stuff behind, people want immigration policy to bail them out.
There's a lot of truth in this. People are used to obtaining cheap products and services that are often made cheap because businesses have access to a large pool of desperate staff willing to labour under crap conditions for bugger all money.
We have been here before in history. When the Black Death killed off half the peasantry, the other half suddenly found that they were in a workers' market. Lords who were willing to pay premium wages to get their land worked continued to get it worked. Those who weren't found all their peasants ran away to work for lords with a better grasp of the new economic realities, and their estates went fallow. The feudal system collapsed. Nobody apart from scalper lords thought the collapse of feudalism to be a bad thing.
What will now happen is that businesses that are desperate for staff will have to work out ways to manage with fewer staff; or they'll have to pay their staff more, and find efficiencies elsewhere so that the bill doesn't get passed on to the customer; or they'll need to pay their staff more, pass the cost onto the customer, and provide a good enough service that the customer is willing to pay a premium; or they'll have to close.
If you want people to be paid decent wages then a period of wage inflation can only be a good thing. The fact that there is a certain strand of supposedly left-leaning opinion (particularly amongst wealthy metropolitans) that is utterly desperate to reopen the borders to limitless migratory flows therefore exposes the hollowness of their ideological posturing. They don't care about low paid workers at all - they just want to indulge in internationalist virtue signalling, and to keep their cheap lattes, cheap cleaners, cheap nannies and cheap plumbers.
We all like cheap, but if it is to continue in future it must be achieved through lean working practices and automation, not through paying people naff all and flogging them to death. If that means that some concerns that previously relied on chefs working 12-hour shifts for the minimum wage find that said chefs are leaving, and nobody else is willing to labour under such rotten conditions, then hurrah.
One way to ensure better working conditions and higher levels of pay is to make it easier for workers to organise collectively and to withdraw their labour. Are you up for that?
No.
Let people do it individually. If employers are providing a bad wage then workers can withdraw their labour individually by going to a new employer.
The problem with striking etc is its trying to compel a better wage even from those who are paying good wages already and then putting picket lines up trying to stop others from taking the jobs.
They can only go to a new employer paying better wages if one exists and they have the necessary qualifications. It's funny, isn't it, that the most unionised countries tend to be the ones that have the best pay and working conditions?
In a free market if there's more demand for people than there is supply then employers paying better wages will exist because if they don't pay better wages then they don't fill the vacancies as we're seeing at the moment.
And no, its not funny, its often sad. The most unionised countries tend to be the ones that have the most unemployment as wages for those who are employed rise above the market rate and thus others are left on the slagheap unemployable as a result. Too high a minimum wage can have the same impact especially for young people. This is something we're not seeing in this country.
Of course if the least productive people are unemployed then that will automatically raise average wages as they're no longer deflated by the least productive. But that doesn't mean society is better off with millions unemployed. The unemployed don't count in average wage figures when really if you want to compare like for like you should include the unemployed in your maths with a wage of zero.
Factor in unemployment and no, what you're claiming is not always true.
You don't believe in free markets, Phil.
This is, and has always been, the most ridiculous argument on free movement. Free markets need proper regulation to work in favour of people, in this case regulations are immigration controls. You wouldn't have an unregulated financial services market, consumers need protection from exploitative companies. In this scenario, employees need protection from exploitative employers.
Let's have a free market in housing.
No planning control. None.
The NIMBY Lib Dems would self-combust over that one.
A poll by YouGov for The Times finds that 40 per cent of people say they would vote yes in another referendum, a drop of one point compared with the company’s last survey in May.
The proportion of people who would vote no remained at 46 per cent, while 9 per cent said they were unsure, up by one point. The remainder would not vote or refused to say.
I'm contemplating that I shall have to vote SNP to remove Peppa Pig from Downing street and his local lickspittle Duguid. That doesn't mean I would vote Yes for independence (though I do support a 2nd referendum as that is the clear electoral mandate given in May).
I'm also contemplating that my likely vote for another party rather invalidates my personal membership criteria for the Libems...
So you've finally completed your journey from Labour to SNP, then. Not very much of a Unionist, in the end. You betrayed the Labour party and now you're going to betray the UK. There's a special place in hell for turncoats like you.
Uh, aren't you about to move to Switzerland or something? Not very loyal, is it?
Re Boat people it clearly needs a multi-layered approach. The UK gov should be peppering radio and tv stations in countries where the people are largely coming from making it clear why it’s not a good idea.
These reasons need changed or made clear to be including:
(1) If you arrive by non-official means (dinghies/back of a lorry etc) then you have no right to asylum claim full stop. No appeal etc just sent away.
(2) If you arrive without documentation then you have no right to asylum or appeal etc.
(3) If you arrive on normal flight/ferry etc and claim asylum on arrival you will be sent to a camp. The camp will be basic ex army camp - you know this before setting out so do not complain - if your life is in danger elsewhere then living in an army camp whilst your application is processed is surely better and surely better than “the jungle” or similar in Calais.
(4) You have no right to a life on the State - make it clear as they are apparently sold fairy stories about the social welfare situation in uk. You also join any council housing list right at the bottom.
(5) Whilst waiting for your application to be processed you also provide a documented list of skills/employment history. If your asylum claim is rejected but you are fleeing a country that’s in the shit then you can be matched to job shortages and given a (for example) 9 month work visa. If you commit crime, try to disappear etc whilst on visa you lose it and are sent away. This might help reduce staff shortages in a managed way so a win for both sides.
(6) Heavy penalties need to be imposed on any employer who employs staff who do not have the right to live and work in UK possibly up to seizure of business assets, fine, prison for directors/owners/managers whether it’s a car wash or a top London hotel.
I know the above probably seems harsh but if you a) get the message out to potential boat people that boat is a return ticket so a waste of money then it slashes the attractiveness of boats. make it clear that they are not going to walk into any benefits so kill any pull that has.
Make it clear only official routes work so better to buy a flight than pay £3500 for a boat seat. D) show you are genuine with docs and your chances of not wasting your money/life by dodgy routes will increase your chances. E) remove the pull and reality of the black-economy workforce by making any employer damned certain they are only employing people they should.
Edit - why can’t I get rid of the stupid emoji with sunglasses on?!?! Never even typed it and it won’t go away….
You've made some interesting points which I have numbered for ease of reference.
1 - I assume that we would reopen official routes to claim asylum?
1 & 2 - the problem with people who don't have paperwork is how you reject them. At a Border Control Post we can refuse entry, but if they just walk off the beach you can't do that - and people will keep doing that. And if we are to reject them and send them back, where to if they have no ID?
3 - We have had similar ideas before - there was a badly run private sector detention centre which hit the headlines for all the wrong reasons. But in principle I don't object, having seen some of the hateful environments we ship people to when placed in the country. Would need to be humane, medical care, education, on-site legal etc
4 - I think we need to be clear to whom we are referring. A non-national with indefinite leave to remain is different to someone who later takes citizenship
5 - would be a huge step forward from our current system. Contrary to the media claims asylum seekers are housed in Murder Mile houses that nobody else will live in and subsist on vouchers that barely pay for the absolute basics. When so many can work and have skills this seems stupid - and is likely the reason that so many just disappear off into the black economy.
6 - yep. And yet the government have zero interest in doing so. Can't think why...
A poll by YouGov for The Times finds that 40 per cent of people say they would vote yes in another referendum, a drop of one point compared with the company’s last survey in May.
The proportion of people who would vote no remained at 46 per cent, while 9 per cent said they were unsure, up by one point. The remainder would not vote or refused to say.
I'm contemplating that I shall have to vote SNP to remove Peppa Pig from Downing street and his local lickspittle Duguid. That doesn't mean I would vote Yes for independence (though I do support a 2nd referendum as that is the clear electoral mandate given in May).
I'm also contemplating that my likely vote for another party rather invalidates my personal membership criteria for the Libems...
So you've finally completed your journey from Labour to SNP, then. Not very much of a Unionist, in the end. You betrayed the Labour party and now you're going to betray the UK. There's a special place in hell for turncoats like you.
Uh, aren't you about to move to Switzerland or something? Not very loyal, is it?
Quite. I had a university colleague who recently lectured me on the joys of Brexit at a recent reunion. He has now ****ed off to New Zealand.
A poll by YouGov for The Times finds that 40 per cent of people say they would vote yes in another referendum, a drop of one point compared with the company’s last survey in May.
The proportion of people who would vote no remained at 46 per cent, while 9 per cent said they were unsure, up by one point. The remainder would not vote or refused to say.
I'm contemplating that I shall have to vote SNP to remove Peppa Pig from Downing street and his local lickspittle Duguid. That doesn't mean I would vote Yes for independence (though I do support a 2nd referendum as that is the clear electoral mandate given in May).
I'm also contemplating that my likely vote for another party rather invalidates my personal membership criteria for the Libems...
So you've finally completed your journey from Labour to SNP, then. Not very much of a Unionist, in the end. You betrayed the Labour party and now you're going to betray the UK. There's a special place in hell for turncoats like you.
How does "I would vote no in a referendum" make me not much of a Unionist? BTW I'm not - I'm a federalist and have made that repeatedly clear.
A poll by YouGov for The Times finds that 40 per cent of people say they would vote yes in another referendum, a drop of one point compared with the company’s last survey in May.
The proportion of people who would vote no remained at 46 per cent, while 9 per cent said they were unsure, up by one point. The remainder would not vote or refused to say.
I'm contemplating that I shall have to vote SNP to remove Peppa Pig from Downing street and his local lickspittle Duguid. That doesn't mean I would vote Yes for independence (though I do support a 2nd referendum as that is the clear electoral mandate given in May).
I'm also contemplating that my likely vote for another party rather invalidates my personal membership criteria for the Libems...
So you've finally completed your journey from Labour to SNP, then. Not very much of a Unionist, in the end. You betrayed the Labour party and now you're going to betray the UK. There's a special place in hell for turncoats like you.
He's only following HYUFD's advice to practice tactical voting in Scotland. Voting for the LDs would be about as useful as voting for the Sheep Appreciation Society candidate - in fact, probably less useful should one of the latter appear. Look at the 2019 results for the constituency
Party Candidate Votes % ±% Conservative David Duguid 21,182 50.1 +2.1 SNP Paul Robertson 17,064 40.4 +1.3 Liberal Democrats Alison Smith 2,280 5.4 +1.9 Labour Brian Balcombe 1,734 4.1 −5.4
PS: I'm a member of the Rare Breeds Survival Trust. I like sheep.
We've already tried taking people will away from Calais but that doesn't fix any of the issues of refugees arriving at Calais and trying their luck from there. And were we to change how things work in Calais to make it safer, more will come to Calais (don't believe me, we tried that previously and that was the end result).
Which is why the UK needs places near Syria and Afghanistan etc to do the processing. Reach there, make your case. We can't build a centre at Calais as it will be a huge magnet for migrants.
(Apols - messed up the quotes... Yes, anyone who turns up from Calais gets deported immediately to Rwanda or somewhere similar, where they can be processed.
The UK should take genuine refugees from Afghanistan or Syria directly.
The only ways the camps at Calais disappear, is either the French take action against them (ha ha), or it’s addressed from the supply side, making it very clear that no-one arriving in the UK by boat will be allowed to settle in the UK.
A poll by YouGov for The Times finds that 40 per cent of people say they would vote yes in another referendum, a drop of one point compared with the company’s last survey in May.
The proportion of people who would vote no remained at 46 per cent, while 9 per cent said they were unsure, up by one point. The remainder would not vote or refused to say.
I'm contemplating that I shall have to vote SNP to remove Peppa Pig from Downing street and his local lickspittle Duguid. That doesn't mean I would vote Yes for independence (though I do support a 2nd referendum as that is the clear electoral mandate given in May).
I'm also contemplating that my likely vote for another party rather invalidates my personal membership criteria for the Libems...
So you've finally completed your journey from Labour to SNP, then. Not very much of a Unionist, in the end. You betrayed the Labour party and now you're going to betray the UK. There's a special place in hell for turncoats like you.
He's only following HYUFD's advice to practice tactical voting in Scotland. Voting for the LDs would be about as useful as voting for the Sheep Appreciation Society candidate - in fact, probably less useful should one of the latter appear. Look at the 2019 results for the constituency
Party Candidate Votes % ±% Conservative David Duguid 21,182 50.1 +2.1 SNP Paul Robertson 17,064 40.4 +1.3 Liberal Democrats Alison Smith 2,280 5.4 +1.9 Labour Brian Balcombe 1,734 4.1 −5.4
Yup. Same constituency for me. I voted Lib Dem in 2019. I'm probably going over to SNP next time too because this oaf needs throwing out of power. We only get one vote and my view on how best to use it has changed. Seems that I'm not alone in that.
Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
According to OECD's latest report on vacant housing, France has over three million vacant dwellings; England has fewer than a quarter of a million.
Germany has over 1.8 million, Spain has 3.4 million, Portugal 700k, Greece 500k, Poland 1m, FINLAND has 320k - nearly one in seven of their dwellings are vacant.
"We're the same size" is quite far from telling the whole story.
Re Boat people it clearly needs a multi-layered approach. The UK gov should be peppering radio and tv stations in countries where the people are largely coming from making it clear why it’s not a good idea.
These reasons need changed or made clear to be including:
If you arrive by non-official means (dinghies/back of a lorry etc) then you have no right to asylum claim full stop. No appeal etc just sent away.
If you arrive without documentation then you have no right to asylum or appeal etc.
If you arrive on normal flight/ferry etc and claim asylum on arrival you will be sent to a camp. The camp will be basic ex army camp - you know this before setting out so do not complain - if your life is in danger elsewhere then living in an army camp whilst your application is processed is surely better and surely better than “the jungle” or similar in Calais.
You have no right to a life on the State - make it clear as they are apparently sold fairy stories about the social welfare situation in uk. You also join any council housing list right at the bottom.
Whilst waiting for your application to be processed you also provide a documented list of skills/employment history. If your asylum claim is rejected but you are fleeing a country that’s in the shit then you can be matched to job shortages and given a (for example) 9 month work visa. If you commit crime, try to disappear etc whilst on visa you lose it and are sent away. This might help reduce staff shortages in a managed way so a win for both sides.
Heavy penalties need to be imposed on any employer who employs staff who do not have the right to live and work in UK possibly up to seizure of business assets, fine, prison for directors/owners/managers whether it’s a car wash or a top London hotel.
I know the above probably seems harsh but if you a) get the message out to potential boat people that boat is a return ticket so a waste of money then it slashes the attractiveness of boats. make it clear that they are not going to walk into any benefits so kill any pull that has.
Make it clear only official routes work so better to buy a flight than pay £3500 for a boat seat. D) show you are genuine with docs and your chances of not wasting your money/life by dodgy routes will increase your chances. E) remove the pull and reality of the black-economy workforce by making any employer damned certain they are only employing people they should.
Edit - why can’t I get rid of the stupid emoji with sunglasses on?!?! Never even typed it and it won’t go away….
Capital b and right bracket. make the b lower case.
A poll by YouGov for The Times finds that 40 per cent of people say they would vote yes in another referendum, a drop of one point compared with the company’s last survey in May.
The proportion of people who would vote no remained at 46 per cent, while 9 per cent said they were unsure, up by one point. The remainder would not vote or refused to say.
I'm contemplating that I shall have to vote SNP to remove Peppa Pig from Downing street and his local lickspittle Duguid. That doesn't mean I would vote Yes for independence (though I do support a 2nd referendum as that is the clear electoral mandate given in May).
I'm also contemplating that my likely vote for another party rather invalidates my personal membership criteria for the Libems...
So you've finally completed your journey from Labour to SNP, then. Not very much of a Unionist, in the end. You betrayed the Labour party and now you're going to betray the UK. There's a special place in hell for turncoats like you.
He's only following HYUFD's advice to practice tactical voting in Scotland. Voting for the LDs would be about as useful as voting for the Sheep Appreciation Society candidate - in fact, probably less useful should one of the latter appear. Look at the 2019 results for the constituency
Party Candidate Votes % ±% Conservative David Duguid 21,182 50.1 +2.1 SNP Paul Robertson 17,064 40.4 +1.3 Liberal Democrats Alison Smith 2,280 5.4 +1.9 Labour Brian Balcombe 1,734 4.1 −5.4
Yup. Same constituency for me. I voted Lib Dem in 2019. I'm probably going over to SNP next time too because this oaf needs throwing out of power. We only get one vote and my view on how best to use it has changed. Seems that I'm not alone in that.
Of course the vote in Holyrood has completely different mathematics. [bit deleted as unnecessary]
Re Boat people it clearly needs a multi-layered approach. The UK gov should be peppering radio and tv stations in countries where the people are largely coming from making it clear why it’s not a good idea.
These reasons need changed or made clear to be including:
(1) If you arrive by non-official means (dinghies/back of a lorry etc) then you have no right to asylum claim full stop. No appeal etc just sent away.
(2) If you arrive without documentation then you have no right to asylum or appeal etc.
(3) If you arrive on normal flight/ferry etc and claim asylum on arrival you will be sent to a camp. The camp will be basic ex army camp - you know this before setting out so do not complain - if your life is in danger elsewhere then living in an army camp whilst your application is processed is surely better and surely better than “the jungle” or similar in Calais.
(4) You have no right to a life on the State - make it clear as they are apparently sold fairy stories about the social welfare situation in uk. You also join any council housing list right at the bottom.
(5) Whilst waiting for your application to be processed you also provide a documented list of skills/employment history. If your asylum claim is rejected but you are fleeing a country that’s in the shit then you can be matched to job shortages and given a (for example) 9 month work visa. If you commit crime, try to disappear etc whilst on visa you lose it and are sent away. This might help reduce staff shortages in a managed way so a win for both sides.
(6) Heavy penalties need to be imposed on any employer who employs staff who do not have the right to live and work in UK possibly up to seizure of business assets, fine, prison for directors/owners/managers whether it’s a car wash or a top London hotel.
I know the above probably seems harsh but if you a) get the message out to potential boat people that boat is a return ticket so a waste of money then it slashes the attractiveness of boats. make it clear that they are not going to walk into any benefits so kill any pull that has.
Make it clear only official routes work so better to buy a flight than pay £3500 for a boat seat. D) show you are genuine with docs and your chances of not wasting your money/life by dodgy routes will increase your chances. E) remove the pull and reality of the black-economy workforce by making any employer damned certain they are only employing people they should.
Edit - why can’t I get rid of the stupid emoji with sunglasses on?!?! Never even typed it and it won’t go away….
You've made some interesting points which I have numbered for ease of reference.
1 - I assume that we would reopen official routes to claim asylum?
1 & 2 - the problem with people who don't have paperwork is how you reject them. At a Border Control Post we can refuse entry, but if they just walk off the beach you can't do that - and people will keep doing that. And if we are to reject them and send them back, where to if they have no ID?
3 - We have had similar ideas before - there was a badly run private sector detention centre which hit the headlines for all the wrong reasons. But in principle I don't object, having seen some of the hateful environments we ship people to when placed in the country. Would need to be humane, medical care, education, on-site legal etc
4 - I think we need to be clear to whom we are referring. A non-national with indefinite leave to remain is different to someone who later takes citizenship
5 - would be a huge step forward from our current system. Contrary to the media claims asylum seekers are housed in Murder Mile houses that nobody else will live in and subsist on vouchers that barely pay for the absolute basics. When so many can work and have skills this seems stupid - and is likely the reason that so many just disappear off into the black economy.
6 - yep. And yet the government have zero interest in doing so. Can't think why...
Thanks - your formatting was better than mine!
Re 1&2 I think it should be that if you arrive at any airport or port and be able to claim asylum whoever you are or wherever you come from whether you are a Chinese dissident or average Jo from Syria - the key is knowing what your obligations are (docs etc) and the process you will go through whoever you are.
It would hopefully deter those who know they are taking the piss but provide a safe and straightforward solution for those who need it.
We already have the problem of where to send undocumented people who fail the claim so even under the changes I proposed that’s an issue that needs finer brains than mine.
If they just walk off a beach it seems they are being collected anyway and so can be sent down the “send back” route anyway.
Re 3 I agree the camps have to be basic but provide proper sanitation and health and security.
Talking about disconnected from reality, my lovely MP David Duguid has been engaging with me on Twitter. As you may or may not know, a much-delayed Carbon Capture and Storage scheme is getting under way.
In "Track 1" - schemes to progress this decade - the funding went to a pair of projects in England, with Banff and Buchan's St Fergus scheme relegated to potential future consideration for "Track 2" in the 2030s.
David Duguid - the only Scottish Tory to vote to scrap the same Standards Commissioner who had already censured him - not only thinks this is a Good Thing but even stood and praised Peppa at PMQs, thanking him for not awarding part of the £1bn government funding to the constituency.
Apparently my consideration that he shouldn't praise the government for "binning off" the project is "SNP doom-mongering". The project apparently has a "great future". At some unspecified point in the next decade assuming it ever gets funded.
Is it a special kind of mindset where you bid for something, lose that bid, then seek to praise the person saying no for their brilliant decision-making whilst telling people that the bid is going brilliantly? Even better he will then get to ask us all for our vote to give thanks for the non-funding of this scheme he so successfully secured.
With both the Tories and the SNP actively promoting policies to repel North East (Scotland) voters, do you envisage a boost to the Lib Dem vote? Or an increase in Alba support?
Re Boat people it clearly needs a multi-layered approach. The UK gov should be peppering radio and tv stations in countries where the people are largely coming from making it clear why it’s not a good idea.
These reasons need changed or made clear to be including:
(1) If you arrive by non-official means (dinghies/back of a lorry etc) then you have no right to asylum claim full stop. No appeal etc just sent away.
(2) If you arrive without documentation then you have no right to asylum or appeal etc.
(3) If you arrive on normal flight/ferry etc and claim asylum on arrival you will be sent to a camp. The camp will be basic ex army camp - you know this before setting out so do not complain - if your life is in danger elsewhere then living in an army camp whilst your application is processed is surely better and surely better than “the jungle” or similar in Calais.
(4) You have no right to a life on the State - make it clear as they are apparently sold fairy stories about the social welfare situation in uk. You also join any council housing list right at the bottom.
(5) Whilst waiting for your application to be processed you also provide a documented list of skills/employment history. If your asylum claim is rejected but you are fleeing a country that’s in the shit then you can be matched to job shortages and given a (for example) 9 month work visa. If you commit crime, try to disappear etc whilst on visa you lose it and are sent away. This might help reduce staff shortages in a managed way so a win for both sides.
(6) Heavy penalties need to be imposed on any employer who employs staff who do not have the right to live and work in UK possibly up to seizure of business assets, fine, prison for directors/owners/managers whether it’s a car wash or a top London hotel.
I know the above probably seems harsh but if you a) get the message out to potential boat people that boat is a return ticket so a waste of money then it slashes the attractiveness of boats. make it clear that they are not going to walk into any benefits so kill any pull that has.
Make it clear only official routes work so better to buy a flight than pay £3500 for a boat seat. D) show you are genuine with docs and your chances of not wasting your money/life by dodgy routes will increase your chances. E) remove the pull and reality of the black-economy workforce by making any employer damned certain they are only employing people they should.
Edit - why can’t I get rid of the stupid emoji with sunglasses on?!?! Never even typed it and it won’t go away….
You've made some interesting points which I have numbered for ease of reference.
1 - I assume that we would reopen official routes to claim asylum?
1 & 2 - the problem with people who don't have paperwork is how you reject them. At a Border Control Post we can refuse entry, but if they just walk off the beach you can't do that - and people will keep doing that. And if we are to reject them and send them back, where to if they have no ID?
3 - We have had similar ideas before - there was a badly run private sector detention centre which hit the headlines for all the wrong reasons. But in principle I don't object, having seen some of the hateful environments we ship people to when placed in the country. Would need to be humane, medical care, education, on-site legal etc
4 - I think we need to be clear to whom we are referring. A non-national with indefinite leave to remain is different to someone who later takes citizenship
5 - would be a huge step forward from our current system. Contrary to the media claims asylum seekers are housed in Murder Mile houses that nobody else will live in and subsist on vouchers that barely pay for the absolute basics. When so many can work and have skills this seems stupid - and is likely the reason that so many just disappear off into the black economy.
6 - yep. And yet the government have zero interest in doing so. Can't think why...
Thanks - your formatting was better than mine!
Re 1&2 I think it should be that if you arrive at any airport or port and be able to claim asylum whoever you are or wherever you come from whether you are a Chinese dissident or average Jo from Syria - the key is knowing what your obligations are (docs etc) and the process you will go through whoever you are.
It would hopefully deter those who know they are taking the piss but provide a safe and straightforward solution for those who need it.
We already have the problem of where to send undocumented people who fail the claim so even under the changes I proposed that’s an issue that needs finer brains than mine.
If they just walk off a beach it seems they are being collected anyway and so can be sent down the “send back” route anyway.
Re 3 I agree the camps have to be basic but provide proper sanitation and health and security.
Surely we just need a safe 3rd party country to send failed and undocumented people to. Say somewhere safe in Africa with a £10,000 payment to the Government and £1000 a year to the "refugee".
Mr. Pioneers, on the federalism thing: would you support an English Parliament?
Of course - either one big one or one with regional break-outs as you want. I've been a federalist for 25 years so this is hardly a new position. What is increasingly clear is that the UK in its current form is unsustainable. So we either reform it or it collapses.
On the news just now they announced that a 5th person has been arrested in France Re the boat people who died.
How is it that the French authorities can within 24 hours arrest 5 people, they must have enough evidence of their involvement, and not use that intelligence they must have had to arrest them before on people trafficking offences?
It’s another key question I have is why does there not seem to be a big enough intelligence effort to infiltrate the gangs or process to stop these gangs in the same way they target drugs gangs?
A poll by YouGov for The Times finds that 40 per cent of people say they would vote yes in another referendum, a drop of one point compared with the company’s last survey in May.
The proportion of people who would vote no remained at 46 per cent, while 9 per cent said they were unsure, up by one point. The remainder would not vote or refused to say.
I'm contemplating that I shall have to vote SNP to remove Peppa Pig from Downing street and his local lickspittle Duguid. That doesn't mean I would vote Yes for independence (though I do support a 2nd referendum as that is the clear electoral mandate given in May).
I'm also contemplating that my likely vote for another party rather invalidates my personal membership criteria for the Libems...
So you've finally completed your journey from Labour to SNP, then. Not very much of a Unionist, in the end. You betrayed the Labour party and now you're going to betray the UK. There's a special place in hell for turncoats like you.
He's only following HYUFD's advice to practice tactical voting in Scotland. Voting for the LDs would be about as useful as voting for the Sheep Appreciation Society candidate - in fact, probably less useful should one of the latter appear. Look at the 2019 results for the constituency
Party Candidate Votes % ±% Conservative David Duguid 21,182 50.1 +2.1 SNP Paul Robertson 17,064 40.4 +1.3 Liberal Democrats Alison Smith 2,280 5.4 +1.9 Labour Brian Balcombe 1,734 4.1 −5.4
Yup. Same constituency for me. I voted Lib Dem in 2019. I'm probably going over to SNP next time too because this oaf needs throwing out of power. We only get one vote and my view on how best to use it has changed. Seems that I'm not alone in that.
Of course the vote in Holyrood has completely different mathematics. But Westminster is FPTP and bums on seats.
We'll see the constituency vote is FPTP, so a switch also has logic. Luckily I can balance it with the list, like I did last time (LD+Green -> SNP+LD or SNP+Lab perhaps, we'll see)
Both by elections could be very close results, worth a double on Lab and Lib Dems to win both. In North Shropshire the Conservative candidate is making so many mistakes i'ts amazing, it's as if he does not want to win. There is a very high powered Lib Dem campaign. The weather and the postal vote will be crucial. Cons will be hoping they have the latter sown up and that gales, rain and snow come the week of polling. However the other thread showing over a third of general election Con voters are detaching themselves from the party seems to being borne out in North Shropshire. That is ominous especially as the Lib Dems are perceived, even in the local media to be in second place. Three weeks, to go anything could happen.
Thank you!
As he is making so many mistakes as though not wanting to win, you must have several good examples to share?
One thing I want to know about these channel trafficking crossings is who is providing the boats. They must need lots of boats. Someone is making a mint.
The contract for the boats should be awarded to the Scottish Government. Then there won’t be enough boats to ferry the migrants.
What we also should do is a complete residency amnesty on a timed basis with a cut off. Allow anyone who's been here over say 5 years to say, maybe contingent on a path to citizenship.
People are here, let them stay, get them out of the black market.
On the news just now they announced that a 5th person has been arrested in France Re the boat people who died.
How is it that the French authorities can within 24 hours arrest 5 people, they must have enough evidence of their involvement, and not use that intelligence they must have had to arrest them before on people trafficking offences?
It’s another key question I have is why does there not seem to be a big enough intelligence effort to infiltrate the gangs or process to stop these gangs in the same way they target drugs gangs?
What crime are they committing up to the point a boat sinks?
Whats needed for the border crossing is a good dose of humanity. The people are there, they're going to keep coming.
Set up a border crossing facility, Allow 500-1000 people per day to cross safely with transfer provided, focusing on women and children, process their details, give them medical checks and food, water and clothing, then a tranfer to safe secure facility in the UK.
All this nonense about an offshore facility is rubbish-never going to happen. Whilst the the people keep coming, and sometimes keep dying.
That only works if you take everybody who wants to come.
Sorry, but they're coming anyway. Putting daily caps on the processing might ease the crossing (maybe that's naive).
But that is also needed is a more robust facilty to remove people from the country when and if needed.
5 live said this morning it can take upto 18 months to process an application and with appeals upto 8 years to confirm rejection
If true that is utterly absurd
What happens when you cut everything to do with our legal system to the absolute bone.
And it's so bad that's its now probably impossible to fix the system - throwing money at the problem wouldn't be enough now.
The picture emerges over time if you read pb, newspapers, follow BBC etc:
1) Tax and spend is at record highs 2) Debt and borrowing is at record highs 3) Every single feature of state provision is either: a) so bad that even lots more money won't help (as above) or b) needs tons (billions and billions) more money.
A poll by YouGov for The Times finds that 40 per cent of people say they would vote yes in another referendum, a drop of one point compared with the company’s last survey in May.
The proportion of people who would vote no remained at 46 per cent, while 9 per cent said they were unsure, up by one point. The remainder would not vote or refused to say.
I'm contemplating that I shall have to vote SNP to remove Peppa Pig from Downing street and his local lickspittle Duguid. That doesn't mean I would vote Yes for independence (though I do support a 2nd referendum as that is the clear electoral mandate given in May).
I'm also contemplating that my likely vote for another party rather invalidates my personal membership criteria for the Libems...
For me it's a line in the sand to not vote SNP, which leaves me sinking and voting weirdly. Won't vote Tory, the main opposition to the SNP here, but do not want to reward the SNP with my vote for their pretty shocking record in Government. My views on their ability to govern, plus being a Unionist at heart means I literally have no reason to vote for them. This leaves me err... tactically voting for the third party, which might be the dumbest example of tactical voting that ever existed.
On the news just now they announced that a 5th person has been arrested in France Re the boat people who died.
How is it that the French authorities can within 24 hours arrest 5 people, they must have enough evidence of their involvement, and not use that intelligence they must have had to arrest them before on people trafficking offences?
It’s another key question I have is why does there not seem to be a big enough intelligence effort to infiltrate the gangs or process to stop these gangs in the same way they target drugs gangs?
What crime are they committing up to the point a boat sinks?
Unlicensed boat trips for starters. You wouldn't believe the hoops you have to go through if you want to take passengers on boats.
On the news just now they announced that a 5th person has been arrested in France Re the boat people who died.
How is it that the French authorities can within 24 hours arrest 5 people, they must have enough evidence of their involvement, and not use that intelligence they must have had to arrest them before on people trafficking offences?
It’s another key question I have is why does there not seem to be a big enough intelligence effort to infiltrate the gangs or process to stop these gangs in the same way they target drugs gangs?
What crime are they committing up to the point a boat sinks?
Surely there are laws in France regarding the crime of organising and arranging the act of People Trafficking?
Like most crimes it’s not just the final act but also the preparation and conspiracy aspects that are also crimes such as terrorism and drug trafficking. If there aren’t such laws then maybe it would be a good idea to have them…..
A poll by YouGov for The Times finds that 40 per cent of people say they would vote yes in another referendum, a drop of one point compared with the company’s last survey in May.
The proportion of people who would vote no remained at 46 per cent, while 9 per cent said they were unsure, up by one point. The remainder would not vote or refused to say.
I'm contemplating that I shall have to vote SNP to remove Peppa Pig from Downing street and his local lickspittle Duguid. That doesn't mean I would vote Yes for independence (though I do support a 2nd referendum as that is the clear electoral mandate given in May).
I'm also contemplating that my likely vote for another party rather invalidates my personal membership criteria for the Libems...
So you've finally completed your journey from Labour to SNP, then. Not very much of a Unionist, in the end. You betrayed the Labour party and now you're going to betray the UK. There's a special place in hell for turncoats like you.
He's only following HYUFD's advice to practice tactical voting in Scotland. Voting for the LDs would be about as useful as voting for the Sheep Appreciation Society candidate - in fact, probably less useful should one of the latter appear. Look at the 2019 results for the constituency
Party Candidate Votes % ±% Conservative David Duguid 21,182 50.1 +2.1 SNP Paul Robertson 17,064 40.4 +1.3 Liberal Democrats Alison Smith 2,280 5.4 +1.9 Labour Brian Balcombe 1,734 4.1 −5.4
Yup. Same constituency for me. I voted Lib Dem in 2019. I'm probably going over to SNP next time too because this oaf needs throwing out of power. We only get one vote and my view on how best to use it has changed. Seems that I'm not alone in that.
Oaf is an understatement. We need investment as a nation. We need sustainable environmental policies as a nation. CCS is something that needs doing fast, and we're perfectly set up for that in the NE thanks to the existing huge oil and gas infrastructure and the growing Hydrogen and Wind sectors.
St Fergus offers huge storage for Carbon, yet the government has chosen to fund other sites in England with St Fergus only on a reserve list for possible development in the 2030s. So what does the oaf do? Stand up at PMQs to sing the praises of the PM for including St Fergus on the do not invest list like its actually been proceeded with.
Pointing this out he described as "SNP doom-mongering". The Acorn project at St Fergus is not happening. Pointing that out is a simple statement of fact yet Duguid wants the credit for its rejection because it may happen in 15 years. He has to go.
On the news just now they announced that a 5th person has been arrested in France Re the boat people who died.
How is it that the French authorities can within 24 hours arrest 5 people, they must have enough evidence of their involvement, and not use that intelligence they must have had to arrest them before on people trafficking offences?
It’s another key question I have is why does there not seem to be a big enough intelligence effort to infiltrate the gangs or process to stop these gangs in the same way they target drugs gangs?
What crime are they committing up to the point a boat sinks?
On the news just now they announced that a 5th person has been arrested in France Re the boat people who died.
How is it that the French authorities can within 24 hours arrest 5 people, they must have enough evidence of their involvement, and not use that intelligence they must have had to arrest them before on people trafficking offences?
It’s another key question I have is why does there not seem to be a big enough intelligence effort to infiltrate the gangs or process to stop these gangs in the same way they target drugs gangs?
What crime are they committing up to the point a boat sinks?
Not having a licence for operating a paying passenger boat?
On the news just now they announced that a 5th person has been arrested in France Re the boat people who died.
How is it that the French authorities can within 24 hours arrest 5 people, they must have enough evidence of their involvement, and not use that intelligence they must have had to arrest them before on people trafficking offences?
It’s another key question I have is why does there not seem to be a big enough intelligence effort to infiltrate the gangs or process to stop these gangs in the same way they target drugs gangs?
Because the French very much want them to leave.
Do you think the UK government would be popping a bollock to stop them crossing to France if the situation were reversed?
On the news just now they announced that a 5th person has been arrested in France Re the boat people who died.
How is it that the French authorities can within 24 hours arrest 5 people, they must have enough evidence of their involvement, and not use that intelligence they must have had to arrest them before on people trafficking offences?
It’s another key question I have is why does there not seem to be a big enough intelligence effort to infiltrate the gangs or process to stop these gangs in the same way they target drugs gangs?
Because the French very much want them to leave.
Do you think the UK government would be popping a bollock to stop them crossing to France if the situation were reversed?
Which was my point - the organisers will be breaking numerous laws but everyone will be looking the other way until something occurs that results in a few people needing to be arrested as the scapegoats.
Re Boat people it clearly needs a multi-layered approach. The UK gov should be peppering radio and tv stations in countries where the people are largely coming from making it clear why it’s not a good idea.
These reasons need changed or made clear to be including:
(1) If you arrive by non-official means (dinghies/back of a lorry etc) then you have no right to asylum claim full stop. No appeal etc just sent away.
(2) If you arrive without documentation then you have no right to asylum or appeal etc.
(3) If you arrive on normal flight/ferry etc and claim asylum on arrival you will be sent to a camp. The camp will be basic ex army camp - you know this before setting out so do not complain - if your life is in danger elsewhere then living in an army camp whilst your application is processed is surely better and surely better than “the jungle” or similar in Calais.
(4) You have no right to a life on the State - make it clear as they are apparently sold fairy stories about the social welfare situation in uk. You also join any council housing list right at the bottom.
(5) Whilst waiting for your application to be processed you also provide a documented list of skills/employment history. If your asylum claim is rejected but you are fleeing a country that’s in the shit then you can be matched to job shortages and given a (for example) 9 month work visa. If you commit crime, try to disappear etc whilst on visa you lose it and are sent away. This might help reduce staff shortages in a managed way so a win for both sides.
(6) Heavy penalties need to be imposed on any employer who employs staff who do not have the right to live and work in UK possibly up to seizure of business assets, fine, prison for directors/owners/managers whether it’s a car wash or a top London hotel.
I know the above probably seems harsh but if you a) get the message out to potential boat people that boat is a return ticket so a waste of money then it slashes the attractiveness of boats. make it clear that they are not going to walk into any benefits so kill any pull that has.
Make it clear only official routes work so better to buy a flight than pay £3500 for a boat seat. D) show you are genuine with docs and your chances of not wasting your money/life by dodgy routes will increase your chances. E) remove the pull and reality of the black-economy workforce by making any employer damned certain they are only employing people they should.
Edit - why can’t I get rid of the stupid emoji with sunglasses on?!?! Never even typed it and it won’t go away….
You've made some interesting points which I have numbered for ease of reference.
1 - I assume that we would reopen official routes to claim asylum?
1 & 2 - the problem with people who don't have paperwork is how you reject them. At a Border Control Post we can refuse entry, but if they just walk off the beach you can't do that - and people will keep doing that. And if we are to reject them and send them back, where to if they have no ID?
3 - We have had similar ideas before - there was a badly run private sector detention centre which hit the headlines for all the wrong reasons. But in principle I don't object, having seen some of the hateful environments we ship people to when placed in the country. Would need to be humane, medical care, education, on-site legal etc
4 - I think we need to be clear to whom we are referring. A non-national with indefinite leave to remain is different to someone who later takes citizenship
5 - would be a huge step forward from our current system. Contrary to the media claims asylum seekers are housed in Murder Mile houses that nobody else will live in and subsist on vouchers that barely pay for the absolute basics. When so many can work and have skills this seems stupid - and is likely the reason that so many just disappear off into the black economy.
6 - yep. And yet the government have zero interest in doing so. Can't think why...
Thanks - your formatting was better than mine!
Re 1&2 I think it should be that if you arrive at any airport or port and be able to claim asylum whoever you are or wherever you come from whether you are a Chinese dissident or average Jo from Syria - the key is knowing what your obligations are (docs etc) and the process you will go through whoever you are.
It would hopefully deter those who know they are taking the piss but provide a safe and straightforward solution for those who need it.
We already have the problem of where to send undocumented people who fail the claim so even under the changes I proposed that’s an issue that needs finer brains than mine.
If they just walk off a beach it seems they are being collected anyway and so can be sent down the “send back” route anyway.
Re 3 I agree the camps have to be basic but provide proper sanitation and health and security.
It is my understanding that denying asylum because of mode of entry (illegal or otherwise) or loss/destruction of papers would be ruled illegal by the courts.
On the news just now they announced that a 5th person has been arrested in France Re the boat people who died.
How is it that the French authorities can within 24 hours arrest 5 people, they must have enough evidence of their involvement, and not use that intelligence they must have had to arrest them before on people trafficking offences?
It’s another key question I have is why does there not seem to be a big enough intelligence effort to infiltrate the gangs or process to stop these gangs in the same way they target drugs gangs?
Because the French very much want them to leave.
Do you think the UK government would be popping a bollock to stop them crossing to France if the situation were reversed?
So if the French govt and police arrest all the people traffickers then ultimately there is a greatly reduced pull to that part of France so the migrants leave. Without 30 odd people dying on boats launched from their coastline…… whilst it’s an option for migrants that there is a supply of transport in the area then it’s going to be an attractive area.
On the news just now they announced that a 5th person has been arrested in France Re the boat people who died.
How is it that the French authorities can within 24 hours arrest 5 people, they must have enough evidence of their involvement, and not use that intelligence they must have had to arrest them before on people trafficking offences?
It’s another key question I have is why does there not seem to be a big enough intelligence effort to infiltrate the gangs or process to stop these gangs in the same way they target drugs gangs?
What crime are they committing up to the point a boat sinks?
Trafficking. Illegal both under national and international law.
On the news just now they announced that a 5th person has been arrested in France Re the boat people who died.
How is it that the French authorities can within 24 hours arrest 5 people, they must have enough evidence of their involvement, and not use that intelligence they must have had to arrest them before on people trafficking offences?
It’s another key question I have is why does there not seem to be a big enough intelligence effort to infiltrate the gangs or process to stop these gangs in the same way they target drugs gangs?
What crime are they committing up to the point a boat sinks?
Trafficking. Illegal both under national and international law.
Yep but again one the French would prefer to ignore if it solves a problem for them.
A poll by YouGov for The Times finds that 40 per cent of people say they would vote yes in another referendum, a drop of one point compared with the company’s last survey in May.
The proportion of people who would vote no remained at 46 per cent, while 9 per cent said they were unsure, up by one point. The remainder would not vote or refused to say.
I'm contemplating that I shall have to vote SNP to remove Peppa Pig from Downing street and his local lickspittle Duguid. That doesn't mean I would vote Yes for independence (though I do support a 2nd referendum as that is the clear electoral mandate given in May).
I'm also contemplating that my likely vote for another party rather invalidates my personal membership criteria for the Libems...
So you've finally completed your journey from Labour to SNP, then. Not very much of a Unionist, in the end. You betrayed the Labour party and now you're going to betray the UK. There's a special place in hell for turncoats like you.
He's only following HYUFD's advice to practice tactical voting in Scotland. Voting for the LDs would be about as useful as voting for the Sheep Appreciation Society candidate - in fact, probably less useful should one of the latter appear. Look at the 2019 results for the constituency
Party Candidate Votes % ±% Conservative David Duguid 21,182 50.1 +2.1 SNP Paul Robertson 17,064 40.4 +1.3 Liberal Democrats Alison Smith 2,280 5.4 +1.9 Labour Brian Balcombe 1,734 4.1 −5.4
Yup. Same constituency for me. I voted Lib Dem in 2019. I'm probably going over to SNP next time too because this oaf needs throwing out of power. We only get one vote and my view on how best to use it has changed. Seems that I'm not alone in that.
Oaf is an understatement. We need investment as a nation. We need sustainable environmental policies as a nation. CCS is something that needs doing fast, and we're perfectly set up for that in the NE thanks to the existing huge oil and gas infrastructure and the growing Hydrogen and Wind sectors.
St Fergus offers huge storage for Carbon, yet the government has chosen to fund other sites in England with St Fergus only on a reserve list for possible development in the 2030s. So what does the oaf do? Stand up at PMQs to sing the praises of the PM for including St Fergus on the do not invest list like its actually been proceeded with.
Pointing this out he described as "SNP doom-mongering". The Acorn project at St Fergus is not happening. Pointing that out is a simple statement of fact yet Duguid wants the credit for its rejection because it may happen in 15 years. He has to go.
The oaf I was referring to was de Pfeffel, but there's nothing to disagree with in your post. There are different breeds of Conservative MP and unfortunately Duguid doesn't seem to be the "poodle" type. Not only do I think we could much better than him, I think we could find a thousand Conservatives who would be better than him.
Yes the genuine refugees do that. That's kind of the point.
It would be interesting, though difficult, to see an unbiased analysis of why a minority do press on to the UK. For the benefits? Hardly - benefits are much more generous elsewhere. Because they speak some English and reckon they've got a better chance here? Possibly, but pay a fortune and risk death for that? Because they know others here and feel that would make life better?
The implication that taking risks to get here suggests they aren't genuine is a non-sequitur. Yes, step 1 is to get out of a hell-hole, and arrive in, say, Greece. But if you don't speak Greek or know any Greeks, and you do speak English and know someone in London, then step 2 may be to try to get here. That doesn't invalidate step 1.
There is a big undocumented economy in the UK compared to most European countries.
There are a lot of things that the government in this country just don't seem to be bothered about. This is one of them.
So the French know Global Britain’s black economy is what pulls the migrates across the world into inflatable boats, the migrants know it, the only people being hoodwinked here are UK electorate thinking their government has a tough policy?
On the news just now they announced that a 5th person has been arrested in France Re the boat people who died.
How is it that the French authorities can within 24 hours arrest 5 people, they must have enough evidence of their involvement, and not use that intelligence they must have had to arrest them before on people trafficking offences?
It’s another key question I have is why does there not seem to be a big enough intelligence effort to infiltrate the gangs or process to stop these gangs in the same way they target drugs gangs?
What crime are they committing up to the point a boat sinks?
Trafficking. Illegal both under national and international law.
Yep but again one the French would prefer to ignore if it solves a problem for them.
Surely the point is that by ignoring it they are creating the problem for themselves - if there is no reason for thousands of migrants to be there - such as the provision of boats by people traffickers - then there is no reason for the migrants to be hanging around a pretty crappy part of France and so the pull goes, the migrants go and then the problem for the French goes.
At the moment it looks like by ignoring the traffickers they are creating their own problem as they are attracting the problem.
One thing I want to know about these channel trafficking crossings is who is providing the boats. They must need lots of boats. Someone is making a mint.
The contract for the boats should be awarded to the Scottish Government. Then there won’t be enough boats to ferry the migrants.
They can hire Chris Grayling to help them with the contracting. Perfick!
A poll by YouGov for The Times finds that 40 per cent of people say they would vote yes in another referendum, a drop of one point compared with the company’s last survey in May.
The proportion of people who would vote no remained at 46 per cent, while 9 per cent said they were unsure, up by one point. The remainder would not vote or refused to say.
I'm contemplating that I shall have to vote SNP to remove Peppa Pig from Downing street and his local lickspittle Duguid. That doesn't mean I would vote Yes for independence (though I do support a 2nd referendum as that is the clear electoral mandate given in May).
I'm also contemplating that my likely vote for another party rather invalidates my personal membership criteria for the Libems...
So you've finally completed your journey from Labour to SNP, then. Not very much of a Unionist, in the end. You betrayed the Labour party and now you're going to betray the UK. There's a special place in hell for turncoats like you.
He's only following HYUFD's advice to practice tactical voting in Scotland. Voting for the LDs would be about as useful as voting for the Sheep Appreciation Society candidate - in fact, probably less useful should one of the latter appear. Look at the 2019 results for the constituency
Party Candidate Votes % ±% Conservative David Duguid 21,182 50.1 +2.1 SNP Paul Robertson 17,064 40.4 +1.3 Liberal Democrats Alison Smith 2,280 5.4 +1.9 Labour Brian Balcombe 1,734 4.1 −5.4
Yup. Same constituency for me. I voted Lib Dem in 2019. I'm probably going over to SNP next time too because this oaf needs throwing out of power. We only get one vote and my view on how best to use it has changed. Seems that I'm not alone in that.
Oaf is an understatement. We need investment as a nation. We need sustainable environmental policies as a nation. CCS is something that needs doing fast, and we're perfectly set up for that in the NE thanks to the existing huge oil and gas infrastructure and the growing Hydrogen and Wind sectors.
St Fergus offers huge storage for Carbon, yet the government has chosen to fund other sites in England with St Fergus only on a reserve list for possible development in the 2030s. So what does the oaf do? Stand up at PMQs to sing the praises of the PM for including St Fergus on the do not invest list like its actually been proceeded with.
Pointing this out he described as "SNP doom-mongering". The Acorn project at St Fergus is not happening. Pointing that out is a simple statement of fact yet Duguid wants the credit for its rejection because it may happen in 15 years. He has to go.
The oaf I was referring to was de Pfeffel, but there's nothing to disagree with in your post. There are different breeds of Conservative MP and unfortunately Duguid doesn't seem to be the "poodle" type. Not only do I think we could much better than him, I think we could find a thousand Conservatives who would be better than him.
Sounds like a good example of where STV would see a stronger Tory candidate beat him, while also doing away with all the tortured guesswork of tactical voting.
Yes the genuine refugees do that. That's kind of the point.
It would be interesting, though difficult, to see an unbiased analysis of why a minority do press on to the UK. For the benefits? Hardly - benefits are much more generous elsewhere. Because they speak some English and reckon they've got a better chance here? Possibly, but pay a fortune and risk death for that? Because they know others here and feel that would make life better?
The implication that taking risks to get here suggests they aren't genuine is a non-sequitur. Yes, step 1 is to get out of a hell-hole, and arrive in, say, Greece. But if you don't speak Greek or know any Greeks, and you do speak English and know someone in London, then step 2 may be to try to get here. That doesn't invalidate step 1.
There is a big undocumented economy in the UK compared to most European countries.
There are a lot of things that the government in this country just don't seem to be bothered about. This is one of them.
So the French know Global Britain’s black economy is what pulls the migrates across the world into inflatable boats, the migrants know it, the only people being hoodwinked here are UK electorate thinking their government has a tough policy?
Thats what the government should focus on. Tackling the black economy. Shutting down any sweat shops and dodgy nail bars.
A poll by YouGov for The Times finds that 40 per cent of people say they would vote yes in another referendum, a drop of one point compared with the company’s last survey in May.
The proportion of people who would vote no remained at 46 per cent, while 9 per cent said they were unsure, up by one point. The remainder would not vote or refused to say.
I'm contemplating that I shall have to vote SNP to remove Peppa Pig from Downing street and his local lickspittle Duguid. That doesn't mean I would vote Yes for independence (though I do support a 2nd referendum as that is the clear electoral mandate given in May).
I'm also contemplating that my likely vote for another party rather invalidates my personal membership criteria for the Libems...
So you've finally completed your journey from Labour to SNP, then. Not very much of a Unionist, in the end. You betrayed the Labour party and now you're going to betray the UK. There's a special place in hell for turncoats like you.
He's only following HYUFD's advice to practice tactical voting in Scotland. Voting for the LDs would be about as useful as voting for the Sheep Appreciation Society candidate - in fact, probably less useful should one of the latter appear. Look at the 2019 results for the constituency
Party Candidate Votes % ±% Conservative David Duguid 21,182 50.1 +2.1 SNP Paul Robertson 17,064 40.4 +1.3 Liberal Democrats Alison Smith 2,280 5.4 +1.9 Labour Brian Balcombe 1,734 4.1 −5.4
Yup. Same constituency for me. I voted Lib Dem in 2019. I'm probably going over to SNP next time too because this oaf needs throwing out of power. We only get one vote and my view on how best to use it has changed. Seems that I'm not alone in that.
Oaf is an understatement. We need investment as a nation. We need sustainable environmental policies as a nation. CCS is something that needs doing fast, and we're perfectly set up for that in the NE thanks to the existing huge oil and gas infrastructure and the growing Hydrogen and Wind sectors.
St Fergus offers huge storage for Carbon, yet the government has chosen to fund other sites in England with St Fergus only on a reserve list for possible development in the 2030s. So what does the oaf do? Stand up at PMQs to sing the praises of the PM for including St Fergus on the do not invest list like its actually been proceeded with.
Pointing this out he described as "SNP doom-mongering". The Acorn project at St Fergus is not happening. Pointing that out is a simple statement of fact yet Duguid wants the credit for its rejection because it may happen in 15 years. He has to go.
The oaf I was referring to was de Pfeffel, but there's nothing to disagree with in your post. There are different breeds of Conservative MP and unfortunately Duguid doesn't seem to be the "poodle" type. Not only do I think we could much better than him, I think we could find a thousand Conservatives who would be better than him.
Er, do you mean that Mr Duguid IS a poodle? Or what other breed? Mexican Hairless?
On the news just now they announced that a 5th person has been arrested in France Re the boat people who died.
How is it that the French authorities can within 24 hours arrest 5 people, they must have enough evidence of their involvement, and not use that intelligence they must have had to arrest them before on people trafficking offences?
It’s another key question I have is why does there not seem to be a big enough intelligence effort to infiltrate the gangs or process to stop these gangs in the same way they target drugs gangs?
What crime are they committing up to the point a boat sinks?
Trafficking. Extortion. Endangering life (Attempted murder).
Probably maritime laws and regulation about busy shipping Lane.
Failure to declare and pay tax on earnings (not a joke, it’s how they got Capone?)
Yes the genuine refugees do that. That's kind of the point.
It would be interesting, though difficult, to see an unbiased analysis of why a minority do press on to the UK. For the benefits? Hardly - benefits are much more generous elsewhere. Because they speak some English and reckon they've got a better chance here? Possibly, but pay a fortune and risk death for that? Because they know others here and feel that would make life better?
The implication that taking risks to get here suggests they aren't genuine is a non-sequitur. Yes, step 1 is to get out of a hell-hole, and arrive in, say, Greece. But if you don't speak Greek or know any Greeks, and you do speak English and know someone in London, then step 2 may be to try to get here. That doesn't invalidate step 1.
There is a big undocumented economy in the UK compared to most European countries.
There are a lot of things that the government in this country just don't seem to be bothered about. This is one of them.
So the French know Global Britain’s black economy is what pulls the migrates across the world into inflatable boats, the migrants know it, the only people being hoodwinked here are UK electorate thinking their government has a tough policy?
It's systemic - all the way back to the Blair years.
A relative runs a building business in London. When he pointed out that it was trivial to prove that in some areas of London, all the work was being done illegally - illegal workers, paid below minimum wage, cash etc. - he was told to shut up and go away. By a Labour MP, among others, IIRC.
Yes the genuine refugees do that. That's kind of the point.
It would be interesting, though difficult, to see an unbiased analysis of why a minority do press on to the UK. For the benefits? Hardly - benefits are much more generous elsewhere. Because they speak some English and reckon they've got a better chance here? Possibly, but pay a fortune and risk death for that? Because they know others here and feel that would make life better?
The implication that taking risks to get here suggests they aren't genuine is a non-sequitur. Yes, step 1 is to get out of a hell-hole, and arrive in, say, Greece. But if you don't speak Greek or know any Greeks, and you do speak English and know someone in London, then step 2 may be to try to get here. That doesn't invalidate step 1.
There is a big undocumented economy in the UK compared to most European countries.
There are a lot of things that the government in this country just don't seem to be bothered about. This is one of them.
So the French know Global Britain’s black economy is what pulls the migrates across the world into inflatable boats, the migrants know it, the only people being hoodwinked here are UK electorate thinking their government has a tough policy?
So what 'pulls the migrates across the world' to a much greater degree to Germany and France? Why should France who takes 3 times the amount of migrants/refugees/asylum seekers that the UK does feel extra touchy feely about the island mentality of the UK electorate?
Yes the genuine refugees do that. That's kind of the point.
It would be interesting, though difficult, to see an unbiased analysis of why a minority do press on to the UK. For the benefits? Hardly - benefits are much more generous elsewhere. Because they speak some English and reckon they've got a better chance here? Possibly, but pay a fortune and risk death for that? Because they know others here and feel that would make life better?
The implication that taking risks to get here suggests they aren't genuine is a non-sequitur. Yes, step 1 is to get out of a hell-hole, and arrive in, say, Greece. But if you don't speak Greek or know any Greeks, and you do speak English and know someone in London, then step 2 may be to try to get here. That doesn't invalidate step 1.
There is a big undocumented economy in the UK compared to most European countries.
There are a lot of things that the government in this country just don't seem to be bothered about. This is one of them.
So the French know Global Britain’s black economy is what pulls the migrates across the world into inflatable boats, the migrants know it, the only people being hoodwinked here are UK electorate thinking their government has a tough policy?
Thats what the government should focus on. Tackling the black economy. Shutting down any sweat shops and dodgy nail bars.
It's doesn't require "focus"
Just pass a law that the illegal worker gets half the fine and indefinite leave to remain for every successful protection of a business for employing illegal labour.
The makers for illegal labour will evaporate in seconds. Mind you, the queues at the Cop Shops will be a bit problematic....
Yes the genuine refugees do that. That's kind of the point.
It would be interesting, though difficult, to see an unbiased analysis of why a minority do press on to the UK. For the benefits? Hardly - benefits are much more generous elsewhere. Because they speak some English and reckon they've got a better chance here? Possibly, but pay a fortune and risk death for that? Because they know others here and feel that would make life better?
The implication that taking risks to get here suggests they aren't genuine is a non-sequitur. Yes, step 1 is to get out of a hell-hole, and arrive in, say, Greece. But if you don't speak Greek or know any Greeks, and you do speak English and know someone in London, then step 2 may be to try to get here. That doesn't invalidate step 1.
There is a big undocumented economy in the UK compared to most European countries.
There are a lot of things that the government in this country just don't seem to be bothered about. This is one of them.
So the French know Global Britain’s black economy is what pulls the migrates across the world into inflatable boats, the migrants know it, the only people being hoodwinked here are UK electorate thinking their government has a tough policy?
So what 'pulls the migrates across the world' to a much greater degree to Germany and France? Why should France who takes 3 times the amount of migrants/refugees/asylum seekers that the UK does feel extra touchy feely about the island mentality of the UK electorate?
Language. The *perception* that the UK labour market is much less regulated - you can get a job and work your way up....
On the news just now they announced that a 5th person has been arrested in France Re the boat people who died.
How is it that the French authorities can within 24 hours arrest 5 people, they must have enough evidence of their involvement, and not use that intelligence they must have had to arrest them before on people trafficking offences?
It’s another key question I have is why does there not seem to be a big enough intelligence effort to infiltrate the gangs or process to stop these gangs in the same way they target drugs gangs?
Because the French very much want them to leave.
Do you think the UK government would be popping a bollock to stop them crossing to France if the situation were reversed?
So if the French govt and police arrest all the people traffickers then ultimately there is a greatly reduced pull to that part of France so the migrants leave. Without 30 odd people dying on boats launched from their coastline…… whilst it’s an option for migrants that there is a supply of transport in the area then it’s going to be an attractive area.
But then they would not be giving Johnson his richly deserved dry fucking up the bugle. Are you new to politics?
On the news just now they announced that a 5th person has been arrested in France Re the boat people who died.
How is it that the French authorities can within 24 hours arrest 5 people, they must have enough evidence of their involvement, and not use that intelligence they must have had to arrest them before on people trafficking offences?
It’s another key question I have is why does there not seem to be a big enough intelligence effort to infiltrate the gangs or process to stop these gangs in the same way they target drugs gangs?
Because the French very much want them to leave.
Do you think the UK government would be popping a bollock to stop them crossing to France if the situation were reversed?
Dura Ace, you have such a unique writing style, have you ever thought about writing your auto biography?
Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
According to OECD's latest report on vacant housing, France has over three million vacant dwellings; England has fewer than a quarter of a million.
Germany has over 1.8 million, Spain has 3.4 million, Portugal 700k, Greece 500k, Poland 1m, FINLAND has 320k - nearly one in seven of their dwellings are vacant.
"We're the same size" is quite far from telling the whole story.
French argument is that UK system is already too tough as it requires migrants to be on UK soil before applying, incentivising crossings.
Well it is clearly true that not being able to apply for asylum in the UK from France encourages crossings.
It's also obvious that enabling application from France would massively increase the numbers applying. How many of the 120k applying for asylum in France to France would instead apply to the UK? How many would keep going from Germany to get to the UK centre in France?
I think we could quite easily get to over 250k applications needing to be processed every year.
We don't have the vacant housing stock to accommodate them - less than 1% of our dwellings are vacant (pretty incredible given billions of foreigners went home in disgust at the Brexit vote!), in France it's 7.8%
We need to build more houses. I'd rather we built them before we deliberately open ourselves up to a huge number of extra asylum seekers.
A poll by YouGov for The Times finds that 40 per cent of people say they would vote yes in another referendum, a drop of one point compared with the company’s last survey in May.
The proportion of people who would vote no remained at 46 per cent, while 9 per cent said they were unsure, up by one point. The remainder would not vote or refused to say.
I'm contemplating that I shall have to vote SNP to remove Peppa Pig from Downing street and his local lickspittle Duguid. That doesn't mean I would vote Yes for independence (though I do support a 2nd referendum as that is the clear electoral mandate given in May).
I'm also contemplating that my likely vote for another party rather invalidates my personal membership criteria for the Libems...
So you've finally completed your journey from Labour to SNP, then. Not very much of a Unionist, in the end. You betrayed the Labour party and now you're going to betray the UK. There's a special place in hell for turncoats like you.
He's only following HYUFD's advice to practice tactical voting in Scotland. Voting for the LDs would be about as useful as voting for the Sheep Appreciation Society candidate - in fact, probably less useful should one of the latter appear. Look at the 2019 results for the constituency
Party Candidate Votes % ±% Conservative David Duguid 21,182 50.1 +2.1 SNP Paul Robertson 17,064 40.4 +1.3 Liberal Democrats Alison Smith 2,280 5.4 +1.9 Labour Brian Balcombe 1,734 4.1 −5.4
Yup. Same constituency for me. I voted Lib Dem in 2019. I'm probably going over to SNP next time too because this oaf needs throwing out of power. We only get one vote and my view on how best to use it has changed. Seems that I'm not alone in that.
Oaf is an understatement. We need investment as a nation. We need sustainable environmental policies as a nation. CCS is something that needs doing fast, and we're perfectly set up for that in the NE thanks to the existing huge oil and gas infrastructure and the growing Hydrogen and Wind sectors.
St Fergus offers huge storage for Carbon, yet the government has chosen to fund other sites in England with St Fergus only on a reserve list for possible development in the 2030s. So what does the oaf do? Stand up at PMQs to sing the praises of the PM for including St Fergus on the do not invest list like its actually been proceeded with.
Pointing this out he described as "SNP doom-mongering". The Acorn project at St Fergus is not happening. Pointing that out is a simple statement of fact yet Duguid wants the credit for its rejection because it may happen in 15 years. He has to go.
The oaf I was referring to was de Pfeffel, but there's nothing to disagree with in your post. There are different breeds of Conservative MP and unfortunately Duguid doesn't seem to be the "poodle" type. Not only do I think we could much better than him, I think we could find a thousand Conservatives who would be better than him.
Sounds like a good example of where STV would see a stronger Tory candidate beat him, while also doing away with all the tortured guesswork of tactical voting.
That certainly happens in local government voting with multi-member seats where the priority is st by the voter. I seem to recall a (Labour, as it happens) candidate and his machinations to make sure that nobody with a surname before his in the alphabet was on the same slate as him.
In Holyrood regional vote slates the priority is set by the party. Not so much fun at all.
Whats needed for the border crossing is a good dose of humanity. The people are there, they're going to keep coming.
Set up a border crossing facility, Allow 500-1000 people per day to cross safely with transfer provided, focusing on women and children, process their details, give them medical checks and food, water and clothing, then a tranfer to safe secure facility in the UK.
All this nonense about an offshore facility is rubbish-never going to happen. Whilst the the people keep coming, and sometimes keep dying.
I agree with you in principle but no way will 500-1000 entrants a day be acceptable to the Patelite reactionaries and believers of tabloid myths, they’re prolapsing at a small fraction of that.
We have a problem. We need a solution.
Either 1) Block the boats in some way, but no one's come from a practical solution for that. 2) Accept the crossing in a managed way which allows for process. 3) Do nothing, but bluster about how terrible the situation is and something 'must be done'/
Seems 3 is the easiest for our politicians right now.
1) is illegal 2) is political suicide 3) while not great is the best solution out of no sensible ones.
2) They need to make the crossing to start clock on processing? Can we start the clock on processing prior to the crossing?
On the news just now they announced that a 5th person has been arrested in France Re the boat people who died.
How is it that the French authorities can within 24 hours arrest 5 people, they must have enough evidence of their involvement, and not use that intelligence they must have had to arrest them before on people trafficking offences?
It’s another key question I have is why does there not seem to be a big enough intelligence effort to infiltrate the gangs or process to stop these gangs in the same way they target drugs gangs?
Because the French very much want them to leave.
Do you think the UK government would be popping a bollock to stop them crossing to France if the situation were reversed?
Quite so. I also suspect we wouldn't be 'popping a bollock' to invite the French border police to pop over and help us scour the Kent coastline to stop our unwanted seeking to cross the Channel.
On the news just now they announced that a 5th person has been arrested in France Re the boat people who died.
How is it that the French authorities can within 24 hours arrest 5 people, they must have enough evidence of their involvement, and not use that intelligence they must have had to arrest them before on people trafficking offences?
It’s another key question I have is why does there not seem to be a big enough intelligence effort to infiltrate the gangs or process to stop these gangs in the same way they target drugs gangs?
Because the French very much want them to leave.
Do you think the UK government would be popping a bollock to stop them crossing to France if the situation were reversed?
When the French get fed up of the Remainer Boat People arriving on the shores around Calais, I'll be very happy for Gendarmes to be allowed to patrol the Kentish coast.
Since the migrant issue seems, understandably, to be the main topic of conversation on here at the moment, here is my take.
Deterrent only works if the migrants believe that the consequences of failure are worse than their current situation or what they might have to return to. If we are to retain any vestiges of civilised behaviour we can never make make the deterrents as severe as what many of these people have already suffered. So the attempts will keep happening and people will keep dying. What we need to do is provide an alternative. We need a pressure release valve.
David Cameron suggested a version of this back in 2015 when he said we should go into the camps bordering Syria and directly airlift out those most in need, providing them with asylum in the UK and organising the entire process of getting them here. Whilst of course many of the refugees in Northern France come from places other than the Syrian camps, the basic principle seem the same to me. We should work with the French authorities and set up facilities to process asylum seekers in France and then transport those who are successful back to the UK. At the same time the arrangement with the French should be that they deal properly with those who are unsuccessful. This is not a suggestion for just a few hundred or a few thousand but for tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands to come to the UK. It will not be popular with many of course but politics has to be about the practical and it seems to me this is the only practical way to deal with this situation. It is not ideal as this should all have been done prior to them making dangerous journeys to get to France but you work with the situation as you find it, not as you wish it to be.
My personal preference would be for most of these migrants to be allowed in but I realise from past experience on here that that is not generally a popular solution even from those who are fairly well disposed towards them.
Is this even possible politically? I don't know. But, to butcher Sherlock Holmes, once one has eliminated the impossible, what is left, however unpalatable, has to be the answer.
The problem which is being ignored is this: under the various Refugee Conventions to which Britain is a party, if someone is a refugee a country is legally obliged to give them asylum. There is no numerical limit on that. There are an awful lot of people who genuinely qualify as refugees and if they make it to Britain we are obliged to take them.
So whether the number of 20,000 or 200,000 or 2,000,000,000, we cannot turn any of them away if they qualify.
So no wonder there is an incentive to get here or any other country. In fact we take fewer than other countries.
But that is to miss the point. We cannot impose any numerical limits on the number of refugees we take. So the only controls we have is to limit the number who get here and/or make it very hard for people to apply.
There is an inherent tension between a country's desire to limit in some way the number of people who come to live in it - a desire which is a legitimate one - and the obligation to provide help to refugees because we don't want to be uncivilised to those needing help.
What is needed is some sort of upper limit on the numbers we take combined with an asylum process which is quick, fair and does not incentivise smuggling.
If the Conventions will not permit numerical limits then countries will keep on taking harsher and harsher measures and, eventually, I suspect that some will simply leave the Conventions in order to prioritise control over numbers over offering help.
On the news just now they announced that a 5th person has been arrested in France Re the boat people who died.
How is it that the French authorities can within 24 hours arrest 5 people, they must have enough evidence of their involvement, and not use that intelligence they must have had to arrest them before on people trafficking offences?
It’s another key question I have is why does there not seem to be a big enough intelligence effort to infiltrate the gangs or process to stop these gangs in the same way they target drugs gangs?
Because the French very much want them to leave.
Do you think the UK government would be popping a bollock to stop them crossing to France if the situation were reversed?
When the French get fed up of the Remainer Boat People arriving on the shores around Calais, I'll be very happy for Gendarmes to be allowed to patrol the Kentish coast.
Yes the genuine refugees do that. That's kind of the point.
It would be interesting, though difficult, to see an unbiased analysis of why a minority do press on to the UK. For the benefits? Hardly - benefits are much more generous elsewhere. Because they speak some English and reckon they've got a better chance here? Possibly, but pay a fortune and risk death for that? Because they know others here and feel that would make life better?
The implication that taking risks to get here suggests they aren't genuine is a non-sequitur. Yes, step 1 is to get out of a hell-hole, and arrive in, say, Greece. But if you don't speak Greek or know any Greeks, and you do speak English and know someone in London, then step 2 may be to try to get here. That doesn't invalidate step 1.
There is a big undocumented economy in the UK compared to most European countries.
There are a lot of things that the government in this country just don't seem to be bothered about. This is one of them.
So the French know Global Britain’s black economy is what pulls the migrates across the world into inflatable boats, the migrants know it, the only people being hoodwinked here are UK electorate thinking their government has a tough policy?
So what 'pulls the migrates across the world' to a much greater degree to Germany and France? Why should France who takes 3 times the amount of migrants/refugees/asylum seekers that the UK does feel extra touchy feely about the island mentality of the UK electorate?
Language. The *perception* that the UK labour market is much less regulated - you can get a job and work your way up....
Sorry, perhaps I expressed my badly. On the numbers these people are drawn to a much greater degree to Germany and France than to the UK. The pervasive belief that everyone wants to come to the UK despite the numbers is just weird.
There are no short cuts to being less racist. You can't wish away the hard work of arguing with people and changing minds.
If white people are okay with their votes counting less then you'd hope they'd be okay with listening to "other voices" and being convinced to use their vote in their support - which means you could have Diwali recognised without violating basic democratic norms.
On the news just now they announced that a 5th person has been arrested in France Re the boat people who died.
How is it that the French authorities can within 24 hours arrest 5 people, they must have enough evidence of their involvement, and not use that intelligence they must have had to arrest them before on people trafficking offences?
It’s another key question I have is why does there not seem to be a big enough intelligence effort to infiltrate the gangs or process to stop these gangs in the same way they target drugs gangs?
Because the French very much want them to leave.
Do you think the UK government would be popping a bollock to stop them crossing to France if the situation were reversed?
Dura Ace, you have such a unique writing style, have you ever thought about writing your auto biography?
Interestingly, I was approached by a publisher of military bios after one of my Sea Harrier talks to see if I would be interested. After some talks about talks I was not interested because they insisted on no obscenity, no highly graphic recounting of what were possibly war crimes, no explicit accounts of what sailors actually do on runs ashore and they hated my proposed title - "In the Aeroplane Over the Sea" (Neutral Milk Hotel reference).
Since the migrant issue seems, understandably, to be the main topic of conversation on here at the moment, here is my take.
Deterrent only works if the migrants believe that the consequences of failure are worse than their current situation or what they might have to return to. If we are to retain any vestiges of civilised behaviour we can never make make the deterrents as severe as what many of these people have already suffered. So the attempts will keep happening and people will keep dying. What we need to do is provide an alternative. We need a pressure release valve.
David Cameron suggested a version of this back in 2015 when he said we should go into the camps bordering Syria and directly airlift out those most in need, providing them with asylum in the UK and organising the entire process of getting them here. Whilst of course many of the refugees in Northern France come from places other than the Syrian camps, the basic principle seem the same to me. We should work with the French authorities and set up facilities to process asylum seekers in France and then transport those who are successful back to the UK. At the same time the arrangement with the French should be that they deal properly with those who are unsuccessful. This is not a suggestion for just a few hundred or a few thousand but for tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands to come to the UK. It will not be popular with many of course but politics has to be about the practical and it seems to me this is the only practical way to deal with this situation. It is not ideal as this should all have been done prior to them making dangerous journeys to get to France but you work with the situation as you find it, not as you wish it to be.
My personal preference would be for most of these migrants to be allowed in but I realise from past experience on here that that is not generally a popular solution even from those who are fairly well disposed towards them.
Is this even possible politically? I don't know. But, to butcher Sherlock Holmes, once one has eliminated the impossible, what is left, however unpalatable, has to be the answer.
The problem which is being ignored is this: under the various Refugee Conventions to which Britain is a party, if someone is a refugee a country is legally obliged to give them asylum. There is no numerical limit on that. There are an awful lot of people who genuinely qualify as refugees and if they make it to Britain we are obliged to take them.
So whether the number of 20,000 or 200,000 or 2,000,000,000, we cannot turn any of them away if they qualify.
So no wonder there is an incentive to get here or any other country. In fact we take fewer than other countries.
But that is to miss the point. We cannot impose any numerical limits on the number of refugees we take. So the only controls we have is to limit the number who get here and/or make it very hard for people to apply.
There is an inherent tension between a country's desire to limit in some way the number of people who come to live in it - a desire which is a legitimate one - and the obligation to provide help to refugees because we don't want to be uncivilised to those needing help.
What is needed is some sort of upper limit on the numbers we take combined with an asylum process which is quick, fair and does not incentivise smuggling.
If the Conventions will not permit numerical limits then countries will keep on taking harsher and harsher measures and, eventually, I suspect that some will simply leave the Conventions in order to prioritise control over numbers over offering help.
I think everyone in a Britain with 2 billion more people in it would qualify for asylum elsewhere!
On the news just now they announced that a 5th person has been arrested in France Re the boat people who died.
How is it that the French authorities can within 24 hours arrest 5 people, they must have enough evidence of their involvement, and not use that intelligence they must have had to arrest them before on people trafficking offences?
It’s another key question I have is why does there not seem to be a big enough intelligence effort to infiltrate the gangs or process to stop these gangs in the same way they target drugs gangs?
Because the French very much want them to leave.
Do you think the UK government would be popping a bollock to stop them crossing to France if the situation were reversed?
Dura Ace, you have such a unique writing style, have you ever thought about writing your auto biography?
Whats needed for the border crossing is a good dose of humanity. The people are there, they're going to keep coming.
Set up a border crossing facility, Allow 500-1000 people per day to cross safely with transfer provided, focusing on women and children, process their details, give them medical checks and food, water and clothing, then a tranfer to safe secure facility in the UK.
All this nonense about an offshore facility is rubbish-never going to happen. Whilst the the people keep coming, and sometimes keep dying.
I agree with you in principle but no way will 500-1000 entrants a day be acceptable to the Patelite reactionaries and believers of tabloid myths, they’re prolapsing at a small fraction of that.
We have a problem. We need a solution.
Either 1) Block the boats in some way, but no one's come from a practical solution for that. 2) Accept the crossing in a managed way which allows for process. 3) Do nothing, but bluster about how terrible the situation is and something 'must be done'/
Seems 3 is the easiest for our politicians right now.
What bollocks. We cannot accept 350,000 extra migrants a year across the Channel, on top of the legal migration we already have
Whats needed for the border crossing is a good dose of humanity. The people are there, they're going to keep coming.
Set up a border crossing facility, Allow 500-1000 people per day to cross safely with transfer provided, focusing on women and children, process their details, give them medical checks and food, water and clothing, then a tranfer to safe secure facility in the UK.
All this nonense about an offshore facility is rubbish-never going to happen. Whilst the the people keep coming, and sometimes keep dying.
I agree with you in principle but no way will 500-1000 entrants a day be acceptable to the Patelite reactionaries and believers of tabloid myths, they’re prolapsing at a small fraction of that.
We have a problem. We need a solution.
Either 1) Block the boats in some way, but no one's come from a practical solution for that. 2) Accept the crossing in a managed way which allows for process. 3) Do nothing, but bluster about how terrible the situation is and something 'must be done'/
Seems 3 is the easiest for our politicians right now.
What bollocks. We cannot accept 350,000 extra migrants a year across the Channel, on top of the legal migration we already have
A poll by YouGov for The Times finds that 40 per cent of people say they would vote yes in another referendum, a drop of one point compared with the company’s last survey in May.
The proportion of people who would vote no remained at 46 per cent, while 9 per cent said they were unsure, up by one point. The remainder would not vote or refused to say.
I'm contemplating that I shall have to vote SNP to remove Peppa Pig from Downing street and his local lickspittle Duguid. That doesn't mean I would vote Yes for independence (though I do support a 2nd referendum as that is the clear electoral mandate given in May).
I'm also contemplating that my likely vote for another party rather invalidates my personal membership criteria for the Libems...
So you've finally completed your journey from Labour to SNP, then. Not very much of a Unionist, in the end. You betrayed the Labour party and now you're going to betray the UK. There's a special place in hell for turncoats like you.
He's only following HYUFD's advice to practice tactical voting in Scotland. Voting for the LDs would be about as useful as voting for the Sheep Appreciation Society candidate - in fact, probably less useful should one of the latter appear. Look at the 2019 results for the constituency
Party Candidate Votes % ±% Conservative David Duguid 21,182 50.1 +2.1 SNP Paul Robertson 17,064 40.4 +1.3 Liberal Democrats Alison Smith 2,280 5.4 +1.9 Labour Brian Balcombe 1,734 4.1 −5.4
Yup. Same constituency for me. I voted Lib Dem in 2019. I'm probably going over to SNP next time too because this oaf needs throwing out of power. We only get one vote and my view on how best to use it has changed. Seems that I'm not alone in that.
Oaf is an understatement. We need investment as a nation. We need sustainable environmental policies as a nation. CCS is something that needs doing fast, and we're perfectly set up for that in the NE thanks to the existing huge oil and gas infrastructure and the growing Hydrogen and Wind sectors.
St Fergus offers huge storage for Carbon, yet the government has chosen to fund other sites in England with St Fergus only on a reserve list for possible development in the 2030s. So what does the oaf do? Stand up at PMQs to sing the praises of the PM for including St Fergus on the do not invest list like its actually been proceeded with.
Pointing this out he described as "SNP doom-mongering". The Acorn project at St Fergus is not happening. Pointing that out is a simple statement of fact yet Duguid wants the credit for its rejection because it may happen in 15 years. He has to go.
The oaf I was referring to was de Pfeffel, but there's nothing to disagree with in your post. There are different breeds of Conservative MP and unfortunately Duguid doesn't seem to be the "poodle" type. Not only do I think we could much better than him, I think we could find a thousand Conservatives who would be better than him.
Er, do you mean that Mr Duguid IS a poodle? Or what other breed? Mexican Hairless?
The idea that all skills shortages can be filled by increasing wages is bonkers. Some can be filled that way, sure. But borders get in the way. Otherwise the richest cities on Earth would never have any skills shortages. The truth is there are a finite amount of chefs who have permits to work in London and that cohort has been massively reduced by restrictions on immigration (eg Brexit). That’s a simple fact. We need people.
As countries become more advanced and more productive, lower productivity jobs get priced out of the market. That's a good thing.
If the restaurant business in question brings a sufficiently high value to its customers, then it can put up prices and pay its chefs more. If it can't do that then it's because other businesses are producing more value. When it goes out of business then average productivity will be higher.
People have been bemoaning low productivity UK for decades. Now we are actually leaving the low productivity stuff behind, people want immigration policy to bail them out.
There's a lot of truth in this. People are used to obtaining cheap products and services that are often made cheap because businesses have access to a large pool of desperate staff willing to labour under crap conditions for bugger all money.
We have been here before in history. When the Black Death killed off half the peasantry, the other half suddenly found that they were in a workers' market. Lords who were willing to pay premium wages to get their land worked continued to get it worked. Those who weren't found all their peasants ran away to work for lords with a better grasp of the new economic realities, and their estates went fallow. The feudal system collapsed. Nobody apart from scalper lords thought the collapse of feudalism to be a bad thing.
What will now happen is that businesses that are desperate for staff will have to work out ways to manage with fewer staff; or they'll have to pay their staff more, and find efficiencies elsewhere so that the bill doesn't get passed on to the customer; or they'll need to pay their staff more, pass the cost onto the customer, and provide a good enough service that the customer is willing to pay a premium; or they'll have to close.
If you want people to be paid decent wages then a period of wage inflation can only be a good thing. The fact that there is a certain strand of supposedly left-leaning opinion (particularly amongst wealthy metropolitans) that is utterly desperate to reopen the borders to limitless migratory flows therefore exposes the hollowness of their ideological posturing. They don't care about low paid workers at all - they just want to indulge in internationalist virtue signalling, and to keep their cheap lattes, cheap cleaners, cheap nannies and cheap plumbers.
We all like cheap, but if it is to continue in future it must be achieved through lean working practices and automation, not through paying people naff all and flogging them to death. If that means that some concerns that previously relied on chefs working 12-hour shifts for the minimum wage find that said chefs are leaving, and nobody else is willing to labour under such rotten conditions, then hurrah.
One way to ensure better working conditions and higher levels of pay is to make it easier for workers to organise collectively and to withdraw their labour. Are you up for that?
No.
Let people do it individually. If employers are providing a bad wage then workers can withdraw their labour individually by going to a new employer.
The problem with striking etc is its trying to compel a better wage even from those who are paying good wages already and then putting picket lines up trying to stop others from taking the jobs.
They can only go to a new employer paying better wages if one exists and they have the necessary qualifications. It's funny, isn't it, that the most unionised countries tend to be the ones that have the best pay and working conditions?
In a free market if there's more demand for people than there is supply then employers paying better wages will exist because if they don't pay better wages then they don't fill the vacancies as we're seeing at the moment.
And no, its not funny, its often sad. The most unionised countries tend to be the ones that have the most unemployment as wages for those who are employed rise above the market rate and thus others are left on the slagheap unemployable as a result. Too high a minimum wage can have the same impact especially for young people. This is something we're not seeing in this country.
Of course if the least productive people are unemployed then that will automatically raise average wages as they're no longer deflated by the least productive. But that doesn't mean society is better off with millions unemployed. The unemployed don't count in average wage figures when really if you want to compare like for like you should include the unemployed in your maths with a wage of zero.
Factor in unemployment and no, what you're claiming is not always true.
You don't believe in free markets, Phil.
I'm not a total anarchist, I do believe there have to be some minimal regulations.
But yes, I do. The free market is working at the minute as we have a supply and demand of labour and if people want more labour they can pay more for it. That is the market working as intended.
We are artificially restricting supply. Hence prices are likely to go up. Whether that is good or bad.
Like @HYUFD and his mix and match monarchism, a free marketeer you are not.
We aren't artificially restricting supply. Anyone in the market can work anywhere they want, no restrictions whatsoever.
Strikes etc where you keep the job and prevent "scabs" from crossing picket lines are artificially restricting supply.
How is supply being restricted? Anyone in the market can do anything they want, so long as they're qualified and someone wants to recruit them.
The idea that all skills shortages can be filled by increasing wages is bonkers. Some can be filled that way, sure. But borders get in the way. Otherwise the richest cities on Earth would never have any skills shortages. The truth is there are a finite amount of chefs who have permits to work in London and that cohort has been massively reduced by restrictions on immigration (eg Brexit). That’s a simple fact. We need people.
As countries become more advanced and more productive, lower productivity jobs get priced out of the market. That's a good thing.
If the restaurant business in question brings a sufficiently high value to its customers, then it can put up prices and pay its chefs more. If it can't do that then it's because other businesses are producing more value. When it goes out of business then average productivity will be higher.
People have been bemoaning low productivity UK for decades. Now we are actually leaving the low productivity stuff behind, people want immigration policy to bail them out.
There's a lot of truth in this. People are used to obtaining cheap products and services that are often made cheap because businesses have access to a large pool of desperate staff willing to labour under crap conditions for bugger all money.
We have been here before in history. When the Black Death killed off half the peasantry, the other half suddenly found that they were in a workers' market. Lords who were willing to pay premium wages to get their land worked continued to get it worked. Those who weren't found all their peasants ran away to work for lords with a better grasp of the new economic realities, and their estates went fallow. The feudal system collapsed. Nobody apart from scalper lords thought the collapse of feudalism to be a bad thing.
What will now happen is that businesses that are desperate for staff will have to work out ways to manage with fewer staff; or they'll have to pay their staff more, and find efficiencies elsewhere so that the bill doesn't get passed on to the customer; or they'll need to pay their staff more, pass the cost onto the customer, and provide a good enough service that the customer is willing to pay a premium; or they'll have to close.
If you want people to be paid decent wages then a period of wage inflation can only be a good thing. The fact that there is a certain strand of supposedly left-leaning opinion (particularly amongst wealthy metropolitans) that is utterly desperate to reopen the borders to limitless migratory flows therefore exposes the hollowness of their ideological posturing. They don't care about low paid workers at all - they just want to indulge in internationalist virtue signalling, and to keep their cheap lattes, cheap cleaners, cheap nannies and cheap plumbers.
We all like cheap, but if it is to continue in future it must be achieved through lean working practices and automation, not through paying people naff all and flogging them to death. If that means that some concerns that previously relied on chefs working 12-hour shifts for the minimum wage find that said chefs are leaving, and nobody else is willing to labour under such rotten conditions, then hurrah.
One way to ensure better working conditions and higher levels of pay is to make it easier for workers to organise collectively and to withdraw their labour. Are you up for that?
No.
Let people do it individually. If employers are providing a bad wage then workers can withdraw their labour individually by going to a new employer.
The problem with striking etc is its trying to compel a better wage even from those who are paying good wages already and then putting picket lines up trying to stop others from taking the jobs.
They can only go to a new employer paying better wages if one exists and they have the necessary qualifications. It's funny, isn't it, that the most unionised countries tend to be the ones that have the best pay and working conditions?
In a free market if there's more demand for people than there is supply then employers paying better wages will exist because if they don't pay better wages then they don't fill the vacancies as we're seeing at the moment.
And no, its not funny, its often sad. The most unionised countries tend to be the ones that have the most unemployment as wages for those who are employed rise above the market rate and thus others are left on the slagheap unemployable as a result. Too high a minimum wage can have the same impact especially for young people. This is something we're not seeing in this country.
Of course if the least productive people are unemployed then that will automatically raise average wages as they're no longer deflated by the least productive. But that doesn't mean society is better off with millions unemployed. The unemployed don't count in average wage figures when really if you want to compare like for like you should include the unemployed in your maths with a wage of zero.
Factor in unemployment and no, what you're claiming is not always true.
You don't believe in free markets, Phil.
This is, and has always been, the most ridiculous argument on free movement. Free markets need proper regulation to work in favour of people, in this case regulations are immigration controls. You wouldn't have an unregulated financial services market, consumers need protection from exploitative companies. In this scenario, employees need protection from exploitative employers.
A poll by YouGov for The Times finds that 40 per cent of people say they would vote yes in another referendum, a drop of one point compared with the company’s last survey in May.
The proportion of people who would vote no remained at 46 per cent, while 9 per cent said they were unsure, up by one point. The remainder would not vote or refused to say.
On the news just now they announced that a 5th person has been arrested in France Re the boat people who died.
How is it that the French authorities can within 24 hours arrest 5 people, they must have enough evidence of their involvement, and not use that intelligence they must have had to arrest them before on people trafficking offences?
It’s another key question I have is why does there not seem to be a big enough intelligence effort to infiltrate the gangs or process to stop these gangs in the same way they target drugs gangs?
Because the French very much want them to leave.
Do you think the UK government would be popping a bollock to stop them crossing to France if the situation were reversed?
Dura Ace, you have such a unique writing style, have you ever thought about writing your auto biography?
Interestingly, I was approached by a publisher of military bios after one of my Sea Harrier talks to see if I would be interested. After some talks about talks I was not interested because they insisted on no obscenity, no highly graphic recounting of what were possibly war crimes, no explicit accounts of what sailors actually do on runs ashore and they hated my proposed title - "In the Aeroplane Over the Sea" (Neutral Milk Hotel reference).
Brilliant. I love singing along to NMH when drunk particularly two headed boy. And we link up and kick our legs up to Ghost.
I have met sailors on runs ashore. It doesn’t take them long to take all their clothes off on the dance floor does it?
Why should auto biographies be celebrities and politicians, so many other people have a great one to write for posterity. Maybe you should just write it anyway Ace, and publish it yourself if all publishers are too wimp to publish the truth.
Jeez. £1.7bn of taxpayers money to keep bulb running.
Outrageous.
The solution is simple. Ditch the cap to keep these companies solvent. If the govt is going to spend money, it should be on protecting the poorest via UC, not directly subsidising energy bills.
The idea that all skills shortages can be filled by increasing wages is bonkers. Some can be filled that way, sure. But borders get in the way. Otherwise the richest cities on Earth would never have any skills shortages. The truth is there are a finite amount of chefs who have permits to work in London and that cohort has been massively reduced by restrictions on immigration (eg Brexit). That’s a simple fact. We need people.
As countries become more advanced and more productive, lower productivity jobs get priced out of the market. That's a good thing.
If the restaurant business in question brings a sufficiently high value to its customers, then it can put up prices and pay its chefs more. If it can't do that then it's because other businesses are producing more value. When it goes out of business then average productivity will be higher.
People have been bemoaning low productivity UK for decades. Now we are actually leaving the low productivity stuff behind, people want immigration policy to bail them out.
There's a lot of truth in this. People are used to obtaining cheap products and services that are often made cheap because businesses have access to a large pool of desperate staff willing to labour under crap conditions for bugger all money.
We have been here before in history. When the Black Death killed off half the peasantry, the other half suddenly found that they were in a workers' market. Lords who were willing to pay premium wages to get their land worked continued to get it worked. Those who weren't found all their peasants ran away to work for lords with a better grasp of the new economic realities, and their estates went fallow. The feudal system collapsed. Nobody apart from scalper lords thought the collapse of feudalism to be a bad thing.
What will now happen is that businesses that are desperate for staff will have to work out ways to manage with fewer staff; or they'll have to pay their staff more, and find efficiencies elsewhere so that the bill doesn't get passed on to the customer; or they'll need to pay their staff more, pass the cost onto the customer, and provide a good enough service that the customer is willing to pay a premium; or they'll have to close.
If you want people to be paid decent wages then a period of wage inflation can only be a good thing. The fact that there is a certain strand of supposedly left-leaning opinion (particularly amongst wealthy metropolitans) that is utterly desperate to reopen the borders to limitless migratory flows therefore exposes the hollowness of their ideological posturing. They don't care about low paid workers at all - they just want to indulge in internationalist virtue signalling, and to keep their cheap lattes, cheap cleaners, cheap nannies and cheap plumbers.
We all like cheap, but if it is to continue in future it must be achieved through lean working practices and automation, not through paying people naff all and flogging them to death. If that means that some concerns that previously relied on chefs working 12-hour shifts for the minimum wage find that said chefs are leaving, and nobody else is willing to labour under such rotten conditions, then hurrah.
One way to ensure better working conditions and higher levels of pay is to make it easier for workers to organise collectively and to withdraw their labour. Are you up for that?
No.
Let people do it individually. If employers are providing a bad wage then workers can withdraw their labour individually by going to a new employer.
The problem with striking etc is its trying to compel a better wage even from those who are paying good wages already and then putting picket lines up trying to stop others from taking the jobs.
Employees already have that option. If you want to improve on the status quo, how does preserving the status quo help?
The status quo is working. We have full employment, with supply and demand working in action to drive wages up. What's your problem with the status quo?
I thought you thought wages were too low in some sectors? In-work poverty is a real thing, and I think you already agree with this. In any case, you responded to just that challenge by SouthamObserver about ensuring better conditions and pay. I just don't think what you said is an answer to the problem.
I think in work tax rates are too high, which is a much bigger problem than in work wages are too low.
As someone else said before, those on low wages should be on as close to 0% a tax rate as possible in order to get them to work more and be better off. Instead they face a 70% real tax rate.
However yes in some sectors wages were too low because of a distorted market. That's not the case anymore so wages are going up freely.
A poll by YouGov for The Times finds that 40 per cent of people say they would vote yes in another referendum, a drop of one point compared with the company’s last survey in May.
The proportion of people who would vote no remained at 46 per cent, while 9 per cent said they were unsure, up by one point. The remainder would not vote or refused to say.
Since the migrant issue seems, understandably, to be the main topic of conversation on here at the moment, here is my take.
Deterrent only works if the migrants believe that the consequences of failure are worse than their current situation or what they might have to return to. If we are to retain any vestiges of civilised behaviour we can never make make the deterrents as severe as what many of these people have already suffered. So the attempts will keep happening and people will keep dying. What we need to do is provide an alternative. We need a pressure release valve.
David Cameron suggested a version of this back in 2015 when he said we should go into the camps bordering Syria and directly airlift out those most in need, providing them with asylum in the UK and organising the entire process of getting them here. Whilst of course many of the refugees in Northern France come from places other than the Syrian camps, the basic principle seem the same to me. We should work with the French authorities and set up facilities to process asylum seekers in France and then transport those who are successful back to the UK. At the same time the arrangement with the French should be that they deal properly with those who are unsuccessful. This is not a suggestion for just a few hundred or a few thousand but for tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands to come to the UK. It will not be popular with many of course but politics has to be about the practical and it seems to me this is the only practical way to deal with this situation. It is not ideal as this should all have been done prior to them making dangerous journeys to get to France but you work with the situation as you find it, not as you wish it to be.
My personal preference would be for most of these migrants to be allowed in but I realise from past experience on here that that is not generally a popular solution even from those who are fairly well disposed towards them.
Is this even possible politically? I don't know. But, to butcher Sherlock Holmes, once one has eliminated the impossible, what is left, however unpalatable, has to be the answer.
The problem which is being ignored is this: under the various Refugee Conventions to which Britain is a party, if someone is a refugee a country is legally obliged to give them asylum. There is no numerical limit on that. There are an awful lot of people who genuinely qualify as refugees and if they make it to Britain we are obliged to take them.
So whether the number of 20,000 or 200,000 or 2,000,000,000, we cannot turn any of them away if they qualify.
So no wonder there is an incentive to get here or any other country. In fact we take fewer than other countries.
But that is to miss the point. We cannot impose any numerical limits on the number of refugees we take. So the only controls we have is to limit the number who get here and/or make it very hard for people to apply.
There is an inherent tension between a country's desire to limit in some way the number of people who come to live in it - a desire which is a legitimate one - and the obligation to provide help to refugees because we don't want to be uncivilised to those needing help.
What is needed is some sort of upper limit on the numbers we take combined with an asylum process which is quick, fair and does not incentivise smuggling.
If the Conventions will not permit numerical limits then countries will keep on taking harsher and harsher measures and, eventually, I suspect that some will simply leave the Conventions in order to prioritise control over numbers over offering help.
I think everyone in a Britain with 2 billion more people in it would qualify for asylum elsewhere!
We would have a bit more than 120 square metres each. 11 metres on a side near enough.
A poll by YouGov for The Times finds that 40 per cent of people say they would vote yes in another referendum, a drop of one point compared with the company’s last survey in May.
The proportion of people who would vote no remained at 46 per cent, while 9 per cent said they were unsure, up by one point. The remainder would not vote or refused to say.
A poll by YouGov for The Times finds that 40 per cent of people say they would vote yes in another referendum, a drop of one point compared with the company’s last survey in May.
The proportion of people who would vote no remained at 46 per cent, while 9 per cent said they were unsure, up by one point. The remainder would not vote or refused to say.
I'm contemplating that I shall have to vote SNP to remove Peppa Pig from Downing street and his local lickspittle Duguid. That doesn't mean I would vote Yes for independence (though I do support a 2nd referendum as that is the clear electoral mandate given in May).
I'm also contemplating that my likely vote for another party rather invalidates my personal membership criteria for the Libems...
So you've finally completed your journey from Labour to SNP, then. Not very much of a Unionist, in the end. You betrayed the Labour party and now you're going to betray the UK. There's a special place in hell for turncoats like you.
He's only following HYUFD's advice to practice tactical voting in Scotland. Voting for the LDs would be about as useful as voting for the Sheep Appreciation Society candidate - in fact, probably less useful should one of the latter appear. Look at the 2019 results for the constituency
Party Candidate Votes % ±% Conservative David Duguid 21,182 50.1 +2.1 SNP Paul Robertson 17,064 40.4 +1.3 Liberal Democrats Alison Smith 2,280 5.4 +1.9 Labour Brian Balcombe 1,734 4.1 −5.4
Yup. Same constituency for me. I voted Lib Dem in 2019. I'm probably going over to SNP next time too because this oaf needs throwing out of power. We only get one vote and my view on how best to use it has changed. Seems that I'm not alone in that.
Oaf is an understatement. We need investment as a nation. We need sustainable environmental policies as a nation. CCS is something that needs doing fast, and we're perfectly set up for that in the NE thanks to the existing huge oil and gas infrastructure and the growing Hydrogen and Wind sectors.
St Fergus offers huge storage for Carbon, yet the government has chosen to fund other sites in England with St Fergus only on a reserve list for possible development in the 2030s. So what does the oaf do? Stand up at PMQs to sing the praises of the PM for including St Fergus on the do not invest list like its actually been proceeded with.
Pointing this out he described as "SNP doom-mongering". The Acorn project at St Fergus is not happening. Pointing that out is a simple statement of fact yet Duguid wants the credit for its rejection because it may happen in 15 years. He has to go.
The oaf I was referring to was de Pfeffel, but there's nothing to disagree with in your post. There are different breeds of Conservative MP and unfortunately Duguid doesn't seem to be the "poodle" type. Not only do I think we could much better than him, I think we could find a thousand Conservatives who would be better than him.
Er, do you mean that Mr Duguid IS a poodle? Or what other breed? Mexican Hairless?
does seem, my mistake.
Shame! I really did want to know what other breed was considered more appropriate.
A poll by YouGov for The Times finds that 40 per cent of people say they would vote yes in another referendum, a drop of one point compared with the company’s last survey in May.
The proportion of people who would vote no remained at 46 per cent, while 9 per cent said they were unsure, up by one point. The remainder would not vote or refused to say.
Since the migrant issue seems, understandably, to be the main topic of conversation on here at the moment, here is my take.
Deterrent only works if the migrants believe that the consequences of failure are worse than their current situation or what they might have to return to. If we are to retain any vestiges of civilised behaviour we can never make make the deterrents as severe as what many of these people have already suffered. So the attempts will keep happening and people will keep dying. What we need to do is provide an alternative. We need a pressure release valve.
David Cameron suggested a version of this back in 2015 when he said we should go into the camps bordering Syria and directly airlift out those most in need, providing them with asylum in the UK and organising the entire process of getting them here. Whilst of course many of the refugees in Northern France come from places other than the Syrian camps, the basic principle seem the same to me. We should work with the French authorities and set up facilities to process asylum seekers in France and then transport those who are successful back to the UK. At the same time the arrangement with the French should be that they deal properly with those who are unsuccessful. This is not a suggestion for just a few hundred or a few thousand but for tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands to come to the UK. It will not be popular with many of course but politics has to be about the practical and it seems to me this is the only practical way to deal with this situation. It is not ideal as this should all have been done prior to them making dangerous journeys to get to France but you work with the situation as you find it, not as you wish it to be.
My personal preference would be for most of these migrants to be allowed in but I realise from past experience on here that that is not generally a popular solution even from those who are fairly well disposed towards them.
Is this even possible politically? I don't know. But, to butcher Sherlock Holmes, once one has eliminated the impossible, what is left, however unpalatable, has to be the answer.
The Sherlock Holmes doctrine, while rough and ready, is a useful eliminator.
Here are five things that should be eliminated and regarded as impossible:
1) That between hundreds of millions and several billion people could plausibly build a case for refugee status
2) That states whose governance is such that substantial numbers of people have a right to flee them and seek refuge should be members in good standing of the UN and other international bodies when they are pariahs.
3) That final accountability and financial responsibility for refugees should fall anywhere except upon the governments of the states from which they legitimately flee
4) That anyone can start an asylum claim anywhere but the first place they land
5) That anyone should by right be able to regard refugee status as anything other than temporary shelter until the crisis is their country is resolved.
Since the migrant issue seems, understandably, to be the main topic of conversation on here at the moment, here is my take.
Deterrent only works if the migrants believe that the consequences of failure are worse than their current situation or what they might have to return to. If we are to retain any vestiges of civilised behaviour we can never make make the deterrents as severe as what many of these people have already suffered. So the attempts will keep happening and people will keep dying. What we need to do is provide an alternative. We need a pressure release valve.
David Cameron suggested a version of this back in 2015 when he said we should go into the camps bordering Syria and directly airlift out those most in need, providing them with asylum in the UK and organising the entire process of getting them here. Whilst of course many of the refugees in Northern France come from places other than the Syrian camps, the basic principle seem the same to me. We should work with the French authorities and set up facilities to process asylum seekers in France and then transport those who are successful back to the UK. At the same time the arrangement with the French should be that they deal properly with those who are unsuccessful. This is not a suggestion for just a few hundred or a few thousand but for tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands to come to the UK. It will not be popular with many of course but politics has to be about the practical and it seems to me this is the only practical way to deal with this situation. It is not ideal as this should all have been done prior to them making dangerous journeys to get to France but you work with the situation as you find it, not as you wish it to be.
My personal preference would be for most of these migrants to be allowed in but I realise from past experience on here that that is not generally a popular solution even from those who are fairly well disposed towards them.
Is this even possible politically? I don't know. But, to butcher Sherlock Holmes, once one has eliminated the impossible, what is left, however unpalatable, has to be the answer.
The problem which is being ignored is this: under the various Refugee Conventions to which Britain is a party, if someone is a refugee a country is legally obliged to give them asylum. There is no numerical limit on that. There are an awful lot of people who genuinely qualify as refugees and if they make it to Britain we are obliged to take them.
So whether the number of 20,000 or 200,000 or 2,000,000,000, we cannot turn any of them away if they qualify.
So no wonder there is an incentive to get here or any other country. In fact we take fewer than other countries.
But that is to miss the point. We cannot impose any numerical limits on the number of refugees we take. So the only controls we have is to limit the number who get here and/or make it very hard for people to apply.
There is an inherent tension between a country's desire to limit in some way the number of people who come to live in it - a desire which is a legitimate one - and the obligation to provide help to refugees because we don't want to be uncivilised to those needing help.
What is needed is some sort of upper limit on the numbers we take combined with an asylum process which is quick, fair and does not incentivise smuggling.
If the Conventions will not permit numerical limits then countries will keep on taking harsher and harsher measures and, eventually, I suspect that some will simply leave the Conventions in order to prioritise control over numbers over offering help.
I think everyone in a Britain with 2 billion more people in it would qualify for asylum elsewhere!
We would have a bit more than 120 square metres each. 11 metres on a side near enough.
More than I would have guessed.
Pity the poor sods who get the mountain tops in Scotland...
Jeez. £1.7bn of taxpayers money to keep bulb running.
Outrageous.
The solution is simple. Ditch the cap to keep these companies solvent. If the govt is going to spend money, it should be on protecting the poorest via UC, not directly subsidising energy bills.
I think that Bulb has £1.7m customers, so that is about £1k per customer.
A poll by YouGov for The Times finds that 40 per cent of people say they would vote yes in another referendum, a drop of one point compared with the company’s last survey in May.
The proportion of people who would vote no remained at 46 per cent, while 9 per cent said they were unsure, up by one point. The remainder would not vote or refused to say.
Since the migrant issue seems, understandably, to be the main topic of conversation on here at the moment, here is my take.
Deterrent only works if the migrants believe that the consequences of failure are worse than their current situation or what they might have to return to. If we are to retain any vestiges of civilised behaviour we can never make make the deterrents as severe as what many of these people have already suffered. So the attempts will keep happening and people will keep dying. What we need to do is provide an alternative. We need a pressure release valve.
David Cameron suggested a version of this back in 2015 when he said we should go into the camps bordering Syria and directly airlift out those most in need, providing them with asylum in the UK and organising the entire process of getting them here. Whilst of course many of the refugees in Northern France come from places other than the Syrian camps, the basic principle seem the same to me. We should work with the French authorities and set up facilities to process asylum seekers in France and then transport those who are successful back to the UK. At the same time the arrangement with the French should be that they deal properly with those who are unsuccessful. This is not a suggestion for just a few hundred or a few thousand but for tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands to come to the UK. It will not be popular with many of course but politics has to be about the practical and it seems to me this is the only practical way to deal with this situation. It is not ideal as this should all have been done prior to them making dangerous journeys to get to France but you work with the situation as you find it, not as you wish it to be.
My personal preference would be for most of these migrants to be allowed in but I realise from past experience on here that that is not generally a popular solution even from those who are fairly well disposed towards them.
Is this even possible politically? I don't know. But, to butcher Sherlock Holmes, once one has eliminated the impossible, what is left, however unpalatable, has to be the answer.
The problem which is being ignored is this: under the various Refugee Conventions to which Britain is a party, if someone is a refugee a country is legally obliged to give them asylum. There is no numerical limit on that. There are an awful lot of people who genuinely qualify as refugees and if they make it to Britain we are obliged to take them.
So whether the number of 20,000 or 200,000 or 2,000,000,000, we cannot turn any of them away if they qualify.
So no wonder there is an incentive to get here or any other country. In fact we take fewer than other countries.
But that is to miss the point. We cannot impose any numerical limits on the number of refugees we take. So the only controls we have is to limit the number who get here and/or make it very hard for people to apply.
There is an inherent tension between a country's desire to limit in some way the number of people who come to live in it - a desire which is a legitimate one - and the obligation to provide help to refugees because we don't want to be uncivilised to those needing help.
What is needed is some sort of upper limit on the numbers we take combined with an asylum process which is quick, fair and does not incentivise smuggling.
If the Conventions will not permit numerical limits then countries will keep on taking harsher and harsher measures and, eventually, I suspect that some will simply leave the Conventions in order to prioritise control over numbers over offering help.
I think everyone in a Britain with 2 billion more people in it would qualify for asylum elsewhere!
We would have a bit more than 120 square metres each. 11 metres on a side near enough.
More than I would have guessed.
Pity the poor sods who get the mountain tops in Scotland...
I would think more the lower and boggier ground - with the midges.
Since the migrant issue seems, understandably, to be the main topic of conversation on here at the moment, here is my take.
Deterrent only works if the migrants believe that the consequences of failure are worse than their current situation or what they might have to return to. If we are to retain any vestiges of civilised behaviour we can never make make the deterrents as severe as what many of these people have already suffered. So the attempts will keep happening and people will keep dying. What we need to do is provide an alternative. We need a pressure release valve.
David Cameron suggested a version of this back in 2015 when he said we should go into the camps bordering Syria and directly airlift out those most in need, providing them with asylum in the UK and organising the entire process of getting them here. Whilst of course many of the refugees in Northern France come from places other than the Syrian camps, the basic principle seem the same to me. We should work with the French authorities and set up facilities to process asylum seekers in France and then transport those who are successful back to the UK. At the same time the arrangement with the French should be that they deal properly with those who are unsuccessful. This is not a suggestion for just a few hundred or a few thousand but for tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands to come to the UK. It will not be popular with many of course but politics has to be about the practical and it seems to me this is the only practical way to deal with this situation. It is not ideal as this should all have been done prior to them making dangerous journeys to get to France but you work with the situation as you find it, not as you wish it to be.
My personal preference would be for most of these migrants to be allowed in but I realise from past experience on here that that is not generally a popular solution even from those who are fairly well disposed towards them.
Is this even possible politically? I don't know. But, to butcher Sherlock Holmes, once one has eliminated the impossible, what is left, however unpalatable, has to be the answer.
The problem which is being ignored is this: under the various Refugee Conventions to which Britain is a party, if someone is a refugee a country is legally obliged to give them asylum. There is no numerical limit on that. There are an awful lot of people who genuinely qualify as refugees and if they make it to Britain we are obliged to take them.
So whether the number of 20,000 or 200,000 or 2,000,000,000, we cannot turn any of them away if they qualify.
So no wonder there is an incentive to get here or any other country. In fact we take fewer than other countries.
But that is to miss the point. We cannot impose any numerical limits on the number of refugees we take. So the only controls we have is to limit the number who get here and/or make it very hard for people to apply.
There is an inherent tension between a country's desire to limit in some way the number of people who come to live in it - a desire which is a legitimate one - and the obligation to provide help to refugees because we don't want to be uncivilised to those needing help.
What is needed is some sort of upper limit on the numbers we take combined with an asylum process which is quick, fair and does not incentivise smuggling.
If the Conventions will not permit numerical limits then countries will keep on taking harsher and harsher measures and, eventually, I suspect that some will simply leave the Conventions in order to prioritise control over numbers over offering help.
I think everyone in a Britain with 2 billion more people in it would qualify for asylum elsewhere!
We would have a bit more than 120 square metres each. 11 metres on a side near enough.
More than I would have guessed.
Pity the poor sods who get the mountain tops in Scotland...
If it does get very cold this winter you might find more volunteers to kip near the heat of the nuclear power reactors.
A poll by YouGov for The Times finds that 40 per cent of people say they would vote yes in another referendum, a drop of one point compared with the company’s last survey in May.
The proportion of people who would vote no remained at 46 per cent, while 9 per cent said they were unsure, up by one point. The remainder would not vote or refused to say.
Nick, Jeremy Corbyn has by his own volition, and enthusiastically, portrayed himself, and indeed matched word with action, for his entire parliamentary career as extreme.
Are you saying he suddenly stopped believing in all the causes that he held so dear prior to becoming LotO.
No, I don't think he would especially argue with being called extreme - he'd say something like "I say what I think and it's up to others to decide if it's extreme." I was trying to generalise to say that any leader who could be successfully portrayed as extreme left would struggle to get a majority. (Curiously, the populist media are less bothered about people taking positions identified with the far right.) Labour leaders therefore need to go out of their way to be obviously not extreme.
What I think most people don't get about him (not that it matters much now) is that he is genuinely tolerant even of people who he totally disagrees with. - that's unusual with people outside the mainstream, as they tend to be aggressive, sarcastic and downright nasty about their opponents. I've heard him talk politely about David Cameron, Tony Blair, and numerous internal opponents. It's why he never responded to Momentum's calls to deselect centrists. It's part of his self-image that he doesn't stray from talking about policies into attacking individuals - as a good leftist, he thinks problems are structural, not personal. He was often criticised for not sticking the knife in at PMQs when a Minister got into trouble.
I really like that, and as a leftist myself I think it's the way forward - bitterness and personal venom just puts everyone off. It's one reason I remain personally fond of him. But he's a marginal figure now so it's all rather irrelevant.
Jeez. £1.7bn of taxpayers money to keep bulb running.
Outrageous.
The solution is simple. Ditch the cap to keep these companies solvent. If the govt is going to spend money, it should be on protecting the poorest via UC, not directly subsidising energy bills.
I think that Bulb has £1.7m customers, so that is about £1k per customer.
£1.7bn is the max cash requirement. The cost to the taxpayer will be far less.
Comments
https://twitter.com/railandroad/status/1463803745930821632
London’s #Stratford railway station recorded the most passenger entries and exits with 14 million in 2020-21 - a year that saw Britain’s passenger usage drop 78% compared to the previous year.
1 - I assume that we would reopen official routes to claim asylum?
1 & 2 - the problem with people who don't have paperwork is how you reject them. At a Border Control Post we can refuse entry, but if they just walk off the beach you can't do that - and people will keep doing that. And if we are to reject them and send them back, where to if they have no ID?
3 - We have had similar ideas before - there was a badly run private sector detention centre which hit the headlines for all the wrong reasons. But in principle I don't object, having seen some of the hateful environments we ship people to when placed in the country. Would need to be humane, medical care, education, on-site legal etc
4 - I think we need to be clear to whom we are referring. A non-national with indefinite leave to remain is different to someone who later takes citizenship
5 - would be a huge step forward from our current system. Contrary to the media claims asylum seekers are housed in Murder Mile houses that nobody else will live in and subsist on vouchers that barely pay for the absolute basics. When so many can work and have skills this seems stupid - and is likely the reason that so many just disappear off into the black economy.
6 - yep. And yet the government have zero interest in doing so. Can't think why...
Party Candidate Votes % ±%
Conservative David Duguid 21,182 50.1 +2.1
SNP Paul Robertson 17,064 40.4 +1.3
Liberal Democrats Alison Smith 2,280 5.4 +1.9
Labour Brian Balcombe 1,734 4.1 −5.4
PS: I'm a member of the Rare Breeds Survival Trust. I like sheep.
(Apols - messed up the quotes...
Yes, anyone who turns up from Calais gets deported immediately to Rwanda or somewhere similar, where they can be processed.
The UK should take genuine refugees from Afghanistan or Syria directly.
The only ways the camps at Calais disappear, is either the French take action against them (ha ha), or it’s addressed from the supply side, making it very clear that no-one arriving in the UK by boat will be allowed to settle in the UK.
We only get one vote and my view on how best to use it has changed. Seems that I'm not alone in that.
Mandatory French lessons also whilst waiting.
But overall, there's no getting round the fact that the UK doesn't take enough asylum seekers.
Re 1&2 I think it should be that if you arrive at any airport or port and be able to claim asylum whoever you are or wherever you come from whether you are a Chinese dissident or average Jo from Syria - the key is knowing what your obligations are (docs etc) and the process you will go through whoever you are.
It would hopefully deter those who know they are taking the piss but provide a safe and straightforward solution for those who need it.
We already have the problem of where to send undocumented people who fail the claim so even under the changes I proposed that’s an issue that needs finer brains than mine.
If they just walk off a beach it seems they are being collected anyway and so can be sent down the “send back” route anyway.
Re 3 I agree the camps have to be basic but provide proper sanitation and health and security.
https://twitter.com/ULASarchaeology/status/1463691931318374410
How is it that the French authorities can within 24 hours arrest 5 people, they must have enough evidence of their involvement, and not use that intelligence they must have had to arrest them before on people trafficking offences?
It’s another key question I have is why does there not seem to be a big enough intelligence effort to infiltrate the gangs or process to stop these gangs in the same way they target drugs gangs?
As he is making so many mistakes as though not wanting to win, you must have several good examples to share?
People are here, let them stay, get them out of the black market.
Like most crimes it’s not just the final act but also the preparation and conspiracy aspects that are also crimes such as terrorism and drug trafficking. If there aren’t such laws then maybe it would be a good idea to have them…..
St Fergus offers huge storage for Carbon, yet the government has chosen to fund other sites in England with St Fergus only on a reserve list for possible development in the 2030s. So what does the oaf do? Stand up at PMQs to sing the praises of the PM for including St Fergus on the do not invest list like its actually been proceeded with.
Pointing this out he described as "SNP doom-mongering". The Acorn project at St Fergus is not happening. Pointing that out is a simple statement of fact yet Duguid wants the credit for its rejection because it may happen in 15 years. He has to go.
Do you think the UK government would be popping a bollock to stop them crossing to France if the situation were reversed?
There are different breeds of Conservative MP and unfortunately Duguid doesn't seem to be the "poodle" type. Not only do I think we could much better than him, I think we could find a thousand Conservatives who would be better than him.
At the moment it looks like by ignoring the traffickers they are creating their own problem as they are attracting the problem.
Probably maritime laws and regulation about busy shipping Lane.
Failure to declare and pay tax on earnings (not a joke, it’s how they got Capone?)
A relative runs a building business in London. When he pointed out that it was trivial to prove that in some areas of London, all the work was being done illegally - illegal workers, paid below minimum wage, cash etc. - he was told to shut up and go away. By a Labour MP, among others, IIRC.
Just pass a law that the illegal worker gets half the fine and indefinite leave to remain for every successful protection of a business for employing illegal labour.
The makers for illegal labour will evaporate in seconds. Mind you, the queues at the Cop Shops will be a bit problematic....
https://twitter.com/jonkay/status/1461847160253779974
It's also obvious that enabling application from France would massively increase the numbers applying. How many of the 120k applying for asylum in France to France would instead apply to the UK? How many would keep going from Germany to get to the UK centre in France?
I think we could quite easily get to over 250k applications needing to be processed every year.
We don't have the vacant housing stock to accommodate them - less than 1% of our dwellings are vacant (pretty incredible given billions of foreigners went home in disgust at the Brexit vote!), in France it's 7.8%
We need to build more houses. I'd rather we built them before we deliberately open ourselves up to a huge number of extra asylum seekers.
In Holyrood regional vote slates the priority is set by the party. Not so much fun at all.
So whether the number of 20,000 or 200,000 or 2,000,000,000, we cannot turn any of them away if they qualify.
So no wonder there is an incentive to get here or any other country. In fact we take fewer than other countries.
But that is to miss the point. We cannot impose any numerical limits on the number of refugees we take. So the only controls we have is to limit the number who get here and/or make it very hard for people to apply.
There is an inherent tension between a country's desire to limit in some way the number of people who come to live in it - a desire which is a legitimate one - and the obligation to provide help to refugees because we don't want to be uncivilised to those needing help.
What is needed is some sort of upper limit on the numbers we take combined with an asylum process which is quick, fair and does not incentivise smuggling.
If the Conventions will not permit numerical limits then countries will keep on taking harsher and harsher measures and, eventually, I suspect that some will simply leave the Conventions in order to prioritise control over numbers over offering help.
The pervasive belief that everyone wants to come to the UK despite the numbers is just weird.
If white people are okay with their votes counting less then you'd hope they'd be okay with listening to "other voices" and being convinced to use their vote in their support - which means you could have Diwali recognised without violating basic democratic norms.
Strikes etc where you keep the job and prevent "scabs" from crossing picket lines are artificially restricting supply.
How is supply being restricted? Anyone in the market can do anything they want, so long as they're qualified and someone wants to recruit them.
CON: 39% (-)
LAB: 36% (+2)
LDEM: 10% (+2)
GRN: 5% (-3)
via @Kantar, 18 - 22 Nov
Chgs. w/ Oct
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1463816123326115842?s=21
No wonder Salmond and Alba are so furious and of course no prospect of a legal indyref2 under this Tory government either
I have met sailors on runs ashore. It doesn’t take them long to take all their clothes off on the dance floor does it?
Why should auto biographies be celebrities and politicians, so many other people have a great one to write for posterity. Maybe you should just write it anyway Ace, and publish it yourself if all publishers are too wimp to publish the truth.
Outrageous.
The solution is simple. Ditch the cap to keep these companies solvent. If the govt is going to spend money, it should be on protecting the poorest via UC, not directly subsidising energy bills.
As someone else said before, those on low wages should be on as close to 0% a tax rate as possible in order to get them to work more and be better off. Instead they face a 70% real tax rate.
However yes in some sectors wages were too low because of a distorted market. That's not the case anymore so wages are going up freely.
But of course you are muddling figures which include and which exclude DKs.
Professor Curtice would not be impressed.
More than I would have guessed.
Here are five things that should be eliminated and regarded as impossible:
1) That between hundreds of millions and several billion people could plausibly build a case for refugee status
2) That states whose governance is such that substantial numbers of people have a right to flee them and seek refuge should be members in good standing of the UN and other international bodies when they are pariahs.
3) That final accountability and financial responsibility for refugees should fall anywhere except upon the governments of the states from which they legitimately flee
4) That anyone can start an asylum claim anywhere but the first place they land
5) That anyone should by right be able to regard refugee status as anything other than temporary shelter until the crisis is their country is resolved.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-the-next-election-will-be-harder-for-the-tories
Not gonna happen.
Eventually Nicola will depart the stage, as will Boris.
What I think most people don't get about him (not that it matters much now) is that he is genuinely tolerant even of people who he totally disagrees with. - that's unusual with people outside the mainstream, as they tend to be aggressive, sarcastic and downright nasty about their opponents. I've heard him talk politely about David Cameron, Tony Blair, and numerous internal opponents. It's why he never responded to Momentum's calls to deselect centrists. It's part of his self-image that he doesn't stray from talking about policies into attacking individuals - as a good leftist, he thinks problems are structural, not personal. He was often criticised for not sticking the knife in at PMQs when a Minister got into trouble.
I really like that, and as a leftist myself I think it's the way forward - bitterness and personal venom just puts everyone off. It's one reason I remain personally fond of him. But he's a marginal figure now so it's all rather irrelevant.