Re, my post below there are actually a lot of tory voters who are decent people. They are being driven away from this latest Boris' brand of Conservatism in their droves.
The Conservative party became UKIP a few year ago. The old Conservative party either left or died.
Mrs C and I turned on the bedroom TV to hear Simon Calder predicting what appeared to be total gridlock over Easter.
It was bad enough in east Kent yesterday. What seemed like the entire Kent police force is posted at checkpoints at every principal road junction to stop lorries searching out ways to jump the queue on the M20 using the back roads. Meanwhile the mass of lorries on the M20 are stuck there for 24 hours plus with no food or facilities.
Those Rusisan commanders who got sacked after the convoy was stuck north of Kyiv have found new employment...
Re, my post below there are actually a lot of tory voters who are decent people. They are being driven away from this latest Boris' brand of Conservatism in their droves.
The Conservative party became UKIP a few year ago. The old Conservative party either left or died.
In 2019 if it had not united the Leave vote behind it then we could now have PM Corbyn as the Brexit Party would still have split the right of centre vote
Just had a conversation with a Conservative friend. She's a lifelong tory voter and up until recently she has loved (even adored) Boris. Her comment about sending migrants to Rwanda?
"Totally appalling"
Pb tories, no this isn't trolling. So stick your fingers in your ears if you like but this is a bona fide.
It's a terrible mistake to lurch to the far right or far left to appease your supposed 'core' vote and neglect the middle. 2019 only worked because of the Brexit dithering and because Labour had an unelectable anti-semitic Trotskyite leader.
The Conservatives are heading for a drubbing.
A "life-long Tory voter" you say? But she is a namby pamby wishy washy yoghurt knitting wet. So as HY assures us she may have voted Tory all her life but she isn't a Tory, never was a Tory and her vote isn't needed.
It just makes no sense. The refugees are here so are we saying we don't have the capacity to house them while their applications are being processed? No of course not. It is a punishment to go to Rwanda (cue all the What.. Are you saying Rwanda is not a paradise on earth...you racist...).
So it is a punishment pure and simple. Those "genuine" asylum seekers and the "non-genuine" all shipped off to Africa.
I'm disgusted.
The aim I would imagine is to put off refugees from crossing the Channel in the first place if they then end up in Rwanda for processing. Only the most genuine ones fleeing persecution for their lives or a genuine war zone would then still try
Why would it put them off. The processing centre will be a paradise on earth whether in the UK or Rwanda. And then after processing they will be allowed to remain in the UK or dealt with as they are today.
The only difference is the flight. Right?
For refugees yes. For economic migrants it changes the risk (no escape) and reward (time to earning)
There's a recession coming on the back of this which is going to add to the government's woes. Most manfacturing will be suffering parts and supply problems within weeks if they are not already. The Spring Statement's growth forecast looks seriously optimistic now.
Yes, I think so too. It is looking grim. I wonder if this will ease pressure on commodity prices.
There are some parts we are struggling to get now. Suppliers out there have declared force majeure on us.
Global supply chains, particularly JIT ones, are great while they work but covid has proven them to be brittle.
This will accelerate onshoring.
The last point is welcome. People go on about our dependency on Russian gas and oil all the time but I am much more concerned about our dependency on Chinese manufacturing.
We have moved a long way from the political philosophy, both new labour and Tory, that if we cannot make something at a competitive cost we should let low cost labour countries make it and concentrate on other stuff.
We are reaping what politicians have sewn since 1997.
It was definitely orthodoxy before 1997. I was taught in GCSE Geography that Britain is now a tertiary, services-based, economy. We sell each other stuff that it is more efficient and cost-effective to have manufactured elsewhere. I sat my GCSEs in 1994. So a bit inaccurate to say since 1997. 1979 might be more accurate.
Remains to be seen whether the whole Covid/Brexit thing brings industry and/or manufacturing back in any significant way. Doubt it personally.
I was taught that in A-level economics in 2000.
The people of roughly our generation are now running the Treasury and have repeatedly demonstrated they have neither the imagination nor the desire to keep up with changing circumstances.
I share your doubts...
I’m no economist, but I just can’t see how it would become economically worthwhile to bring this stuff back.
Politically it’s a lovely dream to sell. But despite the recent shocks to JIT supply chains and the like, I think the fundamentals will remain unchanged. We get stuff cheaper if it’s made in China. That might be ethically dodgy. And a strategic gamble. But the economics will probably override those concerns, as they have done for decades. We do like our stuff cheap.
We like our stuff cheap, but we also like to be able to buy it in the first place.
I still remember the comic look on faces at Douche Bank, when they realised, in 2014, what having development in St Petersburg and QA for software in Liviv meant.
Daddy had taken away the toys and it wasn't fair.
Mind you they still had a development unit in Russia this year. So Ha Ha.
Brilliant news. Great secure jobs for people in Rwanda; eliminates the issue of economic migrants coming to the UK to claim asylum.
'Eliminates'
Now you've to fly them to fucking Rwanda. House them in Rwanda, Care for them in Rwanda, Fly them back from Rwanda whatever the result of their application. Its fucking mad. The channel is 20miles wide. They're coming over no matter what you do. The prospect of 3 years+ in a red wall bedsit didn't deter them..
When the inevitable happens, the lawsuits start piling up and the Mail's pissing and moaning about migrants on private flights worth more than your Gran's yearly pension it will be quietly mothballed.
Yeah. True. In my post below called it con trick - but at least two years to prove it is. Boris can win Mays locals and Junes General Election on these sort of announcements, because voters love action, they love Boris Boosterism and his big vision thing.
How do you suggest opposition react to it without sounding like they are supporting the hated status quo? Lib Dems and Labour have less than 5 hours now, till Today is on air, to come up with not just a policy, but one that grabs the voter as bold and powerful as this one looks from the marketing. You see my point?
Simple - “Unaffordable, Unethical and very probably Unworkable”.
Why is it unethical?
It's unethical for the government to waste money.
Nah, that’s what they do.
Money is not an ethical matter
That rumbling sound? Maggie spinning in her grave.
But we all knew that this government isn't really Conservative. I'm sure you will all be very happy together.
Just had a conversation with a Conservative friend. She's a lifelong tory voter and up until recently she has loved (even adored) Boris. Her comment about sending migrants to Rwanda?
"Totally appalling"
Pb tories, no this isn't trolling. So stick your fingers in your ears if you like but this is a bona fide.
It's a terrible mistake to lurch to the far right or far left to appease your supposed 'core' vote and neglect the middle. 2019 only worked because of the Brexit dithering and because Labour had an unelectable anti-semitic Trotskyite leader.
The Conservatives are heading for a drubbing.
A "life-long Tory voter" you say? But she is a namby pamby wishy washy yoghurt knitting wet. So as HY assures us she may have voted Tory all her life but she isn't a Tory, never was a Tory and her vote isn't needed.
Nice one.
Funny thing is, I actually think she's quite xenophobic. She's very very patriotic, pro-monarchy, always supports Brits etc. So for her to say to me just now that this is "totally appalling" is very telling imho.
In other words, she may be patriotic but she's not an inhumane bastard.
There's a recession coming on the back of this which is going to add to the government's woes. Most manfacturing will be suffering parts and supply problems within weeks if they are not already. The Spring Statement's growth forecast looks seriously optimistic now.
Yes, I think so too. It is looking grim. I wonder if this will ease pressure on commodity prices.
There are some parts we are struggling to get now. Suppliers out there have declared force majeure on us.
Global supply chains, particularly JIT ones, are great while they work but covid has proven them to be brittle.
This will accelerate onshoring.
The last point is welcome. People go on about our dependency on Russian gas and oil all the time but I am much more concerned about our dependency on Chinese manufacturing.
We have moved a long way from the political philosophy, both new labour and Tory, that if we cannot make something at a competitive cost we should let low cost labour countries make it and concentrate on other stuff.
We are reaping what politicians have sewn since 1997.
It was definitely orthodoxy before 1997. I was taught in GCSE Geography that Britain is now a tertiary, services-based, economy. We sell each other stuff that it is more efficient and cost-effective to have manufactured elsewhere. I sat my GCSEs in 1994. So a bit inaccurate to say since 1997. 1979 might be more accurate.
Remains to be seen whether the whole Covid/Brexit thing brings industry and/or manufacturing back in any significant way. Doubt it personally.
Very much so. It was from 1979 that Mrs Thatcher had a vision of an economy based on financial services, consumerism and housing speculation. Prior postwar governments saw manufacturing as a keystone of the UK economy.
We are now focused on hi tech manufacturing not mass manufacturing. If it was not for Thatcher's reforms ending Union domination of industry and mass strikes we would not even have that
'Unions' did not oppose technological developments per se.
And there has been a couple of interesting programmes recently discussing the relationship between Reagan and Thatcher. He appears to have rather played her for an amusement on several occasions.
They did cripple industry through strikes however. The opposite the programmes quite clearly showed Thatcher's influence on Reagan from Star Wars, to the Falklands. Reagan was often in awe of her
The government wants a legal challenge to its Rwanda plan so it can lump opposition parties together with out-of-touch, elitist judges and lefty human rights lawyers. The cynicism and willingness to exploit human misery for political gain is sickening and entirely predictable.
Cynically upsetting human rights lawyers and provoking them into a reaction. How terrible of the government to exploit that for political gain!
How much public money is going to be spent achieving that provocation?
(You want to save money and stop the boat trade? Put the processing centre in Calais. Process them quickly- about 2/3 pass in the end. God knows we need the workers.
Not practical politics, but it would achieve the stated aims better.)
The processing centre in Calais would massively increase the number of applicants. For some reason they don’t want to stay in France…
Russia have just announced that if Sweden and Finland join NATO we will take measures in the Baltic
Sky saying threatening words ratcheting up tension
With what? If they decide to increase pressure in the north they’ll have to do it by moving units to the Finnish border which will hamper their efforts in Ukraine, surely?
And I don’t think even Bortnikov would be crazy enough to attempt piracy on the open seas. That would be a quick way of war with NATO and the best case scenario in that for Russia is that it’s a nuclear war and we’re all killed, because any other sort of war would inevitably see them beaten. So it doesn’t help them
Russia showing again that its leadership are mad and nasty as well as cruel and incompetent, but the mere fact that they are responding so aggressively and implausibly in terms of rhetoric suggests they’re completely taken aback and have no idea what to do.
If it reduces the number of economic migrants while still keeping genuine asylum seekers fleeing persecution then yes
Anyway, about the lies told by the Crime Minister. And your personal association in support of lies and liars. I assume the Crime Minister still has your full support and personally you have no moral issue with lying to parliament, or lying in general.
Perfect - the government gets to go up against liberal, metropolitan, out-of-touch judges and lefty human rights lawyers. If you are looking for a culture war, what is not to like?
Good morning
The proposals on the Rwanda asylum scheme are very controversial and the polling will be interesting
Labour and others will oppose but they do need a credible alternative and not just they will arrest the people smugglers as that is patently not working
The polling on this is indeed going to be very interesting.
I predict wildly different results, depending on exactly how the question is framed.
How about "Do you favour the government spending billions on a probably illegal, and very likely inefficient asylum scheme in order to distract from the PM breaking the law and wind up the libtards?"
Apparently some do. Big_G is already assuming it will work, and if it doesn't, it's the opposition's fault.
You are twisting my words
I am not assuming it will work and it is fair to ask opponents what would you do
"...I would assume it would have a dramatic effect on reducing those crossing and putting their lives at risk..."
The government wants a legal challenge to its Rwanda plan so it can lump opposition parties together with out-of-touch, elitist judges and lefty human rights lawyers. The cynicism and willingness to exploit human misery for political gain is sickening and entirely predictable.
Cynically upsetting human rights lawyers and provoking them into a reaction. How terrible of the government to exploit that for political gain!
Yep, hilarious, isn't it? Let's send desperate people to a country with a long history of serious human rights violations and genocide to wind-up the lefties and score a few political points. Brilliant!
There will - I assume - be safeguards in place to protect the asylum seekers are they remain the UK’s responsibility. (If not there should be)
It is unreasonable to use the 1994 genocide to condemn the current generation of Rwandans.
Just had a conversation with a Conservative friend. She's a lifelong tory voter and up until recently she has loved (even adored) Boris. Her comment about sending migrants to Rwanda?
"Totally appalling"
Pb tories, no this isn't trolling. So stick your fingers in your ears if you like but this is a bona fide.
It's a terrible mistake to lurch to the far right or far left to appease your supposed 'core' vote and neglect the middle. 2019 only worked because of the Brexit dithering and because Labour had an unelectable anti-semitic Trotskyite leader.
The Conservatives are heading for a drubbing.
A "life-long Tory voter" you say? But she is a namby pamby wishy washy yoghurt knitting wet. So as HY assures us she may have voted Tory all her life but she isn't a Tory, never was a Tory and her vote isn't needed.
Nice one.
Funny thing is, I actually think she's quite xenophobic. She's very very patriotic, pro-monarchy, always supports Brits etc. So for her to say to me just now that this is "totally appalling" is very telling imho.
In other words, she may be patriotic but she's not an inhumane bastard.
Like I said, wishy washy namby pamby. Not like your true Tory. They support lies and crime. And malfeasance. And tax avoidance. And large amounts of our money accidentally being awarded to Tory donors without tender or scrutiny. And think anyone who sees his as a problem is just a Boris hater.
Brilliant news. Great secure jobs for people in Rwanda; eliminates the issue of economic migrants coming to the UK to claim asylum.
'Eliminates'
Now you've to fly them to fucking Rwanda. House them in Rwanda, Care for them in Rwanda, Fly them back from Rwanda whatever the result of their application. Its fucking mad. The channel is 20miles wide. They're coming over no matter what you do. The prospect of 3 years+ in a red wall bedsit didn't deter them..
When the inevitable happens, the lawsuits start piling up and the Mail's pissing and moaning about migrants on private flights worth more than your Gran's yearly pension it will be quietly mothballed.
Yeah. True. In my post below called it con trick - but at least two years to prove it is. Boris can win Mays locals and Junes General Election on these sort of announcements, because voters love action, they love Boris Boosterism and his big vision thing.
How do you suggest opposition react to it without sounding like they are supporting the hated status quo? Lib Dems and Labour have less than 5 hours now, till Today is on air, to come up with not just a policy, but one that grabs the voter as bold and powerful as this one looks from the marketing. You see my point?
Simple - “Unaffordable, Unethical and very probably Unworkable”.
Why is it unethical?
It's unethical for the government to waste money.
Nah, that’s what they do.
Money is not an ethical matter
That rumbling sound? Maggie spinning in her grave.
But we all knew that this government isn't really Conservative. I'm sure you will all be very happy together.
Spending money wisely is an important function of government. But it’s not a question of morality. (It’s been a long time since I studied theology)
Russia have just announced that if Sweden and Finland join NATO we will take measures in the Baltic
Sky saying threatening words ratcheting up tension
With what? If they decide to increase pressure in the north they’ll have to do it by moving units to the Finnish border which will hamper their efforts in Ukraine, surely?
And I don’t think even Bortnikov would be crazy enough to attempt piracy on the open seas. That would be a quick way of war with NATO and the best case scenario in that for Russia is that it’s a nuclear war and we’re all killed, because any other sort of war would inevitably see them beaten. So it doesn’t help them
Russia showing again that its leadership are mad and nasty as well as cruel and incompetent, but the mere fact that they are responding so aggressively and implausibly in terms of rhetoric suggests they’re completely taken aback and have no idea what to do.
They genuinely thought that tanks would be rolling into Kiev by the end of February, and that they would be met with locals throwing flowers rather then Molotov cocktails and NLAWs.
We know this because in the tanks at the front of the line that were captured, the troops had bought their No 1 parade uniforms with them.
The Russians appear to have completely missed the weapons deliveries and military training going on in Ukraine, and they now have no idea what to do next. They’ve already retreated in humiliation from trying to capture the Ukranian capital.
Perfect - the government gets to go up against liberal, metropolitan, out-of-touch judges and lefty human rights lawyers. If you are looking for a culture war, what is not to like?
Good morning
The proposals on the Rwanda asylum scheme are very controversial and the polling will be interesting
Labour and others will oppose but they do need a credible alternative and not just they will arrest the people smugglers as that is patently not working
The polling on this is indeed going to be very interesting.
I predict wildly different results, depending on exactly how the question is framed.
How about "Do you favour the government spending billions on a probably illegal, and very likely inefficient asylum scheme in order to distract from the PM breaking the law and wind up the libtards?"
Apparently some do. Big_G is already assuming it will work, and if it doesn't, it's the opposition's fault.
You are twisting my words
I am not assuming it will work and it is fair to ask opponents what would you do
"...I would assume it would have a dramatic effect on reducing those crossing and putting their lives at risk..."
It will. The system works for Australia, it is tried and proven and will save lives.
Its regrettable that its come to this, but it seems to me to be the only safe and humane way to stop the deadly crossings and stop the regular reports of people drowning in the English Channel. Nobody else has come up with another system that will do it.
I think we all agree that there's a problem with migration although raising it now with Ukrainian refugees desperately seeking help is very odd timing.
So, yes, there's a problem. And it's also a valid question to pose of Labour although it should be done in a proper adult way and not, as at present, with febrile racist stirrings.
However, and it's a big however, despite all of those points despatching them to Rwanda is NOT the answer. It is, as my lifelong Conservative friend says, "totally appalling."
What on earth has happened to this Party? I've seen it happen before when John Major lurched to the right with his nasty party "Back to Basics" and Boris Johnson is now doing exactly the same, driven not by his own beliefs (he has none) but by the hard right in his party: the nutjobs who are out of touch with the kind of people who would put them back into power next time.
I'm afraid the Conservatives are merely adding to the number of years that they will be out of office.
There's a recession coming on the back of this which is going to add to the government's woes. Most manfacturing will be suffering parts and supply problems within weeks if they are not already. The Spring Statement's growth forecast looks seriously optimistic now.
Yes, I think so too. It is looking grim. I wonder if this will ease pressure on commodity prices.
There are some parts we are struggling to get now. Suppliers out there have declared force majeure on us.
Global supply chains, particularly JIT ones, are great while they work but covid has proven them to be brittle.
This will accelerate onshoring.
The last point is welcome. People go on about our dependency on Russian gas and oil all the time but I am much more concerned about our dependency on Chinese manufacturing.
We have moved a long way from the political philosophy, both new labour and Tory, that if we cannot make something at a competitive cost we should let low cost labour countries make it and concentrate on other stuff.
We are reaping what politicians have sewn since 1997.
It was definitely orthodoxy before 1997. I was taught in GCSE Geography that Britain is now a tertiary, services-based, economy. We sell each other stuff that it is more efficient and cost-effective to have manufactured elsewhere. I sat my GCSEs in 1994. So a bit inaccurate to say since 1997. 1979 might be more accurate.
Remains to be seen whether the whole Covid/Brexit thing brings industry and/or manufacturing back in any significant way. Doubt it personally.
I was taught that in A-level economics in 2000.
The people of roughly our generation are now running the Treasury and have repeatedly demonstrated they have neither the imagination nor the desire to keep up with changing circumstances.
I share your doubts...
I’m no economist, but I just can’t see how it would become economically worthwhile to bring this stuff back.
Politically it’s a lovely dream to sell. But despite the recent shocks to JIT supply chains and the like, I think the fundamentals will remain unchanged. We get stuff cheaper if it’s made in China. That might be ethically dodgy. And a strategic gamble. But the economics will probably override those concerns, as they have done for decades. We do like our stuff cheap.
We like our stuff cheap, but we also like to be able to buy it in the first place.
I still remember the comic look on faces at Douche Bank, when they realised, in 2014, what having development in St Petersburg and QA for software in Liviv meant.
Daddy had taken away the toys and it wasn't fair.
Mind you they still had a development unit in Russia this year. So Ha Ha.
There's a recession coming on the back of this which is going to add to the government's woes. Most manfacturing will be suffering parts and supply problems within weeks if they are not already. The Spring Statement's growth forecast looks seriously optimistic now.
Yes, I think so too. It is looking grim. I wonder if this will ease pressure on commodity prices.
There are some parts we are struggling to get now. Suppliers out there have declared force majeure on us.
Global supply chains, particularly JIT ones, are great while they work but covid has proven them to be brittle.
This will accelerate onshoring.
The last point is welcome. People go on about our dependency on Russian gas and oil all the time but I am much more concerned about our dependency on Chinese manufacturing.
We have moved a long way from the political philosophy, both new labour and Tory, that if we cannot make something at a competitive cost we should let low cost labour countries make it and concentrate on other stuff.
We are reaping what politicians have sewn since 1997.
It was definitely orthodoxy before 1997. I was taught in GCSE Geography that Britain is now a tertiary, services-based, economy. We sell each other stuff that it is more efficient and cost-effective to have manufactured elsewhere. I sat my GCSEs in 1994. So a bit inaccurate to say since 1997. 1979 might be more accurate.
Remains to be seen whether the whole Covid/Brexit thing brings industry and/or manufacturing back in any significant way. Doubt it personally.
I was taught that in A-level economics in 2000.
The people of roughly our generation are now running the Treasury and have repeatedly demonstrated they have neither the imagination nor the desire to keep up with changing circumstances.
I share your doubts...
I’m no economist, but I just can’t see how it would become economically worthwhile to bring this stuff back.
Politically it’s a lovely dream to sell. But despite the recent shocks to JIT supply chains and the like, I think the fundamentals will remain unchanged. We get stuff cheaper if it’s made in China. That might be ethically dodgy. And a strategic gamble. But the economics will probably override those concerns, as they have done for decades. We do like our stuff cheap.
We like our stuff cheap, but we also like to be able to buy it in the first place.
Perfect - the government gets to go up against liberal, metropolitan, out-of-touch judges and lefty human rights lawyers. If you are looking for a culture war, what is not to like?
Good morning
The proposals on the Rwanda asylum scheme are very controversial and the polling will be interesting
Labour and others will oppose but they do need a credible alternative and not just they will arrest the people smugglers as that is patently not working
The polling on this is indeed going to be very interesting.
I predict wildly different results, depending on exactly how the question is framed.
How about "Do you favour the government spending billions on a probably illegal, and very likely inefficient asylum scheme in order to distract from the PM breaking the law and wind up the libtards?"
Apparently some do. Big_G is already assuming it will work, and if it doesn't, it's the opposition's fault.
You are twisting my words
I am not assuming it will work and it is fair to ask opponents what would you do
"...I would assume it would have a dramatic effect on reducing those crossing and putting their lives at risk..."
The government wants a legal challenge to its Rwanda plan so it can lump opposition parties together with out-of-touch, elitist judges and lefty human rights lawyers. The cynicism and willingness to exploit human misery for political gain is sickening and entirely predictable.
Cynically upsetting human rights lawyers and provoking them into a reaction. How terrible of the government to exploit that for political gain!
How much public money is going to be spent achieving that provocation?
(You want to save money and stop the boat trade? Put the processing centre in Calais. Process them quickly- about 2/3 pass in the end. God knows we need the workers.
Not practical politics, but it would achieve the stated aims better.)
The processing centre in Calais would massively increase the number of applicants. For some reason they don’t want to stay in France…
Currently they don't want to stay in France.
If on arrival in the UK you end up in Rwanda staying in France may (will) quickly become the preferred option for anyone fitting the profile of those that end up at the Rwandan processing centre.
Presume Putin will be apoplectic at the loss of Moskva. For one thing, one of those bits of news it is difficult to keep quiet - with no "heroic" angle to play. Plus, if the Ukrainians can sink the flag ship of the fleet, they can sink anything. Every time there is a sighting of a drone, every vessel is going to battle stations in case it is another attack.
Russia may well slam a series of cruise missiles into Odessa, to assuage Putin's shame. But hard to imagine any seaborne invasion happening there now.
Presumably they'll have lost a fair few missiles and other warfighting material with the ship.
We know the Russians have accepted the ship had an incident; do we actually know if she is 'lost' yet?
Another question: one of the problems with Russia's aircraft carrier (the Admiral Kuznetsov) is that they have nowhere to drydock it for repairs - until (if) they finish the new one in Murmansk. Whilst the Moskva is much smaller, is there anywhere nearby the Moskva could be repaired if it has not sunk? Crimea? And if not, would the Turks allow it to transit the Bosporus?
If it still floats (big if) they could put it into Sevastapol.
The two other Slava class cruisers (Varyag and Ustinov) are in the Med so either or both of those could be moved into the Black Sea. Russia is identified as a Black Sea power in the Montreux Convention so there is no legal impediment to the other two cruisers transiting the Dardanelles or the Moskva transiting out into the Med (if capable).
Thanks.
It'll be interesting to discover what happened, if we ever do. If it was a single missile hit with a 150kg warhead, or even two, then they must have been 'lucky' hits to destroy the vessel. Either that or Russian fire-control procedures are poor.
It depends what state of material readiness the ship was in. It's not practical or possible to keep a ship at General Quarters/Action Stations/Condition Zebra 24 hours a day, every day.
Sheffield (about half the size of the Moskva but still big) was destroyed by a single 150kg warhead from an AM39 and was at a lower state of readiness. It might have survived if it were at Action Stations.
Looking at pictures of the thing I don't think they'd have had much of a chance anyway. It's literally stuffed to the gunwales with missiles - the design doesn't seem to have had survivability in mind.
Perfect - the government gets to go up against liberal, metropolitan, out-of-touch judges and lefty human rights lawyers. If you are looking for a culture war, what is not to like?
Good morning
The proposals on the Rwanda asylum scheme are very controversial and the polling will be interesting
Labour and others will oppose but they do need a credible alternative and not just they will arrest the people smugglers as that is patently not working
The polling on this is indeed going to be very interesting.
I predict wildly different results, depending on exactly how the question is framed.
How about "Do you favour the government spending billions on a probably illegal, and very likely inefficient asylum scheme in order to distract from the PM breaking the law and wind up the libtards?"
Apparently some do. Big_G is already assuming it will work, and if it doesn't, it's the opposition's fault.
You are twisting my words
I am not assuming it will work and it is fair to ask opponents what would you do
"...I would assume it would have a dramatic effect on reducing those crossing and putting their lives at risk..."
the only humane way
And to think you called me 24/7 crazy
You are.
Rwanda already is recognised as a safe and humane place for refugees to go for processing, they do it for multiple countries already including the United Nations.
As I said it is very regrettable it has come to this, but if you think its more humane to have regular dead bodies in the English Channel then that's not me being crazy - and if you think that there's another way to stop the drownings then I'd love to hear it, please give me your better solution.
There's a recession coming on the back of this which is going to add to the government's woes. Most manfacturing will be suffering parts and supply problems within weeks if they are not already. The Spring Statement's growth forecast looks seriously optimistic now.
Yes, I think so too. It is looking grim. I wonder if this will ease pressure on commodity prices.
There are some parts we are struggling to get now. Suppliers out there have declared force majeure on us.
Global supply chains, particularly JIT ones, are great while they work but covid has proven them to be brittle.
This will accelerate onshoring.
The last point is welcome. People go on about our dependency on Russian gas and oil all the time but I am much more concerned about our dependency on Chinese manufacturing.
We have moved a long way from the political philosophy, both new labour and Tory, that if we cannot make something at a competitive cost we should let low cost labour countries make it and concentrate on other stuff.
We are reaping what politicians have sewn since 1997.
It was definitely orthodoxy before 1997. I was taught in GCSE Geography that Britain is now a tertiary, services-based, economy. We sell each other stuff that it is more efficient and cost-effective to have manufactured elsewhere. I sat my GCSEs in 1994. So a bit inaccurate to say since 1997. 1979 might be more accurate.
Remains to be seen whether the whole Covid/Brexit thing brings industry and/or manufacturing back in any significant way. Doubt it personally.
I was taught that in A-level economics in 2000.
The people of roughly our generation are now running the Treasury and have repeatedly demonstrated they have neither the imagination nor the desire to keep up with changing circumstances.
I share your doubts...
I’m no economist, but I just can’t see how it would become economically worthwhile to bring this stuff back.
Politically it’s a lovely dream to sell. But despite the recent shocks to JIT supply chains and the like, I think the fundamentals will remain unchanged. We get stuff cheaper if it’s made in China. That might be ethically dodgy. And a strategic gamble. But the economics will probably override those concerns, as they have done for decades. We do like our stuff cheap.
We like our stuff cheap, but we also like to be able to buy it in the first place.
Interesting, thank you. He might be right. He’s certainly better informed than me!
I think these are temporary blips that will pass and normal service will be resumed, but I’m just some random schmuck off the internet…
I think the reality will be somewhere in the middle - there will be some reshoring, but probably not as much as has been predicted. Manufacturing in the West is going to be a lot more expensive than Asia for some time to come, but intercontinental JIT supply chains will be much more difficult for the next several years.
The political situation in China and Taiwan is the big one though, no-one will want to rely on a war not kicking off there, so we may see manufacturing moved around Asia, rather than being completelty re-shored to the West.
Perfect - the government gets to go up against liberal, metropolitan, out-of-touch judges and lefty human rights lawyers. If you are looking for a culture war, what is not to like?
Good morning
The proposals on the Rwanda asylum scheme are very controversial and the polling will be interesting
Labour and others will oppose but they do need a credible alternative and not just they will arrest the people smugglers as that is patently not working
The polling on this is indeed going to be very interesting.
I predict wildly different results, depending on exactly how the question is framed.
How about "Do you favour the government spending billions on a probably illegal, and very likely inefficient asylum scheme in order to distract from the PM breaking the law and wind up the libtards?"
Apparently some do. Big_G is already assuming it will work, and if it doesn't, it's the opposition's fault.
You are twisting my words
I am not assuming it will work and it is fair to ask opponents what would you do
"...I would assume it would have a dramatic effect on reducing those crossing and putting their lives at risk..."
It will. The system works for Australia, it is tried and proven and will save lives.
Its regrettable that its come to this, but it seems to me to be the only safe and humane way to stop the deadly crossings and stop the regular reports of people drowning in the English Channel. Nobody else has come up with another system that will do it.
There's a lot of illegals at work. The ones who come in undetected. The ones who claim asylum then do a bunk. Go after the employers of illegal labour. Remove the market for cheap labour and you remove the incentive to come here.
Remember that genuine asylum seekers get nothing. Housed in homes in demilitarised zones that nobody local will live in. Unable to work. Living off charity and low value vouchers that barely pays for food. No job. No welfare benefits. Held up for an indeterminate period in a system under-resourced and lacking interest.
Yes if you are fleeing death you are alive. But it is not life. The people pouring in aren't sitting in that system or coming here for that. They're coming to work illegally. If we stop that, we remove the incentive.
The government wants a legal challenge to its Rwanda plan so it can lump opposition parties together with out-of-touch, elitist judges and lefty human rights lawyers. The cynicism and willingness to exploit human misery for political gain is sickening and entirely predictable.
Cynically upsetting human rights lawyers and provoking them into a reaction. How terrible of the government to exploit that for political gain!
How much public money is going to be spent achieving that provocation?
(You want to save money and stop the boat trade? Put the processing centre in Calais. Process them quickly- about 2/3 pass in the end. God knows we need the workers.
Not practical politics, but it would achieve the stated aims better.)
The processing centre in Calais would massively increase the number of applicants. For some reason they don’t want to stay in France…
According to a number of international refugee groups, its is unacceptable for them to remain in France, since conditions there are so bad.
"Argentina thanks Russia for taking its record of the largest ship lost in war since WW2."
Their General approach has been to set records for the post-WWII period.
Sadly also including rape, murder, torture, theft, kidnapping and destruction.
This is starting to look more and more like Korea but on a larger scale.
By larger scale I presume you mean geography? I certainly hope not in terms of fatalities.
At the moment no. But the level of destruction suggests that it could creep up that way.
The complicating factor is that in Korea the Chinese got most of their men killed through Zhukov style mad offensives, which hasn’t happened here, but it’s starting to look even worse in terms of civilian massacres.
Perfect - the government gets to go up against liberal, metropolitan, out-of-touch judges and lefty human rights lawyers. If you are looking for a culture war, what is not to like?
Good morning
The proposals on the Rwanda asylum scheme are very controversial and the polling will be interesting
Labour and others will oppose but they do need a credible alternative and not just they will arrest the people smugglers as that is patently not working
The polling on this is indeed going to be very interesting.
I predict wildly different results, depending on exactly how the question is framed.
How about "Do you favour the government spending billions on a probably illegal, and very likely inefficient asylum scheme in order to distract from the PM breaking the law and wind up the libtards?"
Apparently some do. Big_G is already assuming it will work, and if it doesn't, it's the opposition's fault.
You are twisting my words
I am not assuming it will work and it is fair to ask opponents what would you do
"...I would assume it would have a dramatic effect on reducing those crossing and putting their lives at risk..."
It will. The system works for Australia, it is tried and proven and will save lives.
Its regrettable that its come to this, but it seems to me to be the only safe and humane way to stop the deadly crossings and stop the regular reports of people drowning in the English Channel. Nobody else has come up with another system that will do it.
So why not process them here and deport the unsuccessful ones to Rwanda.
Russia have just announced that if Sweden and Finland join NATO we will take measures in the Baltic
Sky saying threatening words ratcheting up tension
With what? If they decide to increase pressure in the north they’ll have to do it by moving units to the Finnish border which will hamper their efforts in Ukraine, surely?
And I don’t think even Bortnikov would be crazy enough to attempt piracy on the open seas. That would be a quick way of war with NATO and the best case scenario in that for Russia is that it’s a nuclear war and we’re all killed, because any other sort of war would inevitably see them beaten. So it doesn’t help them
Russia showing again that its leadership are mad and nasty as well as cruel and incompetent, but the mere fact that they are responding so aggressively and implausibly in terms of rhetoric suggests they’re completely taken aback and have no idea what to do.
Your last sentence sums up Russia completely
Putin's ego has backfired on him spectacularly, but at an appalling loss of innocent lives
The government wants a legal challenge to its Rwanda plan so it can lump opposition parties together with out-of-touch, elitist judges and lefty human rights lawyers. The cynicism and willingness to exploit human misery for political gain is sickening and entirely predictable.
Cynically upsetting human rights lawyers and provoking them into a reaction. How terrible of the government to exploit that for political gain!
How much public money is going to be spent achieving that provocation?
(You want to save money and stop the boat trade? Put the processing centre in Calais. Process them quickly- about 2/3 pass in the end. God knows we need the workers.
Not practical politics, but it would achieve the stated aims better.)
The processing centre in Calais would massively increase the number of applicants. For some reason they don’t want to stay in France…
Currently they don't want to stay in France.
If on arrival in the UK you end up in Rwanda staying in France may (will) quickly become the preferred option for anyone fitting the profile of those that end up at the Rwandan processing centre.
But just imagine, having to stay in France? The horror, the horror.....
And won't somebody think of the poor people smugglers? Who is going to support their families in the luxury to which they have grown accustomed?
Perfect - the government gets to go up against liberal, metropolitan, out-of-touch judges and lefty human rights lawyers. If you are looking for a culture war, what is not to like?
Good morning
The proposals on the Rwanda asylum scheme are very controversial and the polling will be interesting
Labour and others will oppose but they do need a credible alternative and not just they will arrest the people smugglers as that is patently not working
The polling on this is indeed going to be very interesting.
I predict wildly different results, depending on exactly how the question is framed.
How about "Do you favour the government spending billions on a probably illegal, and very likely inefficient asylum scheme in order to distract from the PM breaking the law and wind up the libtards?"
Apparently some do. Big_G is already assuming it will work, and if it doesn't, it's the opposition's fault.
You are twisting my words
I am not assuming it will work and it is fair to ask opponents what would you do
"...I would assume it would have a dramatic effect on reducing those crossing and putting their lives at risk..."
It will. The system works for Australia, it is tried and proven and will save lives.
Its regrettable that its come to this, but it seems to me to be the only safe and humane way to stop the deadly crossings and stop the regular reports of people drowning in the English Channel. Nobody else has come up with another system that will do it.
So why not process them here and deport the unsuccessful ones to Rwanda.
Because the processing system takes years and as Rochdale says people are coming to work illegally in that time. If they're in Rwanda they can't work cash-in-hand illegally here.
I think we all agree that there's a problem with migration although raising it now with Ukrainian refugees desperately seeking help is very odd timing.
So, yes, there's a problem. And it's also a valid question to pose of Labour although it should be done in a proper adult way and not, as at present, with febrile racist stirrings.
However, and it's a big however, despite all of those points despatching them to Rwanda is NOT the answer. It is, as my lifelong Conservative friend says, "totally appalling."
What on earth has happened to this Party? I've seen it happen before when John Major lurched to the right with his nasty party "Back to Basics" and Boris Johnson is now doing exactly the same, driven not by his own beliefs (he has none) but by the hard right in his party: the nutjobs who are out of touch with the kind of people who would put them back into power next time.
I'm afraid the Conservatives are merely adding to the number of years that they will be out of office.
It isn't just the party. The party are driven by the voters who vote for the party. And sadly there are an awful lot of people out there who dislike anyone who doesn't look like them and think like them. It isn't even race - how many people do we know who have major problems with their neighbours?
The Tories both prey on these petty prejudices but openly stoke them as a good source of votes. That is how you can get a huge white enclave like Teesside's Ingleby Barwick with hardly any non-white British residents where the locals are in fear of too many forrin. They can't see them. But they are told they are a threat.
Comedy Parmo Pisshead Matt Vickers is now their MP. He is celebrating the Rwanda plan. Very important to the Tory voting white fear folk in Ingleby and Yarm and Hartburn and Easglescliffe. They don't want their country full of these people even if where they live isn't. Or that racist cretin MP saying Lincolnshire was full.
Perfect - the government gets to go up against liberal, metropolitan, out-of-touch judges and lefty human rights lawyers. If you are looking for a culture war, what is not to like?
Good morning
The proposals on the Rwanda asylum scheme are very controversial and the polling will be interesting
Labour and others will oppose but they do need a credible alternative and not just they will arrest the people smugglers as that is patently not working
The polling on this is indeed going to be very interesting.
I predict wildly different results, depending on exactly how the question is framed.
How about "Do you favour the government spending billions on a probably illegal, and very likely inefficient asylum scheme in order to distract from the PM breaking the law and wind up the libtards?"
Apparently some do. Big_G is already assuming it will work, and if it doesn't, it's the opposition's fault.
You are twisting my words
I am not assuming it will work and it is fair to ask opponents what would you do
"...I would assume it would have a dramatic effect on reducing those crossing and putting their lives at risk..."
It will. The system works for Australia, it is tried and proven and will save lives.
Its regrettable that its come to this, but it seems to me to be the only safe and humane way to stop the deadly crossings and stop the regular reports of people drowning in the English Channel. Nobody else has come up with another system that will do it.
There's a lot of illegals at work. The ones who come in undetected. The ones who claim asylum then do a bunk. Go after the employers of illegal labour. Remove the market for cheap labour and you remove the incentive to come here.
Remember that genuine asylum seekers get nothing. Housed in homes in demilitarised zones that nobody local will live in. Unable to work. Living off charity and low value vouchers that barely pays for food. No job. No welfare benefits. Held up for an indeterminate period in a system under-resourced and lacking interest.
Yes if you are fleeing death you are alive. But it is not life. The people pouring in aren't sitting in that system or coming here for that. They're coming to work illegally. If we stop that, we remove the incentive.
You would have thought given the existing size of fines for using illegal workers that this problem would already be solved but it hasn't been.
So I'm actually at a loss as to what else you could do to resolve the issue beyond having more people checking work status and an actual ID card to make those checks simple.
"Argentina thanks Russia for taking its record of the largest ship lost in war since WW2."
Their General approach has been to set records for the post-WWII period.
Sadly also including rape, murder, torture, theft, kidnapping and destruction.
This is starting to look more and more like Korea but on a larger scale.
By larger scale I presume you mean geography? I certainly hope not in terms of fatalities.
At the moment no. But the level of destruction suggests that it could creep up that way.
The complicating factor is that in Korea the Chinese got most of their men killed through Zhukov style mad offensives, which hasn’t happened here, but it’s starting to look even worse in terms of civilian massacres.
That conflict lasted 3 years. I'm hoping this one will not. If Putin is mad enough to go for full mobilisation there needs to be a full oil and gas suspension in Europe. The current lack of action on hydrocarbons is defensible on the basis that the Ukrainians have weapons to defend themselves and at some point the war becomes exhausted.
"Argentina thanks Russia for taking its record of the largest ship lost in war since WW2."
I'm not sure jesting about the Belgrano is appropriate.
Another blight on British history I'm afraid.
Next Monday is the 40th anniversary
People shouldn't start wars if they can't take a joke
People who start wars accept that at the very least there is a high risk their ‘military assets’ will get used up (I.e. that lots of people will be killed and equipment destroyed).
If they don’t realise that, they should be sectioned. That may in fairness be true of Putin and Galtieri.
The Belgrano was a belligerent warship sailing near, not in, a war zone. While the deaths of more than 300 men is not great news, contra the Sun, it was a fair enough target as I believe the captain of the Belgrano himself says.
All of that is a very good argument for finding a way to resolve our differences other than war. Even more unfortunately that will only work when everybody feels the same way.
Perfect - the government gets to go up against liberal, metropolitan, out-of-touch judges and lefty human rights lawyers. If you are looking for a culture war, what is not to like?
Good morning
The proposals on the Rwanda asylum scheme are very controversial and the polling will be interesting
Labour and others will oppose but they do need a credible alternative and not just they will arrest the people smugglers as that is patently not working
The polling on this is indeed going to be very interesting.
I predict wildly different results, depending on exactly how the question is framed.
How about "Do you favour the government spending billions on a probably illegal, and very likely inefficient asylum scheme in order to distract from the PM breaking the law and wind up the libtards?"
Apparently some do. Big_G is already assuming it will work, and if it doesn't, it's the opposition's fault.
You are twisting my words
I am not assuming it will work and it is fair to ask opponents what would you do
"...I would assume it would have a dramatic effect on reducing those crossing and putting their lives at risk..."
It will. The system works for Australia, it is tried and proven and will save lives.
Its regrettable that its come to this, but it seems to me to be the only safe and humane way to stop the deadly crossings and stop the regular reports of people drowning in the English Channel. Nobody else has come up with another system that will do it.
So why not process them here and deport the unsuccessful ones to Rwanda.
Because the processing system takes years and as Rochdale says people are coming to work illegally in that time. If they're in Rwanda they can't work cash-in-hand illegally here.
That is contradictory on so many levels: 1. In Rwanda supposedly they will be held in a camp. So why not just do that here? If the asylum seeker is in an open prison environment they can't go out and work. So we could keep them here. 2. If the process takes years, add resource. For a fraction of the cost the Home Office could hire aggressive young lawyers and have immigration courts running 24/7. Strict criteria, show us your papers and the proof, if you can't you're getting deported. So we could process them here 3. They work cash in hand. Great - so go after these companies illegally employing them. Stop the trade in cash in hand indentured workers by prosecuting the people breaking the law. So we could stop that too - would need more police and more lawyers.
The simple truth is this. The Tories don't want to pay for solutions to stop this. Illegal labour is of too high a value for certain parts of the economy which they like. But their voters hate it. So you can't spend actual money. So make a big announcement, have a few staged battles with human rights types and voters think you are on their side.
That the Rwanda thing won't happen and would cost an absolute fortune if it did doesn't matter. This isn't a solution. Its just a headline. Meanwhile illegals keep coming here, keep making people rich, and the donations and votes keep pouring in.
"Argentina thanks Russia for taking its record of the largest ship lost in war since WW2."
Their General approach has been to set records for the post-WWII period.
Sadly also including rape, murder, torture, theft, kidnapping and destruction.
This is starting to look more and more like Korea but on a larger scale.
By larger scale I presume you mean geography? I certainly hope not in terms of fatalities.
At the moment no. But the level of destruction suggests that it could creep up that way.
The complicating factor is that in Korea the Chinese got most of their men killed through Zhukov style mad offensives, which hasn’t happened here, but it’s starting to look even worse in terms of civilian massacres.
China had little choice over such tactics in the Korean War though, since they had so little modern equipment. And Mao got what he wanted, which was Russian arms and technology. As was very clear from his future actions, the death of millions meant nothing to him, and the war secured his regime. This conflict could well have the opposite effect.
The Rwanda processing centre is the first good idea the government has had in ages. Completely smashes the pull factor for economic migrants trying to cross the channel but still provides a safe country for legitimate asylum seekers to await their case to be processed.
Anyone who is unwilling to even contemplate that overseas processing will reduce deaths in the channel is part of the problem. The people smuggler's useful idiot. Same as those charity boats doing rescues off the coast of Italy. Just enriching people smugglers.
"Argentina thanks Russia for taking its record of the largest ship lost in war since WW2."
Their General approach has been to set records for the post-WWII period.
Sadly also including rape, murder, torture, theft, kidnapping and destruction.
This is starting to look more and more like Korea but on a larger scale.
By larger scale I presume you mean geography? I certainly hope not in terms of fatalities.
At the moment no. But the level of destruction suggests that it could creep up that way.
The complicating factor is that in Korea the Chinese got most of their men killed through Zhukov style mad offensives, which hasn’t happened here, but it’s starting to look even worse in terms of civilian massacres.
That conflict lasted 3 years. I'm hoping this one will not. If Putin is mad enough to go for full mobilisation there needs to be a full oil and gas suspension in Europe. The current lack of action on hydrocarbons is defensible on the basis that the Ukrainians have weapons to defend themselves and at some point the war becomes exhausted.
Ukraine has already performed truly Herculean feats against the Russian army, at terrible cost to itself, but as Dura Ace has pointed out, sustaining that is going to get more and more difficult from hereon in. Their realistic chance of preventing further Russian atrocities is through negotiating a ceasefire, but despite them already making major concessions Putin has ruled that out.
If we see the Russians advancing further from the east we are going to see the unimaginable horrors of Bucha repeated across a country of 30 million people. At that point 2-3 million dead looks if anything optimistic.
Sorry for that grim analysis. Please pick holes in it if you can because I really hope it’s wrong.
Perfect - the government gets to go up against liberal, metropolitan, out-of-touch judges and lefty human rights lawyers. If you are looking for a culture war, what is not to like?
Good morning
The proposals on the Rwanda asylum scheme are very controversial and the polling will be interesting
Labour and others will oppose but they do need a credible alternative and not just they will arrest the people smugglers as that is patently not working
The polling on this is indeed going to be very interesting.
I predict wildly different results, depending on exactly how the question is framed.
How about "Do you favour the government spending billions on a probably illegal, and very likely inefficient asylum scheme in order to distract from the PM breaking the law and wind up the libtards?"
Apparently some do. Big_G is already assuming it will work, and if it doesn't, it's the opposition's fault.
You are twisting my words
I am not assuming it will work and it is fair to ask opponents what would you do
"...I would assume it would have a dramatic effect on reducing those crossing and putting their lives at risk..."
It will. The system works for Australia, it is tried and proven and will save lives.
Its regrettable that its come to this, but it seems to me to be the only safe and humane way to stop the deadly crossings and stop the regular reports of people drowning in the English Channel. Nobody else has come up with another system that will do it.
There's a lot of illegals at work. The ones who come in undetected. The ones who claim asylum then do a bunk. Go after the employers of illegal labour. Remove the market for cheap labour and you remove the incentive to come here.
Remember that genuine asylum seekers get nothing. Housed in homes in demilitarised zones that nobody local will live in. Unable to work. Living off charity and low value vouchers that barely pays for food. No job. No welfare benefits. Held up for an indeterminate period in a system under-resourced and lacking interest.
Yes if you are fleeing death you are alive. But it is not life. The people pouring in aren't sitting in that system or coming here for that. They're coming to work illegally. If we stop that, we remove the incentive.
You would have thought given the existing size of fines for using illegal workers that this problem would already be solved but it hasn't been.
So I'm actually at a loss as to what else you could do to resolve the issue beyond having more people checking work status and an actual ID card to make those checks simple.
We have so few police as it it that they can't look after neighbourhoods and stop crime. We have eviscerated the legal system so that bringing people to trial takes a long time. We say "take back control of our borders" then cut the funding to the Border Force.
So people can employ illegals with impunity knowing they probably won't be caught. A big fine that doesn't get imposed on people who don't get caught is not a deterrent.
It would be far cheaper to fund these services and go after criminals than it would be to do he Rwanda gulag. But Tory voters don't want to spend money on these people. So we don't. And don't worry, we won't spend the money on them in Rwanda either,
"Argentina thanks Russia for taking its record of the largest ship lost in war since WW2."
I'm not sure jesting about the Belgrano is appropriate.
Another blight on British history I'm afraid.
Next Monday is the 40th anniversary
People shouldn't start wars if they can't take a joke
People who start wars accept that at the very least there is a high risk their ‘military assets’ will get used up (I.e. that lots of people will be killed and equipment destroyed).
If they don’t realise that, they should be sectioned. That may in fairness be true of Putin and Galtieri.
The Belgrano was a belligerent warship sailing near, not in, a war zone. While the deaths of more than 300 men is not great news, contra the Sun, it was a fair enough target as I believe the captain of the Belgrano himself says.
All of that is a very good argument for finding a way to resolve our differences other than war. Even more unfortunately that will only work when everybody feels the same way.
ISTR something about an American visiting Churchill who was shocked at his impassive reaction to the loss of a warship. Churchill replied that it was what the ships were there for.
Just had a conversation with a Conservative friend. She's a lifelong tory voter and up until recently she has loved (even adored) Boris. Her comment about sending migrants to Rwanda?
"Totally appalling"
Pb tories, no this isn't trolling. So stick your fingers in your ears if you like but this is a bona fide.
It's a terrible mistake to lurch to the far right or far left to appease your supposed 'core' vote and neglect the middle. 2019 only worked because of the Brexit dithering and because Labour had an unelectable anti-semitic Trotskyite leader.
The Conservatives are heading for a drubbing.
A "life-long Tory voter" you say? But she is a namby pamby wishy washy yoghurt knitting wet. So as HY assures us she may have voted Tory all her life but she isn't a Tory, never was a Tory and her vote isn't needed.
Nice one.
Funny thing is, I actually think she's quite xenophobic. She's very very patriotic, pro-monarchy, always supports Brits etc. So for her to say to me just now that this is "totally appalling" is very telling imho.
In other words, she may be patriotic but she's not an inhumane bastard.
I know quite a few Conservatives like that. They aren't very interested in politics and normally vote for the party because they think they stand for stability, enabling them to get on with decent private lives, looking after neighbours and being nice to anyone they meet. When their attention is drawn to someone being treated nastily, they are often more horrified than those of us who deal with politics all the time and have become used to seeing unfairness to vulernable groups.
I understand the wish to avoid politics in our difficult world, although I think it's better to get stuck in and try to help make it less difficult. In the end, anyway, to quote Pericles' slightly menacing-sounding phrase, "Just because you are not interested in politics does not mean that politics is not interested in you".
There's an exposition on this by a conservative writer here (I don't agree with his approach but it's interesting):
Just had a conversation with a Conservative friend. She's a lifelong tory voter and up until recently she has loved (even adored) Boris. Her comment about sending migrants to Rwanda?
"Totally appalling"
Pb tories, no this isn't trolling. So stick your fingers in your ears if you like but this is a bona fide.
It's a terrible mistake to lurch to the far right or far left to appease your supposed 'core' vote and neglect the middle. 2019 only worked because of the Brexit dithering and because Labour had an unelectable anti-semitic Trotskyite leader.
The Conservatives are heading for a drubbing.
It’s more basic than that. It’s a patronising attempt to pander to what the Tories think are the priorities of the Red Wall. “Forget cost of living everyone! You might not be able to afford heating but at least we’re sending some people with the wrong shade of skin colour to somewhere in Africa!” A risible attempt to manufacture a dead cat. If Starmer has any sense he’ll rise above it and focus on the economic catastrophe around the corner, deal with this in office.
"Argentina thanks Russia for taking its record of the largest ship lost in war since WW2."
I'm not sure jesting about the Belgrano is appropriate.
Another blight on British history I'm afraid.
Rubbish. It was a war. The Argentinians had no qualms in sinking our ships, and ae should not have any qualms about sinking theirs. If the Argentinian pincer movement had been completed, do you think the Belgrano would have hesitated before sinking British ships?
Even the Belgrano's captain has said it was a legitimate target.
So it was not a 'blight' on British history, was it?
Perfect - the government gets to go up against liberal, metropolitan, out-of-touch judges and lefty human rights lawyers. If you are looking for a culture war, what is not to like?
Good morning
The proposals on the Rwanda asylum scheme are very controversial and the polling will be interesting
Labour and others will oppose but they do need a credible alternative and not just they will arrest the people smugglers as that is patently not working
The polling on this is indeed going to be very interesting.
I predict wildly different results, depending on exactly how the question is framed.
How about "Do you favour the government spending billions on a probably illegal, and very likely inefficient asylum scheme in order to distract from the PM breaking the law and wind up the libtards?"
Apparently some do. Big_G is already assuming it will work, and if it doesn't, it's the opposition's fault.
You are twisting my words
I am not assuming it will work and it is fair to ask opponents what would you do
"...I would assume it would have a dramatic effect on reducing those crossing and putting their lives at risk..."
It will. The system works for Australia, it is tried and proven and will save lives.
Its regrettable that its come to this, but it seems to me to be the only safe and humane way to stop the deadly crossings and stop the regular reports of people drowning in the English Channel. Nobody else has come up with another system that will do it.
So why not process them here and deport the unsuccessful ones to Rwanda.
Because the processing system takes years and as Rochdale says people are coming to work illegally in that time. If they're in Rwanda they can't work cash-in-hand illegally here.
That is contradictory on so many levels: 1. In Rwanda supposedly they will be held in a camp. So why not just do that here? If the asylum seeker is in an open prison environment they can't go out and work. So we could keep them here. 2. If the process takes years, add resource. For a fraction of the cost the Home Office could hire aggressive young lawyers and have immigration courts running 24/7. Strict criteria, show us your papers and the proof, if you can't you're getting deported. So we could process them here 3. They work cash in hand. Great - so go after these companies illegally employing them. Stop the trade in cash in hand indentured workers by prosecuting the people breaking the law. So we could stop that too - would need more police and more lawyers.
Because exactly the same people who are pissing and moaning about this would piss and moan about that.
Perfect - the government gets to go up against liberal, metropolitan, out-of-touch judges and lefty human rights lawyers. If you are looking for a culture war, what is not to like?
Good morning
The proposals on the Rwanda asylum scheme are very controversial and the polling will be interesting
Labour and others will oppose but they do need a credible alternative and not just they will arrest the people smugglers as that is patently not working
The polling on this is indeed going to be very interesting.
I predict wildly different results, depending on exactly how the question is framed.
How about "Do you favour the government spending billions on a probably illegal, and very likely inefficient asylum scheme in order to distract from the PM breaking the law and wind up the libtards?"
Apparently some do. Big_G is already assuming it will work, and if it doesn't, it's the opposition's fault.
You are twisting my words
I am not assuming it will work and it is fair to ask opponents what would you do
"...I would assume it would have a dramatic effect on reducing those crossing and putting their lives at risk..."
It will. The system works for Australia, it is tried and proven and will save lives.
Its regrettable that its come to this, but it seems to me to be the only safe and humane way to stop the deadly crossings and stop the regular reports of people drowning in the English Channel. Nobody else has come up with another system that will do it.
There's a lot of illegals at work. The ones who come in undetected. The ones who claim asylum then do a bunk. Go after the employers of illegal labour. Remove the market for cheap labour and you remove the incentive to come here.
Remember that genuine asylum seekers get nothing. Housed in homes in demilitarised zones that nobody local will live in. Unable to work. Living off charity and low value vouchers that barely pays for food. No job. No welfare benefits. Held up for an indeterminate period in a system under-resourced and lacking interest.
Yes if you are fleeing death you are alive. But it is not life. The people pouring in aren't sitting in that system or coming here for that. They're coming to work illegally. If we stop that, we remove the incentive.
You would have thought given the existing size of fines for using illegal workers that this problem would already be solved but it hasn't been.
So I'm actually at a loss as to what else you could do to resolve the issue beyond having more people checking work status and an actual ID card to make those checks simple.
We have so few police as it it that they can't look after neighbourhoods and stop crime. We have eviscerated the legal system so that bringing people to trial takes a long time. We say "take back control of our borders" then cut the funding to the Border Force.
So people can employ illegals with impunity knowing they probably won't be caught. A big fine that doesn't get imposed on people who don't get caught is not a deterrent.
It would be far cheaper to fund these services and go after criminals than it would be to do he Rwanda gulag. But Tory voters don't want to spend money on these people. So we don't. And don't worry, we won't spend the money on them in Rwanda either,
Since you know exactly everything about this initiative including detailed costings, please share them with the rest of us. I'm very interested to know as well.
"Argentina thanks Russia for taking its record of the largest ship lost in war since WW2."
I'm not sure jesting about the Belgrano is appropriate.
Another blight on British history I'm afraid.
Sorry I cannot agree with that. Argentina chose to invade another countries territory. At that point their ships, their planes, their troops became fair game.
See Russian troops today.
Awful for those who were killed and their relatives. Grunts don't decide to go to war, politcal leaders do. But why should the Belgrano be less a target in WAR than any British ships targeted by Argentians?
English County Cricket season starts today, Yorkshire have a gentle opener against minor county south west. Toss don’t matter, both options lead to a 3 day win and back home for lamb roast for the boys. Harry Brook Englands number 1 Batsman. Go Harry!
Heathener’s guard slipping a little this morning with such a crippling military blow to Russia. My favourite bit about their account is when they throw their toys out the pram at someone and say they’re marching off for the day on their moral high horse. And then their account carries on posting anyway. Like a wrestler embarrassed at being slapped for real, tagging in their partner.
O/t, but a message for Big G. Does it make you feel old as well, reading people's recollections of doing A levels in the 90's and afterwards?
People who did A-Levels in 1990 are about 50 this year!
My eldest is 57 his sister 51 and their brother is 47 so yes
My eldest is 59 his sister would have been 58 and their brother is 54. Eldest is looking forward to his retirement planning coming to fruition, although as he still has two children in education it's not quite as planned. On the other hand, eldest grandchild is 33 soon.
"Argentina thanks Russia for taking its record of the largest ship lost in war since WW2."
I'm not sure jesting about the Belgrano is appropriate.
Another blight on British history I'm afraid.
Next Monday is the 40th anniversary
People shouldn't start wars if they can't take a joke
People who start wars accept that at the very least there is a high risk their ‘military assets’ will get used up (I.e. that lots of people will be killed and equipment destroyed).
If they don’t realise that, they should be sectioned. That may in fairness be true of Putin and Galtieri.
The Belgrano was a belligerent warship sailing near, not in, a war zone. While the deaths of more than 300 men is not great news, contra the Sun, it was a fair enough target as I believe the captain of the Belgrano himself says.
All of that is a very good argument for finding a way to resolve our differences other than war. Even more unfortunately that will only work when everybody feels the same way.
ISTR something about an American visiting Churchill who was shocked at his impassive reaction to the loss of a warship. Churchill replied that it was what the ships were there for.
HMS Hood, IIRC.
Perhaps different times. Of 8 L class destroyers, 6 were lost in battle. It was considered that this was evidence of their success - they were heavily used, and destroyers were literally considered expendable, like ammunition.
On the Belgran - the Captain said he had orders to attack the UK task force. The Admiral in charge of the Argentine Navy said that he had given orders to the Belgrano to participate in such an attack. The NSA decrypts of the orders need up on Wikileaks - so we know they were being read in London.
The Belgran and her escorts had orders to sink on sight any other British ships they encountered, such as submarines. They were engaging in pre-emptive anti-submarine warfare - attacking any vague contact they got - in the shallow waters near the Falklands they were getting lots of false contacts. Probably killed some whales as well.
Perfect - the government gets to go up against liberal, metropolitan, out-of-touch judges and lefty human rights lawyers. If you are looking for a culture war, what is not to like?
Good morning
The proposals on the Rwanda asylum scheme are very controversial and the polling will be interesting
Labour and others will oppose but they do need a credible alternative and not just they will arrest the people smugglers as that is patently not working
The polling on this is indeed going to be very interesting.
I predict wildly different results, depending on exactly how the question is framed.
How about "Do you favour the government spending billions on a probably illegal, and very likely inefficient asylum scheme in order to distract from the PM breaking the law and wind up the libtards?"
Apparently some do. Big_G is already assuming it will work, and if it doesn't, it's the opposition's fault.
You are twisting my words
I am not assuming it will work and it is fair to ask opponents what would you do
"...I would assume it would have a dramatic effect on reducing those crossing and putting their lives at risk..."
It will. The system works for Australia, it is tried and proven and will save lives.
Its regrettable that its come to this, but it seems to me to be the only safe and humane way to stop the deadly crossings and stop the regular reports of people drowning in the English Channel. Nobody else has come up with another system that will do it.
So why not process them here and deport the unsuccessful ones to Rwanda.
Because the processing system takes years and as Rochdale says people are coming to work illegally in that time. If they're in Rwanda they can't work cash-in-hand illegally here.
Illogical. We can process them here then deport them. What's the difference where they are processed. We have secure processing centres here.
Catch/intercept them process them deport them.
Or are you talking about the unknown unknown ones we don't catch in which case the whole effort is moot.
O/t, but a message for Big G. Does it make you feel old as well, reading people's recollections of doing A levels in the 90's and afterwards?
People who did A-Levels in 1990 are about 50 this year!
My eldest is 57 his sister 51 and their brother is 47 so yes
My eldest is 59 his sister would have been 58 and their brother is 54. Eldest is looking forward to his retirement planning coming to fruition, although as he still has two children in education it's not quite as planned. On the other hand, eldest grandchild is 33 soon.
My eldest did not have children and my daughters daughter is 19, being the eldest of our grandchildren which is due to expand by one in September
Re, my post below there are actually a lot of tory voters who are decent people. They are being driven away from this latest Boris' brand of Conservatism in their droves.
The Conservative party became UKIP a few year ago. The old Conservative party either left or died.
In 2019 if it had not united the Leave vote behind it then we could now have PM Corbyn as the Brexit Party would still have split the right of centre vote
I really, really don't believe that would have been the disaster we have now.
English County Cricket season starts today, Yorkshire have a gentle opener against minor county south west. Toss don’t matter, both options lead to a 3 day win and back home for lamb roast for the boys. Harry Brook Englands number 1 Batsman. Go Harry!
That’s optimistic. Unless Harris and Dent both get big hundreds batting first no way will Gloucestershire win in three days even against a minor county of bankrupt racists.
Perfect - the government gets to go up against liberal, metropolitan, out-of-touch judges and lefty human rights lawyers. If you are looking for a culture war, what is not to like?
Good morning
The proposals on the Rwanda asylum scheme are very controversial and the polling will be interesting
Labour and others will oppose but they do need a credible alternative and not just they will arrest the people smugglers as that is patently not working
The polling on this is indeed going to be very interesting.
I predict wildly different results, depending on exactly how the question is framed.
How about "Do you favour the government spending billions on a probably illegal, and very likely inefficient asylum scheme in order to distract from the PM breaking the law and wind up the libtards?"
Apparently some do. Big_G is already assuming it will work, and if it doesn't, it's the opposition's fault.
You are twisting my words
I am not assuming it will work and it is fair to ask opponents what would you do
"...I would assume it would have a dramatic effect on reducing those crossing and putting their lives at risk..."
It will. The system works for Australia, it is tried and proven and will save lives.
Its regrettable that its come to this, but it seems to me to be the only safe and humane way to stop the deadly crossings and stop the regular reports of people drowning in the English Channel. Nobody else has come up with another system that will do it.
There's a lot of illegals at work. The ones who come in undetected. The ones who claim asylum then do a bunk. Go after the employers of illegal labour. Remove the market for cheap labour and you remove the incentive to come here.
Remember that genuine asylum seekers get nothing. Housed in homes in demilitarised zones that nobody local will live in. Unable to work. Living off charity and low value vouchers that barely pays for food. No job. No welfare benefits. Held up for an indeterminate period in a system under-resourced and lacking interest.
Yes if you are fleeing death you are alive. But it is not life. The people pouring in aren't sitting in that system or coming here for that. They're coming to work illegally. If we stop that, we remove the incentive.
You would have thought given the existing size of fines for using illegal workers that this problem would already be solved but it hasn't been.
So I'm actually at a loss as to what else you could do to resolve the issue beyond having more people checking work status and an actual ID card to make those checks simple.
We have so few police as it it that they can't look after neighbourhoods and stop crime. We have eviscerated the legal system so that bringing people to trial takes a long time. We say "take back control of our borders" then cut the funding to the Border Force.
So people can employ illegals with impunity knowing they probably won't be caught. A big fine that doesn't get imposed on people who don't get caught is not a deterrent.
It would be far cheaper to fund these services and go after criminals than it would be to do he Rwanda gulag. But Tory voters don't want to spend money on these people. So we don't. And don't worry, we won't spend the money on them in Rwanda either,
The details of the policy and implementing are irrelevant. It exists solely to try to make the Labour party say they are against it and hence wedge them.
You can see how it would work because being shipped off to R-fucking-wanda is a pretty hefty deterrent to coming to the UK in the first place. They'll get Serco or Capita to run a concentration camp (half rations for troublemakers like the Boer War) at an airport in the middle of nowhere (Manston?). The refugees will be stacked there until a super cheap charter flight to Kigali for a few hundred at a time can be organised.
Reports of massive explosions at the Russian-held Chernobaevka airfield in Kherson. Suggestions the ammo dump went up. There are also prior images of many dug-in pieces of Russian hardware there.
Perfect - the government gets to go up against liberal, metropolitan, out-of-touch judges and lefty human rights lawyers. If you are looking for a culture war, what is not to like?
Good morning
The proposals on the Rwanda asylum scheme are very controversial and the polling will be interesting
Labour and others will oppose but they do need a credible alternative and not just they will arrest the people smugglers as that is patently not working
The polling on this is indeed going to be very interesting.
I predict wildly different results, depending on exactly how the question is framed.
How about "Do you favour the government spending billions on a probably illegal, and very likely inefficient asylum scheme in order to distract from the PM breaking the law and wind up the libtards?"
Apparently some do. Big_G is already assuming it will work, and if it doesn't, it's the opposition's fault.
You are twisting my words
I am not assuming it will work and it is fair to ask opponents what would you do
"...I would assume it would have a dramatic effect on reducing those crossing and putting their lives at risk..."
It will. The system works for Australia, it is tried and proven and will save lives.
Its regrettable that its come to this, but it seems to me to be the only safe and humane way to stop the deadly crossings and stop the regular reports of people drowning in the English Channel. Nobody else has come up with another system that will do it.
So why not process them here and deport the unsuccessful ones to Rwanda.
Because the processing system takes years and as Rochdale says people are coming to work illegally in that time. If they're in Rwanda they can't work cash-in-hand illegally here.
That is contradictory on so many levels: 1. In Rwanda supposedly they will be held in a camp. So why not just do that here? If the asylum seeker is in an open prison environment they can't go out and work. So we could keep them here. 2. If the process takes years, add resource. For a fraction of the cost the Home Office could hire aggressive young lawyers and have immigration courts running 24/7. Strict criteria, show us your papers and the proof, if you can't you're getting deported. So we could process them here 3. They work cash in hand. Great - so go after these companies illegally employing them. Stop the trade in cash in hand indentured workers by prosecuting the people breaking the law. So we could stop that too - would need more police and more lawyers.
The simple truth is this. The Tories don't want to pay for solutions to stop this. Illegal labour is of too high a value for certain parts of the economy which they like. But their voters hate it. So you can't spend actual money. So make a big announcement, have a few staged battles with human rights types and voters think you are on their side.
That the Rwanda thing won't happen and would cost an absolute fortune if it did doesn't matter. This isn't a solution. Its just a headline. Meanwhile illegals keep coming here, keep making people rich, and the donations and votes keep pouring in.
1. I don't believe this is true. I believe they'll be free to live and move about and not be detained within a camp. What you're proposing is imprisonment, do you really think that's more humane? 2. The legal system and appeals etc are always going to be gummed up, deliberately by some groups. 3. And governments of all colours have been trying this for decades, that is what Labour introduced calling it the "hostile environment" if you can remember that term?
So your "contradictions" are falsehoods and things that have been tried for years. Nothing original or new?
The Rwanda processing centre is the first good idea the government has had in ages. Completely smashes the pull factor for economic migrants trying to cross the channel but still provides a safe country for legitimate asylum seekers to await their case to be processed.
Anyone who is unwilling to even contemplate that overseas processing will reduce deaths in the channel is part of the problem. The people smuggler's useful idiot. Same as those charity boats doing rescues off the coast of Italy. Just enriching people smugglers.
Not so sure. A really forward thinking government would be setting up an arrangement like this -
Apparently, they even sell the labour of the detainees to the local farmers. Auction it at a local market on a daily basis.
It's not Godwin's law, but it's the next thing to it.
That this policy is irritating all of these "right minded" people means it's a winner. They're so vocally annoyed because the policy will work and the channel migrant problem will be solved, finally.
What economic migrant is going to bother spending their life's earnings making a risky channel crossing only to get picked up by the RN and then flown to Rwanda for a few months only to get sent home?
Labour will quietly protest it's introduction, then once it's proven to work also very quietly keep it open if they manage to win the next election. That's exactly what happened in Australia.
English County Cricket season starts today, Yorkshire have a gentle opener against minor county south west. Toss don’t matter, both options lead to a 3 day win and back home for lamb roast for the boys. Harry Brook Englands number 1 Batsman. Go Harry!
Odd - I seem to recall Hampshire thrashing Somerset last week in the County Championship. Must have been dreaming...
English County Cricket season starts today, Yorkshire have a gentle opener against minor county south west. Toss don’t matter, both options lead to a 3 day win and back home for lamb roast for the boys. Harry Brook Englands number 1 Batsman. Go Harry!
That’s optimistic. Unless Harris and Dent both get big hundreds batting first no way will Gloucestershire win in three days even against a minor county of bankrupt racists.
We've had one game already. Essex and Kent 'fought' out a draw. Massive scores, but few wickets.
Perfect - the government gets to go up against liberal, metropolitan, out-of-touch judges and lefty human rights lawyers. If you are looking for a culture war, what is not to like?
Good morning
The proposals on the Rwanda asylum scheme are very controversial and the polling will be interesting
Labour and others will oppose but they do need a credible alternative and not just they will arrest the people smugglers as that is patently not working
The polling on this is indeed going to be very interesting.
I predict wildly different results, depending on exactly how the question is framed.
How about "Do you favour the government spending billions on a probably illegal, and very likely inefficient asylum scheme in order to distract from the PM breaking the law and wind up the libtards?"
Apparently some do. Big_G is already assuming it will work, and if it doesn't, it's the opposition's fault.
You are twisting my words
I am not assuming it will work and it is fair to ask opponents what would you do
"...I would assume it would have a dramatic effect on reducing those crossing and putting their lives at risk..."
It will. The system works for Australia, it is tried and proven and will save lives.
Its regrettable that its come to this, but it seems to me to be the only safe and humane way to stop the deadly crossings and stop the regular reports of people drowning in the English Channel. Nobody else has come up with another system that will do it.
So why not process them here and deport the unsuccessful ones to Rwanda.
Because the processing system takes years and as Rochdale says people are coming to work illegally in that time. If they're in Rwanda they can't work cash-in-hand illegally here.
Illogical. We can process them here then deport them. What's the difference where they are processed. We have secure processing centres here.
Catch/intercept them process them deport them.
Or are you talking about the unknown unknown ones we don't catch in which case the whole effort is moot.
I've already said what the difference is. The difference is people aren't imprisoned and nor should they be, they're in a home and free to be on the streets which means they're free to work cash-in-hand illegally.
We don't have "secure processing centres" here, what you're talking about is imprisonment and that quite rightly is not how we treat people nor should it be. Nor is it how they'll be treated there. Imprisoning people would be even less humane.
So long as people aren't going to be incarcerated, where they live absolutely makes a big difference.
The Rwanda processing centre is the first good idea the government has had in ages. Completely smashes the pull factor for economic migrants trying to cross the channel but still provides a safe country for legitimate asylum seekers to await their case to be processed.
Anyone who is unwilling to even contemplate that overseas processing will reduce deaths in the channel is part of the problem. The people smuggler's useful idiot. Same as those charity boats doing rescues off the coast of Italy. Just enriching people smugglers.
Not so sure. A really forward thinking government would be setting up an arrangement like this -
Apparently, they even sell the labour of the detainees to the local farmers. Auction it at a local market on a daily basis.
Oh but those are EU funded labour/slave camps. The reports must be wrong, the virtuous EU could never do anything like this. Only Brexit Britain would, the NYT must have it wrong.
By the way, the other thing that really gets my goat is that this notion of flying people down to the equator comes months after our leaders promised to tackle causes of climate change.
Comments
Sky saying threatening words ratcheting up tension
Some thoughts on the survivability of the #Moskva given the Russians reported "ammunition detonating" aboard.
The SA-N-4 SAMs (aft, yellow), the main gun and the ASM mortar magazines (fwd, yellow) are probably the most survivable.
1/2
https://twitter.com/vcdgf555/status/1514465622398144513
Daddy had taken away the toys and it wasn't fair.
Mind you they still had a development unit in Russia this year. So Ha Ha.
"Argentina thanks Russia for taking its record of the largest ship lost in war since WW2."
Maggie spinning in her grave.
But we all knew that this government isn't really Conservative.
I'm sure you will all be very happy together.
Nice one.
Funny thing is, I actually think she's quite xenophobic. She's very very patriotic, pro-monarchy, always supports Brits etc. So for her to say to me just now that this is "totally appalling" is very telling imho.
In other words, she may be patriotic but she's not an inhumane bastard.
The opposite the programmes quite clearly showed Thatcher's influence on Reagan from Star Wars, to the Falklands. Reagan was often in awe of her
And I don’t think even Bortnikov would be crazy enough to attempt piracy on the open seas. That would be a quick way of war with NATO and the best case scenario in that for Russia is that it’s a nuclear war and we’re all killed, because any other sort of war would inevitably see them beaten. So it doesn’t help them
Russia showing again that its leadership are mad and nasty as well as cruel and incompetent, but the mere fact that they are responding so aggressively and implausibly in terms of rhetoric suggests they’re completely taken aback and have no idea what to do.
It is unreasonable to use the 1994 genocide to condemn the current generation of Rwandans.
Sadly also including rape, murder, torture, theft, kidnapping and destruction.
This is starting to look more and more like Korea but on a larger scale.
We know this because in the tanks at the front of the line that were captured, the troops had bought their No 1 parade uniforms with them.
The Russians appear to have completely missed the weapons deliveries and military training going on in Ukraine, and they now have no idea what to do next. They’ve already retreated in humiliation from trying to capture the Ukranian capital.
Its regrettable that its come to this, but it seems to me to be the only safe and humane way to stop the deadly crossings and stop the regular reports of people drowning in the English Channel. Nobody else has come up with another system that will do it.
So, yes, there's a problem. And it's also a valid question to pose of Labour although it should be done in a proper adult way and not, as at present, with febrile racist stirrings.
However, and it's a big however, despite all of those points despatching them to Rwanda is NOT the answer. It is, as my lifelong Conservative friend says, "totally appalling."
What on earth has happened to this Party? I've seen it happen before when John Major lurched to the right with his nasty party "Back to Basics" and Boris Johnson is now doing exactly the same, driven not by his own beliefs (he has none) but by the hard right in his party: the nutjobs who are out of touch with the kind of people who would put them back into power next time.
I'm afraid the Conservatives are merely adding to the number of years that they will be out of office.
I think these are temporary blips that will pass and normal service will be resumed, but I’m just some random schmuck off the internet…
If on arrival in the UK you end up in Rwanda staying in France may (will) quickly become the preferred option for anyone fitting the profile of those that end up at the Rwandan processing centre.
Another blight on British history I'm afraid.
It's literally stuffed to the gunwales with missiles - the design doesn't seem to have had survivability in mind.
Rwanda already is recognised as a safe and humane place for refugees to go for processing, they do it for multiple countries already including the United Nations.
As I said it is very regrettable it has come to this, but if you think its more humane to have regular dead bodies in the English Channel then that's not me being crazy - and if you think that there's another way to stop the drownings then I'd love to hear it, please give me your better solution.
Says it all about you.
The political situation in China and Taiwan is the big one though, no-one will want to rely on a war not kicking off there, so we may see manufacturing moved around Asia, rather than being completelty re-shored to the West.
Remember that genuine asylum seekers get nothing. Housed in homes in demilitarised zones that nobody local will live in. Unable to work. Living off charity and low value vouchers that barely pays for food. No job. No welfare benefits. Held up for an indeterminate period in a system under-resourced and lacking interest.
Yes if you are fleeing death you are alive. But it is not life. The people pouring in aren't sitting in that system or coming here for that. They're coming to work illegally. If we stop that, we remove the incentive.
It was war, a war they started. You don't win wars by refusing to sink the enemies ships.
The complicating factor is that in Korea the Chinese got most of their men killed through Zhukov style mad offensives, which hasn’t happened here, but it’s starting to look even worse in terms of civilian massacres.
Just when you thought it couldn't get any more sleazy or cynical. Law and policing ministers brief support of Phatboi but won't say it out loud.
Putin's ego has backfired on him spectacularly, but at an appalling loss of innocent lives
And won't somebody think of the poor people smugglers? Who is going to support their families in the luxury to which they have grown accustomed?
People shouldn't start wars if they can't take a joke
The Tories both prey on these petty prejudices but openly stoke them as a good source of votes. That is how you can get a huge white enclave like Teesside's Ingleby Barwick with hardly any non-white British residents where the locals are in fear of too many forrin. They can't see them. But they are told they are a threat.
Comedy Parmo Pisshead Matt Vickers is now their MP. He is celebrating the Rwanda plan. Very important to the Tory voting white fear folk in Ingleby and Yarm and Hartburn and Easglescliffe. They don't want their country full of these people even if where they live isn't. Or that racist cretin MP saying Lincolnshire was full.
So I'm actually at a loss as to what else you could do to resolve the issue beyond having more people checking work status and an actual ID card to make those checks simple.
If they don’t realise that, they should be sectioned. That may in fairness be true of Putin and Galtieri.
The Belgrano was a belligerent warship sailing near, not in, a war zone. While the deaths of more than 300 men is not great news, contra the Sun, it was a fair enough target as I believe the captain of the Belgrano himself says.
All of that is a very good argument for finding a way to resolve our differences other than war. Even more unfortunately that will only work when everybody feels the same way.
1. In Rwanda supposedly they will be held in a camp. So why not just do that here? If the asylum seeker is in an open prison environment they can't go out and work. So we could keep them here.
2. If the process takes years, add resource. For a fraction of the cost the Home Office could hire aggressive young lawyers and have immigration courts running 24/7. Strict criteria, show us your papers and the proof, if you can't you're getting deported. So we could process them here
3. They work cash in hand. Great - so go after these companies illegally employing them. Stop the trade in cash in hand indentured workers by prosecuting the people breaking the law. So we could stop that too - would need more police and more lawyers.
The simple truth is this. The Tories don't want to pay for solutions to stop this. Illegal labour is of too high a value for certain parts of the economy which they like. But their voters hate it. So you can't spend actual money. So make a big announcement, have a few staged battles with human rights types and voters think you are on their side.
That the Rwanda thing won't happen and would cost an absolute fortune if it did doesn't matter. This isn't a solution. Its just a headline. Meanwhile illegals keep coming here, keep making people rich, and the donations and votes keep pouring in.
https://twitter.com/AnnMagRaj/status/1514506133133791234?^s1_
(I really hope this is, or becomes, true.)
And Mao got what he wanted, which was Russian arms and technology. As was very clear from his future actions, the death of millions meant nothing to him, and the war secured his regime.
This conflict could well have the opposite effect.
Anyone who is unwilling to even contemplate that overseas processing will reduce deaths in the channel is part of the problem. The people smuggler's useful idiot. Same as those charity boats doing rescues off the coast of Italy. Just enriching people smugglers.
If we see the Russians advancing further from the east we are going to see the unimaginable horrors of Bucha repeated across a country of 30 million people. At that point 2-3 million dead looks if anything optimistic.
Sorry for that grim analysis. Please pick holes in it if you can because I really hope it’s wrong.
So people can employ illegals with impunity knowing they probably won't be caught. A big fine that doesn't get imposed on people who don't get caught is not a deterrent.
It would be far cheaper to fund these services and go after criminals than it would be to do he Rwanda gulag. But Tory voters don't want to spend money on these people. So we don't. And don't worry, we won't spend the money on them in Rwanda either,
I understand the wish to avoid politics in our difficult world, although I think it's better to get stuck in and try to help make it less difficult. In the end, anyway, to quote Pericles' slightly menacing-sounding phrase, "Just because you are not interested in politics does not mean that politics is not interested in you".
There's an exposition on this by a conservative writer here (I don't agree with his approach but it's interesting):
https://thefutureprimaeval.tumblr.com/post/156517718308/you-may-not-be-interested-in-politics-but
Even the Belgrano's captain has said it was a legitimate target.
So it was not a 'blight' on British history, was it?
See Russian troops today.
Awful for those who were killed and their relatives. Grunts don't decide to go to war, politcal leaders do. But why should the Belgrano be less a target in WAR than any British ships targeted by Argentians?
Harry Brook Englands number 1 Batsman. Go Harry!
On the other hand, eldest grandchild is 33 soon.
Perhaps different times. Of 8 L class destroyers, 6 were lost in battle. It was considered that this was evidence of their success - they were heavily used, and destroyers were literally considered expendable, like ammunition.
On the Belgran - the Captain said he had orders to attack the UK task force. The Admiral in charge of the Argentine Navy said that he had given orders to the Belgrano to participate in such an attack. The NSA decrypts of the orders need up on Wikileaks - so we know they were being read in London.
The Belgran and her escorts had orders to sink on sight any other British ships they encountered, such as submarines. They were engaging in pre-emptive anti-submarine warfare - attacking any vague contact they got - in the shallow waters near the Falklands they were getting lots of false contacts. Probably killed some whales as well.
Catch/intercept them process them deport them.
Or are you talking about the unknown unknown ones we don't catch in which case the whole effort is moot.
You can see how it would work because being shipped off to R-fucking-wanda is a pretty hefty deterrent to coming to the UK in the first place. They'll get Serco or Capita to run a concentration camp (half rations for troublemakers like the Boer War) at an airport in the middle of nowhere (Manston?). The refugees will be stacked there until a super cheap charter flight to Kigali for a few hundred at a time can be organised.
Not a great start to their push towards Dnipro.
2. The legal system and appeals etc are always going to be gummed up, deliberately by some groups.
3. And governments of all colours have been trying this for decades, that is what Labour introduced calling it the "hostile environment" if you can remember that term?
So your "contradictions" are falsehoods and things that have been tried for years. Nothing original or new?
Apparently, they even sell the labour of the detainees to the local farmers. Auction it at a local market on a daily basis.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/12/06/the-secretive-libyan-prisons-that-keep-migrants-out-of-europe
What economic migrant is going to bother spending their life's earnings making a risky channel crossing only to get picked up by the RN and then flown to Rwanda for a few months only to get sent home?
Labour will quietly protest it's introduction, then once it's proven to work also very quietly keep it open if they manage to win the next election. That's exactly what happened in Australia.
We don't have "secure processing centres" here, what you're talking about is imprisonment and that quite rightly is not how we treat people nor should it be. Nor is it how they'll be treated there. Imprisoning people would be even less humane.
So long as people aren't going to be incarcerated, where they live absolutely makes a big difference.
This thread has been sent to Rwanda
Not enrich people smugglers and risk dying in the Channel.
Deleted