“Kazakhstan has now explained that the May 9 parade is not feasible because the priority is to maintain combat readiness of the armed forces to ensure protection and defense of gov and military facilities. Hands down, this is bold.
Correct me if I’m wrong: Kazakhstan MoD has basically said that instead of celebrating Soviet Russian May 9 version of the V-day, they are instead preparing for a now plausible Russian “special operation” scenario on their territory“
I think we would struggle to support Kazakhstan in the same way from a logistical perspective given the lack of accessible borders.
That would look horrible from a PR perspective but would just reflect the reality on the ground. We’d need China to take the lead - and they would love the opportunity to embed their suzerainty over Kazakhstan
Russia is already facing stalemate at least and catastrophic defeat at worst in Ukraine. Putin would have to be mad to open a further front in Kazakstan.
And your assessment, as a physician, of the chance are.......?
I don't think he will.
I suspect the Kazak government is more concerned about domestic threats of an uprising or coup than external ones.
The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.
Yep.
Is this a deliberate mistake by Mail to engineer the poll? Or just journos not on top of their brief commissioning a shite poll?
Is it actually the case they have no chance at all of a return to the U.K. or is that someone complainining about a poll misrepresenting the policy just misrepresenting the policy.
I’m not really that up on it but the reactions, both pro and anti, seem to verge on the hysterical.
It is the case that people sent to Rwanda would have no right of return even if they were found to be legitimate refugees. See Paras 9-10 in Part 2 of the Memorandum of Understanding (esp 10.1).
Can’t say I agree with that. I’m now in the anti camp rather than the don’t know camp.
Surely there is a way to help genuine asylum seekers, and sift out economic migrants, without resorting to such a policy.
We seem to have a situation where Refugee charities/groups/lawyers and many politicians on the left regard all migrants as genuine and demand an open door and the reverse is true of those on the other side of the debate.
We cannot punish the genuinely needy. It’s barbaric.
The greatest problem is that the man on the street cannot understand how someone is not safe in France. You can make any number of arguments about how many people different countries take, but at heart, people see migrants shopping to come to Britain rather than claim asylum in France. And that is what angers them.
A lot of people wrongly believe that refugees have to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. They don't. They are not doing anything wrong by preferring Britain to France. Politicians and the right wing press repeatedly insist the opposite, but that does not make it true. If the UK does not want such a law, the logical conclusions are to withdraw from international humans right treaties or campaign internationally for them to be changed, not scapegoat the refugees who think we are a good place to re-make their lives.
To be clear, I’m not making this argument. The man on the street thinks if they were in danger in the U.K., and made it to Ireland, or Belgium etc, they would claim help at that point. They don’t understand why the refugees don’t do that, and they don’t care or know the legal standpoint. To them it looks like it is blurring the lines of refugee and economic migrant.
Which in fact it is, crazy system where you can just choose to which country you want to go to. Can anyone do that, ie can I pick a country and just turn up, genuine question. If so it Really is a crazy system.
Kinda. You can pick any country on the planet as the one where you ask for asylum.
Behind all this is the fact that many (most?) immigrants are not 100% economic or 100% refugees. Their motives are a mix.
Benefits are better in France so refugees wanting to move to the UK are doing so for other reasons . Family connections and the English language are the main pull factors . This is why refugees there are not generally from old French colonies who because of similar reasons will want to stay in France .
The Rwandan policy is something dreamt up by no 10 not to tackle the refugee problem but to start a fight with lawyers and the Lords and eventually use that as a vehicle to remove the UK from the ECHR .
The uninformed will of course cheer the government on as their rights are flushed down the toilet and they become sheep parroting the Daily Mail and the rest of the right wing press .
The Orbanisation of the UK will only stop once the criminal cabal and moral cesspit in no 10 are shown the door.
We really need to attack this myth. Being dumped into the housing association property that nobody sane will live in due to rampant crime, or months in a dump hotel nobody will stay in. With non-cash vouchers for food. Hardly the life of riley is it?
There aren't many of those. The number of Empty HA properties is under 1% according to the most recent numbers for England.
The No10 defence if more fines come: “If you’re caught speeding at 35mph four times, that doesn’t mean that you were speeding at 140mph. It doesn’t mean that you really endangered life because the cumulative effect of all your speeding in 30mph zones amounts to 140pmh, does it?”
Stupid, but there may be a more logical variant.
I recall with the advent of speed cameras it was (and maybe still is) questioned whether it is fair that on a single journey from, say, York to London on the A1 at 80mph someone is caught in five speed traps and receives sufficient totted-up penalty points to trigger suspension of license. This of course is not fair because at the juncture of offenses 2-5 the driver wasn't aware of the points that were totting up, i.e. if he knew that he had been caught at speed camera 1 he would have adapted his driving accordingly.
If I were writing a spread of the FPNs Johnson will be served with I'd have it at 3-4.
One might say it is entirely fair, because this is someone who was persistently speeding over a great distance, rather than being caught out once having failed to slow down sufficiently coming off a national speed limit zone, for example.
The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.
Yep.
Is this a deliberate mistake by Mail to engineer the poll? Or just journos not on top of their brief commissioning a shite poll?
Is it actually the case they have no chance at all of a return to the U.K. or is that someone complainining about a poll misrepresenting the policy just misrepresenting the policy.
I’m not really that up on it but the reactions, both pro and anti, seem to verge on the hysterical.
It is the case that people sent to Rwanda would have no right of return even if they were found to be legitimate refugees. See Paras 9-10 in Part 2 of the Memorandum of Understanding (esp 10.1).
Can’t say I agree with that. I’m now in the anti camp rather than the don’t know camp.
Surely there is a way to help genuine asylum seekers, and sift out economic migrants, without resorting to such a policy.
We seem to have a situation where Refugee charities/groups/lawyers and many politicians on the left regard all migrants as genuine and demand an open door and the reverse is true of those on the other side of the debate.
We cannot punish the genuinely needy. It’s barbaric.
The greatest problem is that the man on the street cannot understand how someone is not safe in France. You can make any number of arguments about how many people different countries take, but at heart, people see migrants shopping to come to Britain rather than claim asylum in France. And that is what angers them.
A lot of people wrongly believe that refugees have to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. They don't. They are not doing anything wrong by preferring Britain to France. Politicians and the right wing press repeatedly insist the opposite, but that does not make it true. If the UK does not want such a law, the logical conclusions are to withdraw from international humans right treaties or campaign internationally for them to be changed, not scapegoat the refugees who think we are a good place to re-make their lives.
To be clear, I’m not making this argument. The man on the street thinks if they were in danger in the U.K., and made it to Ireland, or Belgium etc, they would claim help at that point. They don’t understand why the refugees don’t do that, and they don’t care or know the legal standpoint. To them it looks like it is blurring the lines of refugee and economic migrant.
Which in fact it is, crazy system where you can just choose to which country you want to go to. Can anyone do that, ie can I pick a country and just turn up, genuine question. If so it Really is a crazy system.
Sturgeon's future independent Scotland would welcome ALL asylum seekers?
The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.
Yep.
Is this a deliberate mistake by Mail to engineer the poll? Or just journos not on top of their brief commissioning a shite poll?
Is it actually the case they have no chance at all of a return to the U.K. or is that someone complainining about a poll misrepresenting the policy just misrepresenting the policy.
I’m not really that up on it but the reactions, both pro and anti, seem to verge on the hysterical.
It is the case that people sent to Rwanda would have no right of return even if they were found to be legitimate refugees. See Paras 9-10 in Part 2 of the Memorandum of Understanding (esp 10.1).
Can’t say I agree with that. I’m now in the anti camp rather than the don’t know camp.
Surely there is a way to help genuine asylum seekers, and sift out economic migrants, without resorting to such a policy.
We seem to have a situation where Refugee charities/groups/lawyers and many politicians on the left regard all migrants as genuine and demand an open door and the reverse is true of those on the other side of the debate.
We cannot punish the genuinely needy. It’s barbaric.
The greatest problem is that the man on the street cannot understand how someone is not safe in France. You can make any number of arguments about how many people different countries take, but at heart, people see migrants shopping to come to Britain rather than claim asylum in France. And that is what angers them.
A lot of people wrongly believe that refugees have to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. They don't. They are not doing anything wrong by preferring Britain to France. Politicians and the right wing press repeatedly insist the opposite, but that does not make it true. If the UK does not want such a law, the logical conclusions are to withdraw from international humans right treaties or campaign internationally for them to be changed, not scapegoat the refugees who think we are a good place to re-make their lives.
To be clear, I’m not making this argument. The man on the street thinks if they were in danger in the U.K., and made it to Ireland, or Belgium etc, they would claim help at that point. They don’t understand why the refugees don’t do that, and they don’t care or know the legal standpoint. To them it looks like it is blurring the lines of refugee and economic migrant.
Which in fact it is, crazy system where you can just choose to which country you want to go to. Can anyone do that, ie can I pick a country and just turn up, genuine question. If so it Really is a crazy system.
Kinda. You can pick any country on the planet as the one where you ask for asylum.
Behind all this is the fact that many (most?) immigrants are not 100% economic or 100% refugees. Their motives are a mix.
Thanks. Imagine if you want many ie USA, they would boot you out unless you were loaded of course.
The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.
Let's face it, they are being sent to Rwanda because they are generally further from the UK than their starting point. As a cynical answer to stopping economic migration in its tracks, it's very canny.
If you are from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, west Africa, north Africa, are you going to want to give a snakehead ten grand to risk your life in a small boat, for a ticket to Rwanda? Or stay in France instead. Or any of the other dozen countries you have gone through to get to Calais. It will end the camps in Calais, For which I guess the French will delighted.
How badly do you think this policy will play in, say, Kent? Spoiler: it will be very popular. Scotland? Maybe not so much.
Yes, I think we all inderstand this is not about anything other than shoring up the core Tory vote. Whether it actually works or not remains to be seen.
Doing something that the electorate likes and supports is a bad thing?
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
How do you know the electorate likes and supports it?
Your point was that it will “shore up the Tory vote” - my comment was a response to that (if you want to split hairs I should have said “part of the electorate” but felt that was implied by context)
The poll shows how little voting nitention is shifting now. Taken in the last couple of days, after the Rwandan plan was announced and the Partygate fines, people have a view on both when asked but voting intention remains much the same. The basic Conservative problem is that the spread of tactical voting probably means that they need close to 40% to win this time. It doesn't look especially likely.
The polling suggests Starmer will be PM yes. However it also suggests the Tories are still nowhere near a 1997 landslide defeat or even polling as low as Brown Labour pre 2010 or they were under May in Spring 2019
Agreed.
Starmer is doing better than the polls than Brown and Corbyn, but less well than Blair. The question is whether Starmer will go into the GE doing better than EdMilliband and how he will perform in the short campaign. My hunch is that he will do better than Ed. Given the mountain to climb, largest party. Is still an exceptional result.
Largest Party will do. Cameron's government with the Lib Dems was pretty good. Starmer's with the SNP and /or with the Lib Dems should be even better. It'll keep some of the crazies out of the mix. He'd be the perfect leader for coalition. No ideological baggage
The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.
Yep.
Is this a deliberate mistake by Mail to engineer the poll? Or just journos not on top of their brief commissioning a shite poll?
Is it actually the case they have no chance at all of a return to the U.K. or is that someone complainining about a poll misrepresenting the policy just misrepresenting the policy.
I’m not really that up on it but the reactions, both pro and anti, seem to verge on the hysterical.
It is the case that people sent to Rwanda would have no right of return even if they were found to be legitimate refugees. See Paras 9-10 in Part 2 of the Memorandum of Understanding (esp 10.1).
Can’t say I agree with that. I’m now in the anti camp rather than the don’t know camp.
Surely there is a way to help genuine asylum seekers, and sift out economic migrants, without resorting to such a policy.
We seem to have a situation where Refugee charities/groups/lawyers and many politicians on the left regard all migrants as genuine and demand an open door and the reverse is true of those on the other side of the debate.
We cannot punish the genuinely needy. It’s barbaric.
The greatest problem is that the man on the street cannot understand how someone is not safe in France. You can make any number of arguments about how many people different countries take, but at heart, people see migrants shopping to come to Britain rather than claim asylum in France. And that is what angers them.
A lot of people wrongly believe that refugees have to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. They don't. They are not doing anything wrong by preferring Britain to France. Politicians and the right wing press repeatedly insist the opposite, but that does not make it true. If the UK does not want such a law, the logical conclusions are to withdraw from international humans right treaties or campaign internationally for them to be changed, not scapegoat the refugees who think we are a good place to re-make their lives.
To be clear, I’m not making this argument. The man on the street thinks if they were in danger in the U.K., and made it to Ireland, or Belgium etc, they would claim help at that point. They don’t understand why the refugees don’t do that, and they don’t care or know the legal standpoint. To them it looks like it is blurring the lines of refugee and economic migrant.
Which in fact it is, crazy system where you can just choose to which country you want to go to. Can anyone do that, ie can I pick a country and just turn up, genuine question. If so it Really is a crazy system.
Sturgeon's future independent Scotland would welcome ALL asylum seekers?
How the F+++ would I know you thick cretinous bellend.
I thought that the British government had said that you can only make an asylum claim in Britain. Not from abroad. Hence people trying to get here. If so, isn't the obvious answer to open offices in France and to allow asylum claims to be processed there rather than risking a dangerous cross-Channel journey?
Oh and do what @rcs1000 has recommended re illegal employment.
“Kazakhstan has now explained that the May 9 parade is not feasible because the priority is to maintain combat readiness of the armed forces to ensure protection and defense of gov and military facilities. Hands down, this is bold.
Correct me if I’m wrong: Kazakhstan MoD has basically said that instead of celebrating Soviet Russian May 9 version of the V-day, they are instead preparing for a now plausible Russian “special operation” scenario on their territory“
I think we would struggle to support Kazakhstan in the same way from a logistical perspective given the lack of accessible borders.
That would look horrible from a PR perspective but would just reflect the reality on the ground. We’d need China to take the lead - and they would love the opportunity to embed their suzerainty over Kazakhstan
Russia is already facing stalemate at least and catastrophic defeat at worst in Ukraine. Putin would have to be mad to open a further front in Kazakstan.
Agreed with that, but as a thought exercise.
Takes Mariupol. Declares a triumph and digs in in the way he has for 8 years in Ukraine. Then gives his army 3 months R&R before a summer attack
If there were a huge calamity in this country, and I needed to flee for my life, I would aim for a country where I at least know some people. I don't know anyone in Ireland or France. I do know people in Spain. So of course I would prefer Spain over Ireland.
And stop and think about what it's like to be a refugee. You probably need some emotional support from someone you know and trust. Am I going to get that in Toulouse? No. Am I going to get it in Granada? Yes. So I would happily walk past Toulouse to get there.
1. Boris JOHNSON (Alexander Boris de Pfeffel JOHNSON) - Prime Minister; 2. Dominic Rennie RAAB - Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Justice; 3. Elizabeth TRASS (Elizabeth Mary TRUSS) - Minister of Foreign Affairs; 4. Ben WALLACE - Secretary of Defense; 5. Grant SHAPPS - Minister of Transport; 6. Priti PATEL - Minister of the Interior; 7. Rishi SUNAK - Minister of Finance; 8. Kwasi KWARTENG - Minister of Entrepreneurship, Energy and Industrial Strategy; 9. Nadine Vanessa DORRIES - Minister of Digitalization, Culture, Media and Sports; 10. James HEAPPEY - Deputy Secretary of Defense; 11 Nicola Ferguson STURGEON - First Minister of Scotland; 12. Suella BRAVERMAN - Attorney General for England and Wales; 13. Theresa MAY is a Conservative MP and former British Prime Minister.
The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.
Let's face it, they are being sent to Rwanda because they are generally further from the UK than their starting point. As a cynical answer to stopping economic migration in its tracks, it's very canny.
If you are from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, west Africa, north Africa, are you going to want to give a snakehead ten grand to risk your life in a small boat, for a ticket to Rwanda? Or stay in France instead. Or any of the other dozen countries you have gone through to get to Calais. It will end the camps in Calais, For which I guess the French will delighted.
How badly do you think this policy will play in, say, Kent? Spoiler: it will be very popular. Scotland? Maybe not so much.
Yes, I think we all inderstand this is not about anything other than shoring up the core Tory vote. Whether it actually works or not remains to be seen.
Doing something that the electorate likes and supports is a bad thing?
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
How do you know the electorate likes and supports it?
Your point was that it will “shore up the Tory vote” - my comment was a response to that (if you want to split hairs I should have said “part of the electorate” but felt that was implied by context)
Of course - the policy is not designed to work, it is designed specifically to appeal to an electorally powerful minority of the population. I am not sure that's the best way to run a country, but each to their own.
I was up a bit late last night drinking the lovely hotel owner’s red wine recommendations after dinner, so I missed the train replacement bus this morning. I caught the regular bus instead, which follows much the same route; except that I’ve had to stop for a change of bus just over halfway.
I’m not sorry. The bus ride was the most beautiful and breathtaking I’ve ever experienced, and this is the view from my bus stop at Mont Louis.
Mr. Pioneers, in addition to altering the benefits system as I previously outlined, going after illegal employers is something that should be emphasised.
The flaw with your approach on asylum seekers is the much publicised cases of people failing but still not being sent back (I have to admit, I have no idea how common these are), such as sex criminals who can't go home because it isn't safe there (either generally or for them in particular). A failure to build trust and competence in the state's ability to eject failed asylum seekers is a serious problem.
And that's before we consider whether we should rework the international approach to asylum seekers, as the rules were written up an age ago.
We do need a new internationalist approach to asylum seekers and refugees as its a massive problem. The other tired lie that gets trotted out is that the UK is "full" - seemingly of said refugees despite our only taking a small fraction of them. Of course the problem is that people voted to cut themselves off from international co-operation and even now demands to just quit things like the Human Rights Convention are demanded.
For what must be a small number who fail but can't be sent back this is hardly a UK-only problem. If it is unsafe to return an escaped criminal to wherever the same will be true in countries like Germany who take vastly more than we do. So again we need international co-operation not fear of the forrin.
1. Boris JOHNSON (Alexander Boris de Pfeffel JOHNSON) - Prime Minister; 2. Dominic Rennie RAAB - Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Justice; 3. Elizabeth TRASS (Elizabeth Mary TRUSS) - Minister of Foreign Affairs; 4. Ben WALLACE - Secretary of Defense; 5. Grant SHAPPS - Minister of Transport; 6. Priti PATEL - Minister of the Interior; 7. Rishi SUNAK - Minister of Finance; 8. Kwasi KWARTENG - Minister of Entrepreneurship, Energy and Industrial Strategy; 9. Nadine Vanessa DORRIES - Minister of Digitalization, Culture, Media and Sports; 10. James HEAPPEY - Deputy Secretary of Defense; 11 Nicola Ferguson STURGEON - First Minister of Scotland; 12. Suella BRAVERMAN - Attorney General for England and Wales; 13. Theresa MAY is a Conservative MP and former British Prime Minister.
The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.
Yep.
Is this a deliberate mistake by Mail to engineer the poll? Or just journos not on top of their brief commissioning a shite poll?
Is it actually the case they have no chance at all of a return to the U.K. or is that someone complainining about a poll misrepresenting the policy just misrepresenting the policy.
I’m not really that up on it but the reactions, both pro and anti, seem to verge on the hysterical.
It is the case that people sent to Rwanda would have no right of return even if they were found to be legitimate refugees. See Paras 9-10 in Part 2 of the Memorandum of Understanding (esp 10.1).
Can’t say I agree with that. I’m now in the anti camp rather than the don’t know camp.
Surely there is a way to help genuine asylum seekers, and sift out economic migrants, without resorting to such a policy.
We seem to have a situation where Refugee charities/groups/lawyers and many politicians on the left regard all migrants as genuine and demand an open door and the reverse is true of those on the other side of the debate.
We cannot punish the genuinely needy. It’s barbaric.
The greatest problem is that the man on the street cannot understand how someone is not safe in France. You can make any number of arguments about how many people different countries take, but at heart, people see migrants shopping to come to Britain rather than claim asylum in France. And that is what angers them.
A lot of people wrongly believe that refugees have to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. They don't. They are not doing anything wrong by preferring Britain to France. Politicians and the right wing press repeatedly insist the opposite, but that does not make it true. If the UK does not want such a law, the logical conclusions are to withdraw from international humans right treaties or campaign internationally for them to be changed, not scapegoat the refugees who think we are a good place to re-make their lives.
To be clear, I’m not making this argument. The man on the street thinks if they were in danger in the U.K., and made it to Ireland, or Belgium etc, they would claim help at that point. They don’t understand why the refugees don’t do that, and they don’t care or know the legal standpoint. To them it looks like it is blurring the lines of refugee and economic migrant.
Which in fact it is, crazy system where you can just choose to which country you want to go to. Can anyone do that, ie can I pick a country and just turn up, genuine question. If so it Really is a crazy system.
Sturgeon's future independent Scotland would welcome ALL asylum seekers?
How the F+++ would I know you thick cretinous bellend.
I don't understand why you support Scottish independence as you support the same right wing economic policies as the British government but you are also opposed to the SNP's socially liberal policies on LGBT rights and immigration knowing full well SNP careerists will be in charge.
Benefits are better in France so refugees wanting to move to the UK are doing so for other reasons . Family connections and the English language are the main pull factors . This is why refugees there are not generally from old French colonies who because of similar reasons will want to stay in France .
The Rwandan policy is something dreamt up by no 10 not to tackle the refugee problem but to start a fight with lawyers and the Lords and eventually use that as a vehicle to remove the UK from the ECHR .
The uninformed will of course cheer the government on as their rights are flushed down the toilet and they become sheep parroting the Daily Mail and the rest of the right wing press .
The Orbanisation of the UK will only stop once the criminal cabal and moral cesspit in no 10 are shown the door.
We really need to attack this myth. Being dumped into the housing association property that nobody sane will live in due to rampant crime, or months in a dump hotel nobody will stay in. With non-cash vouchers for food. Hardly the life of riley is it?
There aren't many of those. The number of Empty HA properties is under 1% according to the most recent numbers for England.
Happily we don't receive that many asylum seekers. But yes we are short of accommodation in some areas hence the need to use the hotels that nobody in their right mind would pay to stay in.
I'm amused by reasonable people who seem to lose all reason when it comes to politics. I chat regularly to a Corynite who thinks the Ukraine is stuffed to the gills with Nazis because Putin said so. He knows his views are way out in left field, but he thinks others are perfectly entitled to their views. We can discuss politics and occasionally do. It never becomes heated
The reason I voted Leave in the end was because some Remainers showed what I can only call spite when confronted by democracy. Telling potential Leave voters they are thick. ignorant, scum, and they shouldn't be allowed to vote tends to have that effect.
I like the discussions on here, but even some perfectly reasonable posters tend to go barmy when Brexit comes up. Face to face, is different to writing anonymously, and I suspect both sides would temper their views then. But overall, this remains realtively civilsed.
As James O'Brien endlessly says, compassion for the conned. Whilst some people really are thick ignorant scum (in general, not just politics) there is a real problem in this country where manipulative politicians and their client media sing any old lie and people now accept the lie as truth. We can't even say they don't know its a lie - most now do but accept it because it winds up "the left", "the woke", "the liberals" etc etc.
I have no problem at all with people who reach different conclusions to me by a different read of the facts. Great - we all have opinions are we're entitled to them. I am less sympathetic to people whose opinions are based on entrenched lies or worse still are told to knowingly spread something they know is a lie to people they think won't know better.
You mentioned a Corbynite which demonstrates this is not a left vs right party political issue - the hard left are as bad as the hard right. Its just that the hard right happen to be in government at the moment, so more people read the lies in the Daily Mail than the lies in Socialist Appeal.
1. Boris JOHNSON (Alexander Boris de Pfeffel JOHNSON) - Prime Minister; 2. Dominic Rennie RAAB - Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Justice; 3. Elizabeth TRASS (Elizabeth Mary TRUSS) - Minister of Foreign Affairs; 4. Ben WALLACE - Secretary of Defense; 5. Grant SHAPPS - Minister of Transport; 6. Priti PATEL - Minister of the Interior; 7. Rishi SUNAK - Minister of Finance; 8. Kwasi KWARTENG - Minister of Entrepreneurship, Energy and Industrial Strategy; 9. Nadine Vanessa DORRIES - Minister of Digitalization, Culture, Media and Sports; 10. James HEAPPEY - Deputy Secretary of Defense; 11 Nicola Ferguson STURGEON - First Minister of Scotland; 12. Suella BRAVERMAN - Attorney General for England and Wales; 13. Theresa MAY is a Conservative MP and former British Prime Minister.
I thought that the British government had said that you can only make an asylum claim in Britain. Not from abroad. Hence people trying to get here. If so, isn't the obvious answer to open offices in France and to allow asylum claims to be processed there rather than risking a dangerous cross-Channel journey?
Oh and do what @rcs1000 has recommended re illegal employment.
I expect I'm missing something.
What you're missing is that the voters don't want immigrants. Since Britain is a democracy the government tries to avoid things happening that the voters don't like.
So rather than opening an office in France they create requirement to cross the Channel in a small boat before you can make your application, which reduces the number who try and even further reduces the number who actually arrive as many will either give up or drown.
I agree with Pip. We focus too much on the result and not enough on vote shares when assessing the accuracy of polling.
Pollster says 51% Remain and 49% Leave = fail
Pollster says Labour get 50% in 1997 = success.
I seem to remember a newspaper in '97 having a a sweepstake spread on the likely result with the biggest option of about 20 to 30 was a Labour majority of 150 plus. It's weird that the polls overstated them and yet no-one saw the size of the majority coming.
I'm amused by reasonable people who seem to lose all reason when it comes to politics. I chat regularly to a Corynite who thinks the Ukraine is stuffed to the gills with Nazis because Putin said so. He knows his views are way out in left field, but he thinks others are perfectly entitled to their views. We can discuss politics and occasionally do. It never becomes heated
The reason I voted Leave in the end was because some Remainers showed what I can only call spite when confronted by democracy. Telling potential Leave voters they are thick. ignorant, scum, and they shouldn't be allowed to vote tends to have that effect.
I like the discussions on here, but even some perfectly reasonable posters tend to go barmy when Brexit comes up. Face to face, is different to writing anonymously, and I suspect both sides would temper their views then. But overall, this remains realtively civilsed.
I don't remember leavers being told they are scum etc. I feel they are just finding excuses for voting one way and then finding it's turned to crap.
Essex 4 for 4. That is runs and wickets not wins and losses. OKC my condolences.
Thanks. Somerset were similar; must be something about the pitch. Sadly the most effective Somerset bowler for them is Siddle, who was our, very popular, overseas for a couple of years.
I thought that the British government had said that you can only make an asylum claim in Britain. Not from abroad. Hence people trying to get here. If so, isn't the obvious answer to open offices in France and to allow asylum claims to be processed there rather than risking a dangerous cross-Channel journey?
Oh and do what @rcs1000 has recommended re illegal employment.
I expect I'm missing something.
The main flaw with that plan is that the UK would end up granting more people asylum. And as a country, we've talked ourselves into a corner where that would never do.
If there were a huge calamity in this country, and I needed to flee for my life, I would aim for a country where I at least know some people. I don't know anyone in Ireland or France. I do know people in Spain. So of course I would prefer Spain over Ireland.
And stop and think about what it's like to be a refugee. You probably need some emotional support from someone you know and trust. Am I going to get that in Toulouse? No. Am I going to get it in Granada? Yes. So I would happily walk past Toulouse to get there.
Also English as the lingua franca.
*certain people*: The greatest empire the world has ever known which gave the world a common language.
*same certain people*: You speak English? Fcuk off and speak it somewhere else.
1. Boris JOHNSON (Alexander Boris de Pfeffel JOHNSON) - Prime Minister; 2. Dominic Rennie RAAB - Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Justice; 3. Elizabeth TRASS (Elizabeth Mary TRUSS) - Minister of Foreign Affairs; 4. Ben WALLACE - Secretary of Defense; 5. Grant SHAPPS - Minister of Transport; 6. Priti PATEL - Minister of the Interior; 7. Rishi SUNAK - Minister of Finance; 8. Kwasi KWARTENG - Minister of Entrepreneurship, Energy and Industrial Strategy; 9. Nadine Vanessa DORRIES - Minister of Digitalization, Culture, Media and Sports; 10. James HEAPPEY - Deputy Secretary of Defense; 11 Nicola Ferguson STURGEON - First Minister of Scotland; 12. Suella BRAVERMAN - Attorney General for England and Wales; 13. Theresa MAY is a Conservative MP and former British Prime Minister.
Benefits are better in France so refugees wanting to move to the UK are doing so for other reasons . Family connections and the English language are the main pull factors . This is why refugees there are not generally from old French colonies who because of similar reasons will want to stay in France .
The Rwandan policy is something dreamt up by no 10 not to tackle the refugee problem but to start a fight with lawyers and the Lords and eventually use that as a vehicle to remove the UK from the ECHR .
The uninformed will of course cheer the government on as their rights are flushed down the toilet and they become sheep parroting the Daily Mail and the rest of the right wing press .
The Orbanisation of the UK will only stop once the criminal cabal and moral cesspit in no 10 are shown the door.
We really need to attack this myth. Being dumped into the housing association property that nobody sane will live in due to rampant crime, or months in a dump hotel nobody will stay in. With non-cash vouchers for food. Hardly the life of riley is it?
There aren't many of those. The number of Empty HA properties is under 1% according to the most recent numbers for England.
Strangely, in a housing shortage, there is high occupancy.
I recall one Evening Standard headline, breathlessly telling us of 23,000! empty! homes! in London.
That was, 23K homes in Greater London.
There are 3.6 million homes in Greater London.
The 23K included houses uninhabitable while being renovated.....
Mr. Pioneers, in addition to altering the benefits system as I previously outlined, going after illegal employers is something that should be emphasised.
The flaw with your approach on asylum seekers is the much publicised cases of people failing but still not being sent back (I have to admit, I have no idea how common these are), such as sex criminals who can't go home because it isn't safe there (either generally or for them in particular). A failure to build trust and competence in the state's ability to eject failed asylum seekers is a serious problem.
And that's before we consider whether we should rework the international approach to asylum seekers, as the rules were written up an age ago.
We do need a new internationalist approach to asylum seekers and refugees as its a massive problem. The other tired lie that gets trotted out is that the UK is "full" - seemingly of said refugees despite our only taking a small fraction of them. Of course the problem is that people voted to cut themselves off from international co-operation and even now demands to just quit things like the Human Rights Convention are demanded.
For what must be a small number who fail but can't be sent back this is hardly a UK-only problem. If it is unsafe to return an escaped criminal to wherever the same will be true in countries like Germany who take vastly more than we do. So again we need international co-operation not fear of the forrin.
Germany via Merkel aggravated the migrant problem and then told all of Europe it had to bail Germany out.
1. Boris JOHNSON (Alexander Boris de Pfeffel JOHNSON) - Prime Minister; 2. Dominic Rennie RAAB - Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Justice; 3. Elizabeth TRASS (Elizabeth Mary TRUSS) - Minister of Foreign Affairs; 4. Ben WALLACE - Secretary of Defense; 5. Grant SHAPPS - Minister of Transport; 6. Priti PATEL - Minister of the Interior; 7. Rishi SUNAK - Minister of Finance; 8. Kwasi KWARTENG - Minister of Entrepreneurship, Energy and Industrial Strategy; 9. Nadine Vanessa DORRIES - Minister of Digitalization, Culture, Media and Sports; 10. James HEAPPEY - Deputy Secretary of Defense; 11 Nicola Ferguson STURGEON - First Minister of Scotland; 12. Suella BRAVERMAN - Attorney General for England and Wales; 13. Theresa MAY is a Conservative MP and former British Prime Minister.
1. Boris JOHNSON (Alexander Boris de Pfeffel JOHNSON) - Prime Minister; 2. Dominic Rennie RAAB - Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Justice; 3. Elizabeth TRASS (Elizabeth Mary TRUSS) - Minister of Foreign Affairs; 4. Ben WALLACE - Secretary of Defense; 5. Grant SHAPPS - Minister of Transport; 6. Priti PATEL - Minister of the Interior; 7. Rishi SUNAK - Minister of Finance; 8. Kwasi KWARTENG - Minister of Entrepreneurship, Energy and Industrial Strategy; 9. Nadine Vanessa DORRIES - Minister of Digitalization, Culture, Media and Sports; 10. James HEAPPEY - Deputy Secretary of Defense; 11 Nicola Ferguson STURGEON - First Minister of Scotland; 12. Suella BRAVERMAN - Attorney General for England and Wales; 13. Theresa MAY is a Conservative MP and former British Prime Minister.
1. Boris JOHNSON (Alexander Boris de Pfeffel JOHNSON) - Prime Minister; 2. Dominic Rennie RAAB - Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Justice; 3. Elizabeth TRASS (Elizabeth Mary TRUSS) - Minister of Foreign Affairs; 4. Ben WALLACE - Secretary of Defense; 5. Grant SHAPPS - Minister of Transport; 6. Priti PATEL - Minister of the Interior; 7. Rishi SUNAK - Minister of Finance; 8. Kwasi KWARTENG - Minister of Entrepreneurship, Energy and Industrial Strategy; 9. Nadine Vanessa DORRIES - Minister of Digitalization, Culture, Media and Sports; 10. James HEAPPEY - Deputy Secretary of Defense; 11 Nicola Ferguson STURGEON - First Minister of Scotland; 12. Suella BRAVERMAN - Attorney General for England and Wales; 13. Theresa MAY is a Conservative MP and former British Prime Minister.
I was up a bit late last night drinking the lovely hotel owner’s red wine recommendations after dinner, so I missed the train replacement bus this morning. I caught the regular bus instead, which follows much the same route; except that I’ve had to stop for a change of bus just over halfway.
I’m not sorry. The bus ride was the most beautiful and breathtaking I’ve ever experienced, and this is the view from my bus stop at Mont Louis.
And it seems to be the training centre for the French 1st Commando Shock Regiment in a fortress built by Vauban
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh · 1h But one MP on Partygate: “Some of us have rumbled Boris, but the people in our local parties haven’t. Many of them still love him. The penny will only drop if we’re losing councillors that they’ve bust a gut to get elected. That’s when the scales may fall from their eyes.”
Before people were risking death and the possibility of being sent home. Now they are risking death and the possibility of being sent to Rwanda. If you are already risking death, Rwanda isnt going to make a difference.
I think you are conflating refugees and economic migrants.
The latter choose to come in part voluntarily, and so if the goal is "UK" rather than another safe country, the probabilty of being sent elsewhere may well have an impact.
1. Boris JOHNSON (Alexander Boris de Pfeffel JOHNSON) - Prime Minister; 2. Dominic Rennie RAAB - Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Justice; 3. Elizabeth TRASS (Elizabeth Mary TRUSS) - Minister of Foreign Affairs; 4. Ben WALLACE - Secretary of Defense; 5. Grant SHAPPS - Minister of Transport; 6. Priti PATEL - Minister of the Interior; 7. Rishi SUNAK - Minister of Finance; 8. Kwasi KWARTENG - Minister of Entrepreneurship, Energy and Industrial Strategy; 9. Nadine Vanessa DORRIES - Minister of Digitalization, Culture, Media and Sports; 10. James HEAPPEY - Deputy Secretary of Defense; 11 Nicola Ferguson STURGEON - First Minister of Scotland; 12. Suella BRAVERMAN - Attorney General for England and Wales; 13. Theresa MAY is a Conservative MP and former British Prime Minister.
1. Boris JOHNSON (Alexander Boris de Pfeffel JOHNSON) - Prime Minister; 2. Dominic Rennie RAAB - Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Justice; 3. Elizabeth TRASS (Elizabeth Mary TRUSS) - Minister of Foreign Affairs; 4. Ben WALLACE - Secretary of Defense; 5. Grant SHAPPS - Minister of Transport; 6. Priti PATEL - Minister of the Interior; 7. Rishi SUNAK - Minister of Finance; 8. Kwasi KWARTENG - Minister of Entrepreneurship, Energy and Industrial Strategy; 9. Nadine Vanessa DORRIES - Minister of Digitalization, Culture, Media and Sports; 10. James HEAPPEY - Deputy Secretary of Defense; 11 Nicola Ferguson STURGEON - First Minister of Scotland; 12. Suella BRAVERMAN - Attorney General for England and Wales; 13. Theresa MAY is a Conservative MP and former British Prime Minister.
Nice to see Raab's middle name. Explains why I find his words difficult to digest.
Seems to be the de rigeur thing when it comes to angry diplomatic messaging. After being named so after slagging off its monarchy, John Oliver commented he always knew people would find out his middle name from an angry Thai government memo.
I'm amused by reasonable people who seem to lose all reason when it comes to politics. I chat regularly to a Corynite who thinks the Ukraine is stuffed to the gills with Nazis because Putin said so. He knows his views are way out in left field, but he thinks others are perfectly entitled to their views. We can discuss politics and occasionally do. It never becomes heated
The reason I voted Leave in the end was because some Remainers showed what I can only call spite when confronted by democracy. Telling potential Leave voters they are thick. ignorant, scum, and they shouldn't be allowed to vote tends to have that effect.
I like the discussions on here, but even some perfectly reasonable posters tend to go barmy when Brexit comes up. Face to face, is different to writing anonymously, and I suspect both sides would temper their views then. But overall, this remains realtively civilsed.
As James O'Brien endlessly says, compassion for the conned. Whilst some people really are thick ignorant scum (in general, not just politics) there is a real problem in this country where manipulative politicians and their client media sing any old lie and people now accept the lie as truth. We can't even say they don't know its a lie - most now do but accept it because it winds up "the left", "the woke", "the liberals" etc etc.
I have no problem at all with people who reach different conclusions to me by a different read of the facts. Great - we all have opinions are we're entitled to them. I am less sympathetic to people whose opinions are based on entrenched lies or worse still are told to knowingly spread something they know is a lie to people they think won't know better.
You mentioned a Corbynite which demonstrates this is not a left vs right party political issue - the hard left are as bad as the hard right. Its just that the hard right happen to be in government at the moment, so more people read the lies in the Daily Mail than the lies in Socialist Appeal.
this is not a hard right government
Authoritarian a better word? Acts illegally - both in closing parliament and the behaviour of its leading ministers Lies to parliament - truth not a concern Pliant state media pushing official spin without question
The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.
Yep.
Is this a deliberate mistake by Mail to engineer the poll? Or just journos not on top of their brief commissioning a shite poll?
Is it actually the case they have no chance at all of a return to the U.K. or is that someone complainining about a poll misrepresenting the policy just misrepresenting the policy.
I’m not really that up on it but the reactions, both pro and anti, seem to verge on the hysterical.
It is the case that people sent to Rwanda would have no right of return even if they were found to be legitimate refugees. See Paras 9-10 in Part 2 of the Memorandum of Understanding (esp 10.1).
Can’t say I agree with that. I’m now in the anti camp rather than the don’t know camp.
Surely there is a way to help genuine asylum seekers, and sift out economic migrants, without resorting to such a policy.
We seem to have a situation where Refugee charities/groups/lawyers and many politicians on the left regard all migrants as genuine and demand an open door and the reverse is true of those on the other side of the debate.
We cannot punish the genuinely needy. It’s barbaric.
The greatest problem is that the man on the street cannot understand how someone is not safe in France. You can make any number of arguments about how many people different countries take, but at heart, people see migrants shopping to come to Britain rather than claim asylum in France. And that is what angers them.
A lot of people wrongly believe that refugees have to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. They don't. They are not doing anything wrong by preferring Britain to France. Politicians and the right wing press repeatedly insist the opposite, but that does not make it true. If the UK does not want such a law, the logical conclusions are to withdraw from international humans right treaties or campaign internationally for them to be changed, not scapegoat the refugees who think we are a good place to re-make their lives.
To be clear, I’m not making this argument. The man on the street thinks if they were in danger in the U.K., and made it to Ireland, or Belgium etc, they would claim help at that point. They don’t understand why the refugees don’t do that, and they don’t care or know the legal standpoint. To them it looks like it is blurring the lines of refugee and economic migrant.
Which in fact it is, crazy system where you can just choose to which country you want to go to. Can anyone do that, ie can I pick a country and just turn up, genuine question. If so it Really is a crazy system.
Sturgeon's future independent Scotland would welcome ALL asylum seekers?
How the F+++ would I know you thick cretinous bellend.
I don't understand why you support Scottish independence as you support the same right wing economic policies as the British government but you are also opposed to the SNP's socially liberal policies on LGBT rights and immigration knowing full well SNP careerists will be in charge.
Those clowns will be out on their arses tout suite. Socially liberal policies my are as well, fixated on LGBT as they are all in the crew and inept at governing, squander and make money disappear as good as any Tory. Lying, cheating, toerags. I want independence and shot of the sorry AND gangsters currently running the country. If only Labour was not run by London millionaire unionists and assorted lickspittles.
1. Boris JOHNSON (Alexander Boris de Pfeffel JOHNSON) - Prime Minister; 2. Dominic Rennie RAAB - Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Justice; 3. Elizabeth TRASS (Elizabeth Mary TRUSS) - Minister of Foreign Affairs; 4. Ben WALLACE - Secretary of Defense; 5. Grant SHAPPS - Minister of Transport; 6. Priti PATEL - Minister of the Interior; 7. Rishi SUNAK - Minister of Finance; 8. Kwasi KWARTENG - Minister of Entrepreneurship, Energy and Industrial Strategy; 9. Nadine Vanessa DORRIES - Minister of Digitalization, Culture, Media and Sports; 10. James HEAPPEY - Deputy Secretary of Defense; 11 Nicola Ferguson STURGEON - First Minister of Scotland; 12. Suella BRAVERMAN - Attorney General for England and Wales; 13. Theresa MAY is a Conservative MP and former British Prime Minister.
Nice to see Raab's middle name. Explains why I find his words difficult to digest.
Seems to be the de rigeur thing when it comes to angry diplomatic messaging. After being named so after slagging off its monarchy, John Oliver commented he always knew people would find out his middle name from an angry Thai government memo.
The fuller the name the more stern the telling off - parents and schools do this tactic as well.
Mr. Pioneers, in addition to altering the benefits system as I previously outlined, going after illegal employers is something that should be emphasised.
The flaw with your approach on asylum seekers is the much publicised cases of people failing but still not being sent back (I have to admit, I have no idea how common these are), such as sex criminals who can't go home because it isn't safe there (either generally or for them in particular). A failure to build trust and competence in the state's ability to eject failed asylum seekers is a serious problem.
And that's before we consider whether we should rework the international approach to asylum seekers, as the rules were written up an age ago.
We do need a new internationalist approach to asylum seekers and refugees as its a massive problem. The other tired lie that gets trotted out is that the UK is "full" - seemingly of said refugees despite our only taking a small fraction of them. Of course the problem is that people voted to cut themselves off from international co-operation and even now demands to just quit things like the Human Rights Convention are demanded.
For what must be a small number who fail but can't be sent back this is hardly a UK-only problem. If it is unsafe to return an escaped criminal to wherever the same will be true in countries like Germany who take vastly more than we do. So again we need international co-operation not fear of the forrin.
Germany via Merkel aggravated the migrant problem and then told all of Europe it had to bail Germany out.
That strong might be seen as overly harsh, but I do take issue with some of more rose coloured views of her action as some kind of out of character spontaneity which, due to being well intentioned, is above any criticism (certainly, though, I'm not going to argue we have the answer instead). Particularly given the usual talk being against unilateral action which has big impacts on other European nations, except when she wanted otherwise apparently.
I'm amused by reasonable people who seem to lose all reason when it comes to politics. I chat regularly to a Corynite who thinks the Ukraine is stuffed to the gills with Nazis because Putin said so. He knows his views are way out in left field, but he thinks others are perfectly entitled to their views. We can discuss politics and occasionally do. It never becomes heated
The reason I voted Leave in the end was because some Remainers showed what I can only call spite when confronted by democracy. Telling potential Leave voters they are thick. ignorant, scum, and they shouldn't be allowed to vote tends to have that effect.
I like the discussions on here, but even some perfectly reasonable posters tend to go barmy when Brexit comes up. Face to face, is different to writing anonymously, and I suspect both sides would temper their views then. But overall, this remains realtively civilsed.
As James O'Brien endlessly says, compassion for the conned. Whilst some people really are thick ignorant scum (in general, not just politics) there is a real problem in this country where manipulative politicians and their client media sing any old lie and people now accept the lie as truth. We can't even say they don't know its a lie - most now do but accept it because it winds up "the left", "the woke", "the liberals" etc etc.
I have no problem at all with people who reach different conclusions to me by a different read of the facts. Great - we all have opinions are we're entitled to them. I am less sympathetic to people whose opinions are based on entrenched lies or worse still are told to knowingly spread something they know is a lie to people they think won't know better.
You mentioned a Corbynite which demonstrates this is not a left vs right party political issue - the hard left are as bad as the hard right. Its just that the hard right happen to be in government at the moment, so more people read the lies in the Daily Mail than the lies in Socialist Appeal.
this is not a hard right government
Authoritarian a better word? Acts illegally - both in closing parliament and the behaviour of its leading ministers Lies to parliament - truth not a concern Pliant state media pushing official spin without question
Its closer to Putin than Zelinskiy.
I think duplicitous is the word you're looking for. It's not authoritarian or you couldn't be write what you've written.
Can somebody explain why legitimate asylum seekers are being deported to Rwanda? Can somebody explain the benefit to us, or them, of this policy? I don't understand it
"Make those who enter UK by unofficial means unable to claim asylum if they pass through safe country on way to UK, or have a connection to another safe country"
All voters Fair 61% Unfair 21%
Cons Fair 84% Unfair 6%
Labour Fair 41% Unfair 39%
YouGov Mar 2021
We would have to leave every refugee convention for that, the ones that we created that BTW allowed Ukrainian refugees to come here, which the public supports
I'm amused by reasonable people who seem to lose all reason when it comes to politics. I chat regularly to a Corynite who thinks the Ukraine is stuffed to the gills with Nazis because Putin said so. He knows his views are way out in left field, but he thinks others are perfectly entitled to their views. We can discuss politics and occasionally do. It never becomes heated
The reason I voted Leave in the end was because some Remainers showed what I can only call spite when confronted by democracy. Telling potential Leave voters they are thick. ignorant, scum, and they shouldn't be allowed to vote tends to have that effect.
I like the discussions on here, but even some perfectly reasonable posters tend to go barmy when Brexit comes up. Face to face, is different to writing anonymously, and I suspect both sides would temper their views then. But overall, this remains realtively civilsed.
As James O'Brien endlessly says, compassion for the conned. Whilst some people really are thick ignorant scum (in general, not just politics) there is a real problem in this country where manipulative politicians and their client media sing any old lie and people now accept the lie as truth. We can't even say they don't know its a lie - most now do but accept it because it winds up "the left", "the woke", "the liberals" etc etc.
I have no problem at all with people who reach different conclusions to me by a different read of the facts. Great - we all have opinions are we're entitled to them. I am less sympathetic to people whose opinions are based on entrenched lies or worse still are told to knowingly spread something they know is a lie to people they think won't know better.
You mentioned a Corbynite which demonstrates this is not a left vs right party political issue - the hard left are as bad as the hard right. Its just that the hard right happen to be in government at the moment, so more people read the lies in the Daily Mail than the lies in Socialist Appeal.
this is not a hard right government
Authoritarian a better word? Acts illegally - both in closing parliament and the behaviour of its leading ministers Lies to parliament - truth not a concern Pliant state media pushing official spin without question
Its closer to Putin than Zelinskiy.
I think duplicitous is the word you're looking for. It's not authoritarian or you couldn't be write what you've written.
It's trying to be authoritarian, though. Controlling the judiciary.
Mr. Pioneers, in addition to altering the benefits system as I previously outlined, going after illegal employers is something that should be emphasised.
The flaw with your approach on asylum seekers is the much publicised cases of people failing but still not being sent back (I have to admit, I have no idea how common these are), such as sex criminals who can't go home because it isn't safe there (either generally or for them in particular). A failure to build trust and competence in the state's ability to eject failed asylum seekers is a serious problem.
And that's before we consider whether we should rework the international approach to asylum seekers, as the rules were written up an age ago.
We do need a new internationalist approach to asylum seekers and refugees as its a massive problem. The other tired lie that gets trotted out is that the UK is "full" - seemingly of said refugees despite our only taking a small fraction of them. Of course the problem is that people voted to cut themselves off from international co-operation and even now demands to just quit things like the Human Rights Convention are demanded.
For what must be a small number who fail but can't be sent back this is hardly a UK-only problem. If it is unsafe to return an escaped criminal to wherever the same will be true in countries like Germany who take vastly more than we do. So again we need international co-operation not fear of the forrin.
Germany via Merkel aggravated the migrant problem and then told all of Europe it had to bail Germany out.
That strong might be seen as overly harsh, but I do take issue with some of more rose coloured views of her action as some kind of out of character spontaneity which, due to being well intentioned, is above any criticism (certainly, though, I'm not going to argue we have the answer instead). Particularly given the usual talk being against unilateral action which has big impacts on other European nations, except when she wanted otherwise apparently.
In the the Germans always put their own interests first.
I'm amused by reasonable people who seem to lose all reason when it comes to politics. I chat regularly to a Corynite who thinks the Ukraine is stuffed to the gills with Nazis because Putin said so. He knows his views are way out in left field, but he thinks others are perfectly entitled to their views. We can discuss politics and occasionally do. It never becomes heated
The reason I voted Leave in the end was because some Remainers showed what I can only call spite when confronted by democracy. Telling potential Leave voters they are thick. ignorant, scum, and they shouldn't be allowed to vote tends to have that effect.
I like the discussions on here, but even some perfectly reasonable posters tend to go barmy when Brexit comes up. Face to face, is different to writing anonymously, and I suspect both sides would temper their views then. But overall, this remains realtively civilsed.
As James O'Brien endlessly says, compassion for the conned. Whilst some people really are thick ignorant scum (in general, not just politics) there is a real problem in this country where manipulative politicians and their client media sing any old lie and people now accept the lie as truth. We can't even say they don't know its a lie - most now do but accept it because it winds up "the left", "the woke", "the liberals" etc etc.
I have no problem at all with people who reach different conclusions to me by a different read of the facts. Great - we all have opinions are we're entitled to them. I am less sympathetic to people whose opinions are based on entrenched lies or worse still are told to knowingly spread something they know is a lie to people they think won't know better.
You mentioned a Corbynite which demonstrates this is not a left vs right party political issue - the hard left are as bad as the hard right. Its just that the hard right happen to be in government at the moment, so more people read the lies in the Daily Mail than the lies in Socialist Appeal.
this is not a hard right government
Authoritarian a better word? Acts illegally - both in closing parliament and the behaviour of its leading ministers Lies to parliament - truth not a concern Pliant state media pushing official spin without question
Its closer to Putin than Zelinskiy.
I think duplicitous is the word you're looking for. It's not authoritarian or you couldn't be write what you've written.
It's trying to be authoritarian, though. Controlling the judiciary.
complete guff. It's too disorganised to even start.
Seems pretty hopeless, but gods willing that is not the case. It's calculating, but the Russian bargaining for slices of territory would presumably be so much harder for them to push if they cannot seize the city entirely.
Can somebody explain why legitimate asylum seekers are being deported to Rwanda? Can somebody explain the benefit to us, or them, of this policy? I don't understand it
The theory is that if you arrive by a deprecated route (RIB across the channel), you will be sent to Rwanda. If you try and claim asylum by a non-deprecated route, you won't.
Think snakes and ladders - if you land on 98, you go to 3....
I'm amused by reasonable people who seem to lose all reason when it comes to politics. I chat regularly to a Corynite who thinks the Ukraine is stuffed to the gills with Nazis because Putin said so. He knows his views are way out in left field, but he thinks others are perfectly entitled to their views. We can discuss politics and occasionally do. It never becomes heated
The reason I voted Leave in the end was because some Remainers showed what I can only call spite when confronted by democracy. Telling potential Leave voters they are thick. ignorant, scum, and they shouldn't be allowed to vote tends to have that effect.
I like the discussions on here, but even some perfectly reasonable posters tend to go barmy when Brexit comes up. Face to face, is different to writing anonymously, and I suspect both sides would temper their views then. But overall, this remains realtively civilsed.
As James O'Brien endlessly says, compassion for the conned. Whilst some people really are thick ignorant scum (in general, not just politics) there is a real problem in this country where manipulative politicians and their client media sing any old lie and people now accept the lie as truth. We can't even say they don't know its a lie - most now do but accept it because it winds up "the left", "the woke", "the liberals" etc etc.
I have no problem at all with people who reach different conclusions to me by a different read of the facts. Great - we all have opinions are we're entitled to them. I am less sympathetic to people whose opinions are based on entrenched lies or worse still are told to knowingly spread something they know is a lie to people they think won't know better.
You mentioned a Corbynite which demonstrates this is not a left vs right party political issue - the hard left are as bad as the hard right. Its just that the hard right happen to be in government at the moment, so more people read the lies in the Daily Mail than the lies in Socialist Appeal.
this is not a hard right government
Authoritarian a better word? Acts illegally - both in closing parliament and the behaviour of its leading ministers Lies to parliament - truth not a concern Pliant state media pushing official spin without question
Its closer to Putin than Zelinskiy.
I think duplicitous is the word you're looking for. It's not authoritarian or you couldn't be write what you've written.
It's trying to be authoritarian, though. Controlling the judiciary.
complete guff. It's too disorganised to even start.
So they do want to do it but are presently not competent enough to achieve it? I cannot say that is hugely encouraging.
They interviewed people in Calais waiting to cross. Some (not all) said if it is implemented no one will bother crossing the Channel - “we will stay in France or Germany”
So it might work as it is intended to work: AS A DETERRENT
There’s a lot of wilful misunderstanding on here. The policy is not to fly tens of thousands to Rwanda, it is to fly the first few hundred, get the message that This is what the UK does, and thus deter all others from making a futile and potentially fatal Channel crossing. Thereby saving lives
Or is it more humane, to allow children to drown in crappy boats 15 miles off Dover?
Good thread. Emergency measures which may have been useful pre-vaccination (by postponing infections until vaccines available) haven't been shown to reduce Covid deaths once population immunity is v. high & those who continue to call for them need to provide the evidence
that they are:
i) effective ii) don't cause more health harm than benefit. iii) are cost-effective and the money wouldn't be better spent on another intervention.
Just like we have to for every health care intervention. There has been enough time now to have that evidence.
Mr. Pioneers, in addition to altering the benefits system as I previously outlined, going after illegal employers is something that should be emphasised.
The flaw with your approach on asylum seekers is the much publicised cases of people failing but still not being sent back (I have to admit, I have no idea how common these are), such as sex criminals who can't go home because it isn't safe there (either generally or for them in particular). A failure to build trust and competence in the state's ability to eject failed asylum seekers is a serious problem.
And that's before we consider whether we should rework the international approach to asylum seekers, as the rules were written up an age ago.
We do need a new internationalist approach to asylum seekers and refugees as its a massive problem. The other tired lie that gets trotted out is that the UK is "full" - seemingly of said refugees despite our only taking a small fraction of them. Of course the problem is that people voted to cut themselves off from international co-operation and even now demands to just quit things like the Human Rights Convention are demanded.
For what must be a small number who fail but can't be sent back this is hardly a UK-only problem. If it is unsafe to return an escaped criminal to wherever the same will be true in countries like Germany who take vastly more than we do. So again we need international co-operation not fear of the forrin.
Germany via Merkel aggravated the migrant problem and then told all of Europe it had to bail Germany out.
That strong might be seen as overly harsh, but I do take issue with some of more rose coloured views of her action as some kind of out of character spontaneity which, due to being well intentioned, is above any criticism (certainly, though, I'm not going to argue we have the answer instead). Particularly given the usual talk being against unilateral action which has big impacts on other European nations, except when she wanted otherwise apparently.
In the the Germans always put their own interests first.
As do almost everyone, but if so less melodramatic appeals to parternership and unity would be appreciated.
I'm amused by reasonable people who seem to lose all reason when it comes to politics. I chat regularly to a Corynite who thinks the Ukraine is stuffed to the gills with Nazis because Putin said so. He knows his views are way out in left field, but he thinks others are perfectly entitled to their views. We can discuss politics and occasionally do. It never becomes heated
The reason I voted Leave in the end was because some Remainers showed what I can only call spite when confronted by democracy. Telling potential Leave voters they are thick. ignorant, scum, and they shouldn't be allowed to vote tends to have that effect.
I like the discussions on here, but even some perfectly reasonable posters tend to go barmy when Brexit comes up. Face to face, is different to writing anonymously, and I suspect both sides would temper their views then. But overall, this remains realtively civilsed.
As James O'Brien endlessly says, compassion for the conned. Whilst some people really are thick ignorant scum (in general, not just politics) there is a real problem in this country where manipulative politicians and their client media sing any old lie and people now accept the lie as truth. We can't even say they don't know its a lie - most now do but accept it because it winds up "the left", "the woke", "the liberals" etc etc.
I have no problem at all with people who reach different conclusions to me by a different read of the facts. Great - we all have opinions are we're entitled to them. I am less sympathetic to people whose opinions are based on entrenched lies or worse still are told to knowingly spread something they know is a lie to people they think won't know better.
You mentioned a Corbynite which demonstrates this is not a left vs right party political issue - the hard left are as bad as the hard right. Its just that the hard right happen to be in government at the moment, so more people read the lies in the Daily Mail than the lies in Socialist Appeal.
this is not a hard right government
Authoritarian a better word? Acts illegally - both in closing parliament and the behaviour of its leading ministers Lies to parliament - truth not a concern Pliant state media pushing official spin without question
Its closer to Putin than Zelinskiy.
I think duplicitous is the word you're looking for. It's not authoritarian or you couldn't be write what you've written.
It's trying to be authoritarian, though. Controlling the judiciary.
complete guff. It's too disorganised to even start.
I thought there were a couple of proposals that had got as far as Bills?
Maybe there's just been a speech from Raab or Braverman setting out 'ideas'!
The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.
Yep.
Is this a deliberate mistake by Mail to engineer the poll? Or just journos not on top of their brief commissioning a shite poll?
Is it actually the case they have no chance at all of a return to the U.K. or is that someone complainining about a poll misrepresenting the policy just misrepresenting the policy.
I’m not really that up on it but the reactions, both pro and anti, seem to verge on the hysterical.
It is the case that people sent to Rwanda would have no right of return even if they were found to be legitimate refugees. See Paras 9-10 in Part 2 of the Memorandum of Understanding (esp 10.1).
Can’t say I agree with that. I’m now in the anti camp rather than the don’t know camp.
Surely there is a way to help genuine asylum seekers, and sift out economic migrants, without resorting to such a policy.
We seem to have a situation where Refugee charities/groups/lawyers and many politicians on the left regard all migrants as genuine and demand an open door and the reverse is true of those on the other side of the debate.
We cannot punish the genuinely needy. It’s barbaric.
The greatest problem is that the man on the street cannot understand how someone is not safe in France. You can make any number of arguments about how many people different countries take, but at heart, people see migrants shopping to come to Britain rather than claim asylum in France. And that is what angers them.
A lot of people wrongly believe that refugees have to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. They don't. They are not doing anything wrong by preferring Britain to France. Politicians and the right wing press repeatedly insist the opposite, but that does not make it true. If the UK does not want such a law, the logical conclusions are to withdraw from international humans right treaties or campaign internationally for them to be changed, not scapegoat the refugees who think we are a good place to re-make their lives.
To be clear, I’m not making this argument. The man on the street thinks if they were in danger in the U.K., and made it to Ireland, or Belgium etc, they would claim help at that point. They don’t understand why the refugees don’t do that, and they don’t care or know the legal standpoint. To them it looks like it is blurring the lines of refugee and economic migrant.
Which in fact it is, crazy system where you can just choose to which country you want to go to. Can anyone do that, ie can I pick a country and just turn up, genuine question. If so it Really is a crazy system.
Sturgeon's future independent Scotland would welcome ALL asylum seekers?
How the F+++ would I know you thick cretinous bellend.
Fair point. There's never going to be a future independent Scotland.
Can somebody explain why legitimate asylum seekers are being deported to Rwanda? Can somebody explain the benefit to us, or them, of this policy? I don't understand it
Rwanda gets the money, and their pick of young male economic migrants, which works for them.
Bozza and Priti get two days of good headlines.
That's about it, but the rest of us (including the rest of the government) weren't involved in the project, were we?
There’s a lot of wilful misunderstanding on here. The policy is not to fly tens of thousands to Rwanda, it is to fly the first few hundred, get the message that This is what the UK does, and thus deter all others from making a futile and potentially fatal Channel crossing.
And if it doesn't actually deter will they stop at the first few hundred?
Can somebody explain why legitimate asylum seekers are being deported to Rwanda? Can somebody explain the benefit to us, or them, of this policy? I don't understand it
The theory is that if you arrive by a deprecated route (RIB across the channel), you will be sent to Rwanda. If you try and claim asylum by a non-deprecated route, you won't.
Think snakes and ladders - if you land on 98, you go to 3....
But if you are then proven to be a legitimate refugee, you end up being deported.
Which is like deporting me to Rwanda. Explain the logic of that?
I'm amused by reasonable people who seem to lose all reason when it comes to politics. I chat regularly to a Corynite who thinks the Ukraine is stuffed to the gills with Nazis because Putin said so. He knows his views are way out in left field, but he thinks others are perfectly entitled to their views. We can discuss politics and occasionally do. It never becomes heated
The reason I voted Leave in the end was because some Remainers showed what I can only call spite when confronted by democracy. Telling potential Leave voters they are thick. ignorant, scum, and they shouldn't be allowed to vote tends to have that effect.
I like the discussions on here, but even some perfectly reasonable posters tend to go barmy when Brexit comes up. Face to face, is different to writing anonymously, and I suspect both sides would temper their views then. But overall, this remains realtively civilsed.
As James O'Brien endlessly says, compassion for the conned. Whilst some people really are thick ignorant scum (in general, not just politics) there is a real problem in this country where manipulative politicians and their client media sing any old lie and people now accept the lie as truth. We can't even say they don't know its a lie - most now do but accept it because it winds up "the left", "the woke", "the liberals" etc etc.
I have no problem at all with people who reach different conclusions to me by a different read of the facts. Great - we all have opinions are we're entitled to them. I am less sympathetic to people whose opinions are based on entrenched lies or worse still are told to knowingly spread something they know is a lie to people they think won't know better.
You mentioned a Corbynite which demonstrates this is not a left vs right party political issue - the hard left are as bad as the hard right. Its just that the hard right happen to be in government at the moment, so more people read the lies in the Daily Mail than the lies in Socialist Appeal.
this is not a hard right government
Authoritarian a better word? Acts illegally - both in closing parliament and the behaviour of its leading ministers Lies to parliament - truth not a concern Pliant state media pushing official spin without question
Its closer to Putin than Zelinskiy.
I think duplicitous is the word you're looking for. It's not authoritarian or you couldn't be write what you've written.
It's trying to be authoritarian, though. Controlling the judiciary.
complete guff. It's too disorganised to even start.
So they do want to do it but are presently not competent enough to achieve it? I cannot say that is hugely encouraging.
BoJo or all his faults doesn't strike me as a tyranr - for a start off he wants to be liked rather than respected.
What you try to do can be as meaningful as what you actually manage to do. Look at the Paterson issue - in the end the government did not save him, but what they attempted was to rewrite rules on the hoof to protect a mate and, presumably, neuter attempts to go after others in the future. Any comments that might be made in future about caring about standards would accordingly be shown to be utter lies, since we saw what they actually wanted, but were prevented from doing.
That applies to quite a few policy areas where things might be mitigated or slimmed down after initial uproar or problems.
The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.
Let's face it, they are being sent to Rwanda because they are generally further from the UK than their starting point. As a cynical answer to stopping economic migration in its tracks, it's very canny.
If you are from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, west Africa, north Africa, are you going to want to give a snakehead ten grand to risk your life in a small boat, for a ticket to Rwanda? Or stay in France instead. Or any of the other dozen countries you have gone through to get to Calais. It will end the camps in Calais, For which I guess the French will delighted.
How badly do you think this policy will play in, say, Kent? Spoiler: it will be very popular. Scotland? Maybe not so much.
If it successfully deters people from making the crossing, then it will be a success.
However...
I suspect the draw of the UK (where it is easy to find work as an undocumented migrant), and the fact that the capacity of the Rwandan scheme is a tiny fraction of the number of asylum seekers reaching the UK, means that its effect will likely be limited.
As @Malmesbury and I have argued, by far the best thing we can do is to reduce the demand pull, by incentivizing people to report on those who hire people in the UK illegally.
I agree, but the two in combination may well have been more effective still.
It does need to be properly funded, mind.
If it's just a few hundred a year, then it will deter virtually no one.
The policy is a success nonetheless.
a) It has deflected attention from Partygate.
b) It has enthused a particular kind of Conservative voter and Conservative MPs.
The fact that it is expensive, unwieldy, is morally questionable, possibly pushes the envelope of international treaties, and deters no one, matters not a jot.
HYUFD made the point yesterday that BJ's immediate focus is on his core vote and his MPs. Once he has ridden out the present danger he can work on slightly less shitty, sunlit uplands policies for the rest of us in 2023-4.
HY et al seem to miss the basic point. "Can't remove Boris cos Ukraine".
Yes. We're supposedly standing up to freedom and truth and justice. Against a man who lies to his people using state-sanctioned propaganda and thinks the law doesn't apply to him....
And whose hero became PM at a time of high wartime crisis precisely because the Conservatives (more precisely, the wartime coalition, but Tory-dominated) didn't apply that argument.
Exactly. Any time anyone runs that argument, the response is simply "so you don't think Churchill should have taken over from Chamberlain ?"
I'm amused by reasonable people who seem to lose all reason when it comes to politics. I chat regularly to a Corynite who thinks the Ukraine is stuffed to the gills with Nazis because Putin said so. He knows his views are way out in left field, but he thinks others are perfectly entitled to their views. We can discuss politics and occasionally do. It never becomes heated
The reason I voted Leave in the end was because some Remainers showed what I can only call spite when confronted by democracy. Telling potential Leave voters they are thick. ignorant, scum, and they shouldn't be allowed to vote tends to have that effect.
I like the discussions on here, but even some perfectly reasonable posters tend to go barmy when Brexit comes up. Face to face, is different to writing anonymously, and I suspect both sides would temper their views then. But overall, this remains realtively civilsed.
As James O'Brien endlessly says, compassion for the conned. Whilst some people really are thick ignorant scum (in general, not just politics) there is a real problem in this country where manipulative politicians and their client media sing any old lie and people now accept the lie as truth. We can't even say they don't know its a lie - most now do but accept it because it winds up "the left", "the woke", "the liberals" etc etc.
I have no problem at all with people who reach different conclusions to me by a different read of the facts. Great - we all have opinions are we're entitled to them. I am less sympathetic to people whose opinions are based on entrenched lies or worse still are told to knowingly spread something they know is a lie to people they think won't know better.
You mentioned a Corbynite which demonstrates this is not a left vs right party political issue - the hard left are as bad as the hard right. Its just that the hard right happen to be in government at the moment, so more people read the lies in the Daily Mail than the lies in Socialist Appeal.
this is not a hard right government
Authoritarian a better word? Acts illegally - both in closing parliament and the behaviour of its leading ministers Lies to parliament - truth not a concern Pliant state media pushing official spin without question
Its closer to Putin than Zelinskiy.
I think duplicitous is the word you're looking for. It's not authoritarian or you couldn't be write what you've written.
It's trying to be authoritarian, though. Controlling the judiciary.
complete guff. It's too disorganised to even start.
So they do want to do it but are presently not competent enough to achieve it? I cannot say that is hugely encouraging.
BoJo or all his faults doesn't strike me as a tyranr - for a start off he wants to be liked rather than respected.
He takes against people who don't like him, though. And he's got some rather unpleasant side-kicks.
I'm amused by reasonable people who seem to lose all reason when it comes to politics. I chat regularly to a Corynite who thinks the Ukraine is stuffed to the gills with Nazis because Putin said so. He knows his views are way out in left field, but he thinks others are perfectly entitled to their views. We can discuss politics and occasionally do. It never becomes heated
The reason I voted Leave in the end was because some Remainers showed what I can only call spite when confronted by democracy. Telling potential Leave voters they are thick. ignorant, scum, and they shouldn't be allowed to vote tends to have that effect.
I like the discussions on here, but even some perfectly reasonable posters tend to go barmy when Brexit comes up. Face to face, is different to writing anonymously, and I suspect both sides would temper their views then. But overall, this remains realtively civilsed.
As James O'Brien endlessly says, compassion for the conned. Whilst some people really are thick ignorant scum (in general, not just politics) there is a real problem in this country where manipulative politicians and their client media sing any old lie and people now accept the lie as truth. We can't even say they don't know its a lie - most now do but accept it because it winds up "the left", "the woke", "the liberals" etc etc.
I have no problem at all with people who reach different conclusions to me by a different read of the facts. Great - we all have opinions are we're entitled to them. I am less sympathetic to people whose opinions are based on entrenched lies or worse still are told to knowingly spread something they know is a lie to people they think won't know better.
You mentioned a Corbynite which demonstrates this is not a left vs right party political issue - the hard left are as bad as the hard right. Its just that the hard right happen to be in government at the moment, so more people read the lies in the Daily Mail than the lies in Socialist Appeal.
this is not a hard right government
Authoritarian a better word? Acts illegally - both in closing parliament and the behaviour of its leading ministers Lies to parliament - truth not a concern Pliant state media pushing official spin without question
Its closer to Putin than Zelinskiy.
I think duplicitous is the word you're looking for. It's not authoritarian or you couldn't be write what you've written.
It's trying to be authoritarian, though. Controlling the judiciary.
complete guff. It's too disorganised to even start.
So they do want to do it but are presently not competent enough to achieve it? I cannot say that is hugely encouraging.
BoJo or all his faults doesn't strike me as a tyranr - for a start off he wants to be liked rather than respected.
He takes against people who don't like him, though. And he's got some rather unpleasant side-kicks.
So had Blair, Brown, Cameron and May. Politics is a messy business.
I'm amused by reasonable people who seem to lose all reason when it comes to politics. I chat regularly to a Corynite who thinks the Ukraine is stuffed to the gills with Nazis because Putin said so. He knows his views are way out in left field, but he thinks others are perfectly entitled to their views. We can discuss politics and occasionally do. It never becomes heated
The reason I voted Leave in the end was because some Remainers showed what I can only call spite when confronted by democracy. Telling potential Leave voters they are thick. ignorant, scum, and they shouldn't be allowed to vote tends to have that effect.
I like the discussions on here, but even some perfectly reasonable posters tend to go barmy when Brexit comes up. Face to face, is different to writing anonymously, and I suspect both sides would temper their views then. But overall, this remains realtively civilsed.
As James O'Brien endlessly says, compassion for the conned. Whilst some people really are thick ignorant scum (in general, not just politics) there is a real problem in this country where manipulative politicians and their client media sing any old lie and people now accept the lie as truth. We can't even say they don't know its a lie - most now do but accept it because it winds up "the left", "the woke", "the liberals" etc etc.
I have no problem at all with people who reach different conclusions to me by a different read of the facts. Great - we all have opinions are we're entitled to them. I am less sympathetic to people whose opinions are based on entrenched lies or worse still are told to knowingly spread something they know is a lie to people they think won't know better.
You mentioned a Corbynite which demonstrates this is not a left vs right party political issue - the hard left are as bad as the hard right. Its just that the hard right happen to be in government at the moment, so more people read the lies in the Daily Mail than the lies in Socialist Appeal.
this is not a hard right government
Authoritarian a better word? Acts illegally - both in closing parliament and the behaviour of its leading ministers Lies to parliament - truth not a concern Pliant state media pushing official spin without question
Its closer to Putin than Zelinskiy.
I think duplicitous is the word you're looking for. It's not authoritarian or you couldn't be write what you've written.
It's trying to be authoritarian, though. Controlling the judiciary.
complete guff. It's too disorganised to even start.
So they do want to do it but are presently not competent enough to achieve it? I cannot say that is hugely encouraging.
BoJo or all his faults doesn't strike me as a tyranr - for a start off he wants to be liked rather than respected.
I don't think he's a tyrant, or even an aspiring tyrant. I do think that any party in government for a long time gets lazy, intolerant of things getting in their way, and increasing viciousness of partisan rhetoric further encourages them to use their power to undermine opponents on the grounds of it being for the greater good that they remain in control, and more inclined to argue that they should be able to do whatever they want because they won an election without being frustrated by petty things like other laws or consideration of others.
It's one reason it sometimes really is 'time for a change', for the good of both sides.
There’s a lot of wilful misunderstanding on here. The policy is not to fly tens of thousands to Rwanda, it is to fly the first few hundred, get the message that This is what the UK does, and thus deter all others from making a futile and potentially fatal Channel crossing.
And if it doesn't actually deter will they stop at the first few hundred?
Remember that "a few hundred" is less than a day's worth. This scheme will fill up long before the message gets out, and then the "Rwanda is full" message will get out shortly afterwards.
Take it from a teacher- there is zero point making a threat that you don't have the physical capacity to carry out
I'm amused by reasonable people who seem to lose all reason when it comes to politics. I chat regularly to a Corynite who thinks the Ukraine is stuffed to the gills with Nazis because Putin said so. He knows his views are way out in left field, but he thinks others are perfectly entitled to their views. We can discuss politics and occasionally do. It never becomes heated
The reason I voted Leave in the end was because some Remainers showed what I can only call spite when confronted by democracy. Telling potential Leave voters they are thick. ignorant, scum, and they shouldn't be allowed to vote tends to have that effect. I'd
I like the discussions on here, but even some perfectly reasonable posters tend to go barmy when Brexit comes up. Face to face, is different to writing anonymously, and I suspect both sides would temper their views then. But overall, this remains realtively civilsed.
As James O'Brien endlessly says, compassion for the conned. Whilst some people really are thick ignorant scum (in general, not just politics) there is a real problem in this country where manipulative politicians and their client media sing any old lie and people now accept the lie as truth. We can't even say they don't know its a lie - most now do but accept it because it winds up "the left", "the woke", "the liberals" etc etc.
I have no problem at all with people who reach different conclusions to me by a different read of the facts. Great - we all have opinions are we're entitled to them. I am less sympathetic to people whose opinions are based on entrenched lies or worse still are told to knowingly spread something they know is a lie to people they think won't know better.
You mentioned a Corbynite which demonstrates this is not a left vs right party political issue - the hard left are as bad as the hard right. Its just that the hard right happen to be in government at the moment, so more people read the lies in the Daily Mail than the lies in Socialist Appeal.
this is not a hard right government
Authoritarian a better word? Acts illegally - both in closing parliament and the behaviour of its leading ministers Lies to parliament - truth not a concern Pliant state media pushing official spin without question
Its closer to Putin than Zelinskiy.
I think duplicitous is the word you're looking for. It's not authoritarian or you couldn't be write what you've written.
It's trying to be authoritarian, though. Controlling the judiciary.
complete guff. It's too disorganised to even start.
So they do want to do it but are presently not competent enough to achieve it? I cannot say that is hugely encouraging.
BoJo or all his faults doesn't strike me as a tyranr - for a start off he wants to be liked rather than respected.
I don't think he's a tyrant, or even an aspiring tyrant. I do think that any party in government for a long time gets lazy, intolerant of things getting in their way, and increasing viciousness of partisan rhetoric further encourages them to use their power to undermine opponents on the grounds of it being for the greater good that they remain in control, and more inclined to argue that they should be able to do whatever they want because they won an election without being frustrated by petty things like other laws or consideration of others.
It's one reason it sometimes really is 'time for a change', for the good of both sides.
I agree with that, 10 years seems to be the maximum life for a PM after that they go bonkers.
Seems pretty hopeless, but gods willing that is not the case. It's calculating, but the Russian bargaining for slices of territory would presumably be so much harder for them to push if they cannot seize the city entirely.
Even if it falls the Ukrainians would surely be pretty confident of getting it back particularly if the new offensive in the Donbass fails for Russia. I mean Basra fell to the British in 2003. Eventually we were forced out.
I'm amused by reasonable people who seem to lose all reason when it comes to politics. I chat regularly to a Corynite who thinks the Ukraine is stuffed to the gills with Nazis because Putin said so. He knows his views are way out in left field, but he thinks others are perfectly entitled to their views. We can discuss politics and occasionally do. It never becomes heated
The reason I voted Leave in the end was because some Remainers showed what I can only call spite when confronted by democracy. Telling potential Leave voters they are thick. ignorant, scum, and they shouldn't be allowed to vote tends to have that effect.
I like the discussions on here, but even some perfectly reasonable posters tend to go barmy when Brexit comes up. Face to face, is different to writing anonymously, and I suspect both sides would temper their views then. But overall, this remains realtively civilsed.
As James O'Brien endlessly says, compassion for the conned. Whilst some people really are thick ignorant scum (in general, not just politics) there is a real problem in this country where manipulative politicians and their client media sing any old lie and people now accept the lie as truth. We can't even say they don't know its a lie - most now do but accept it because it winds up "the left", "the woke", "the liberals" etc etc.
I have no problem at all with people who reach different conclusions to me by a different read of the facts. Great - we all have opinions are we're entitled to them. I am less sympathetic to people whose opinions are based on entrenched lies or worse still are told to knowingly spread something they know is a lie to people they think won't know better.
You mentioned a Corbynite which demonstrates this is not a left vs right party political issue - the hard left are as bad as the hard right. Its just that the hard right happen to be in government at the moment, so more people read the lies in the Daily Mail than the lies in Socialist Appeal.
this is not a hard right government
Authoritarian a better word? Acts illegally - both in closing parliament and the behaviour of its leading ministers Lies to parliament - truth not a concern Pliant state media pushing official spin without question
They interviewed people in Calais waiting to cross. Some (not all) said if it is implemented no one will bother crossing the Channel - “we will stay in France or Germany”
So it might work as it is intended to work: AS A DETERRENT
There’s a lot of wilful misunderstanding on here. The policy is not to fly tens of thousands to Rwanda, it is to fly the first few hundred, get the message that This is what the UK does, and thus deter all others from making a futile and potentially fatal Channel crossing. Thereby saving lives
Or is it more humane, to allow children to drown in crappy boats 15 miles off Dover?
Last night on the BBC they were interviewing people (none of which were aware of it until it was explained) and it was 100% it makes no difference. Suspect there might be some careful selection or interesting explanation of what is proposed by either the BBC or the Times.
Seems pretty hopeless, but gods willing that is not the case. It's calculating, but the Russian bargaining for slices of territory would presumably be so much harder for them to push if they cannot seize the city entirely.
Even if it falls the Ukrainians would surely be pretty confident of getting it back particularly if the new offensive in the Donbass fails for Russia. I mean Basra fell to the British in 2003. Eventually we were forced out.
If it fell, I expect the entire population would be killed and/or deported if the Ukrainians looked like winning it back.
There’s a lot of wilful misunderstanding on here. The policy is not to fly tens of thousands to Rwanda, it is to fly the first few hundred, get the message that This is what the UK does, and thus deter all others from making a futile and potentially fatal Channel crossing.
And if it doesn't actually deter will they stop at the first few hundred?
Very good question.
But at least they are trying
At the moment the government is spending £5 million A DAY on housing these channel crossers in hostels. £1.5bn a year. And every year the number of crossers doubles. This is unsustainable - and then some. It also means HMG can spend quite a lot on “Rwanda” before it is less cost effective
So something must be done. This is something. It is also humane, if ruthless. And the intent is noble - to simply stop channel crossers in the first place
I thought that the British government had said that you can only make an asylum claim in Britain. Not from abroad. Hence people trying to get here. If so, isn't the obvious answer to open offices in France and to allow asylum claims to be processed there rather than risking a dangerous cross-Channel journey?
Oh and do what @rcs1000 has recommended re illegal employment.
I expect I'm missing something.
If the policy were an honest attempt at solving a problem, it would have been presented to Parliament, not the media. And given how long they've been talking about it, it's extraordinary that the detailed costing haven't been done, resulting in the need for the Home Secretary to issue a ministerial direction (only the second in three decades). https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61126360
There are plenty of alternatives, as you suggest. There's also the idea of agreeing with France to take a number if extra asylum seekers each year, contingent on their reducing the number of channel crossings.
I'm amused by reasonable people who seem to lose all reason when it comes to politics. I chat regularly to a Corynite who thinks the Ukraine is stuffed to the gills with Nazis because Putin said so. He knows his views are way out in left field, but he thinks others are perfectly entitled to their views. We can discuss politics and occasionally do. It never becomes heated
The reason I voted Leave in the end was because some Remainers showed what I can only call spite when confronted by democracy. Telling potential Leave voters they are thick. ignorant, scum, and they shouldn't be allowed to vote tends to have that effect.
I like the discussions on here, but even some perfectly reasonable posters tend to go barmy when Brexit comes up. Face to face, is different to writing anonymously, and I suspect both sides would temper their views then. But overall, this remains realtively civilsed.
As James O'Brien endlessly says, compassion for the conned. Whilst some people really are thick ignorant scum (in general, not just politics) there is a real problem in this country where manipulative politicians and their client media sing any old lie and people now accept the lie as truth. We can't even say they don't know its a lie - most now do but accept it because it winds up "the left", "the woke", "the liberals" etc etc.
I have no problem at all with people who reach different conclusions to me by a different read of the facts. Great - we all have opinions are we're entitled to them. I am less sympathetic to people whose opinions are based on entrenched lies or worse still are told to knowingly spread something they know is a lie to people they think won't know better.
You mentioned a Corbynite which demonstrates this is not a left vs right party political issue - the hard left are as bad as the hard right. Its just that the hard right happen to be in government at the moment, so more people read the lies in the Daily Mail than the lies in Socialist Appeal.
this is not a hard right government
Authoritarian a better word? Acts illegally - both in closing parliament and the behaviour of its leading ministers Lies to parliament - truth not a concern Pliant state media pushing official spin without question
Its closer to Putin than Zelinskiy.
I think duplicitous is the word you're looking for. It's not authoritarian or you couldn't be write what you've written.
Authoritarian in tendency. We're increasingly far down the slippery slope. On the scenario where parliament fails to sanction Johnson for lying to it, truth becomes something that no longer need concern politicians. They can make up any old shit and have their client media broadcast it out.
And its hardly as if we can do what we like now. Remember that the police rounded up and persecuted in some cases women protesting peacefully against the murder of Sarah Everard by a police officer. And laws have been passed to make certain protests illegal. Not many more steps until screaming at people "THATS WOKE! YOU ARE WOKE! YOU SUPPORT RAPISTS POSING AS WOMEN!" just turns into shutting up dissenters properly. With lies told about it in parliament and just accepted.
Not remotely a left / right partisan issue. The hard authoritarian left also like to deny reality and silence dissenters. So we have to clamp down hard on it before it becomes insidious. Especially when its a populist shill like Boris Johnson.
I'm amused by reasonable people who seem to lose all reason when it comes to politics. I chat regularly to a Corynite who thinks the Ukraine is stuffed to the gills with Nazis because Putin said so. He knows his views are way out in left field, but he thinks others are perfectly entitled to their views. We can discuss politics and occasionally do. It never becomes heated
The reason I voted Leave in the end was because some Remainers showed what I can only call spite when confronted by democracy. Telling potential Leave voters they are thick. ignorant, scum, and they shouldn't be allowed to vote tends to have that effect.
I like the discussions on here, but even some perfectly reasonable posters tend to go barmy when Brexit comes up. Face to face, is different to writing anonymously, and I suspect both sides would temper their views then. But overall, this remains realtively civilsed.
As James O'Brien endlessly says, compassion for the conned. Whilst some people really are thick ignorant scum (in general, not just politics) there is a real problem in this country where manipulative politicians and their client media sing any old lie and people now accept the lie as truth. We can't even say they don't know its a lie - most now do but accept it because it winds up "the left", "the woke", "the liberals" etc etc.
I have no problem at all with people who reach different conclusions to me by a different read of the facts. Great - we all have opinions are we're entitled to them. I am less sympathetic to people whose opinions are based on entrenched lies or worse still are told to knowingly spread something they know is a lie to people they think won't know better.
You mentioned a Corbynite which demonstrates this is not a left vs right party political issue - the hard left are as bad as the hard right. Its just that the hard right happen to be in government at the moment, so more people read the lies in the Daily Mail than the lies in Socialist Appeal.
this is not a hard right government
Authoritarian a better word? Acts illegally - both in closing parliament and the behaviour of its leading ministers Lies to parliament - truth not a concern Pliant state media pushing official spin without question
Its closer to Putin than Zelinskiy.
I think duplicitous is the word you're looking for. It's not authoritarian or you couldn't be write what you've written.
It's trying to be authoritarian, though. Controlling the judiciary.
complete guff. It's too disorganised to even start.
So they do want to do it but are presently not competent enough to achieve it? I cannot say that is hugely encouraging.
BoJo or all his faults doesn't strike me as a tyranr - for a start off he wants to be liked rather than respected.
He seems to be a narcissist who's too fond of power, and cares little for democratic institutions, which he is damaging. Tyrant is hyperbole, agreed.
I'm amused by reasonable people who seem to lose all reason when it comes to politics. I chat regularly to a Corynite who thinks the Ukraine is stuffed to the gills with Nazis because Putin said so. He knows his views are way out in left field, but he thinks others are perfectly entitled to their views. We can discuss politics and occasionally do. It never becomes heated
The reason I voted Leave in the end was because some Remainers showed what I can only call spite when confronted by democracy. Telling potential Leave voters they are thick. ignorant, scum, and they shouldn't be allowed to vote tends to have that effect.
I like the discussions on here, but even some perfectly reasonable posters tend to go barmy when Brexit comes up. Face to face, is different to writing anonymously, and I suspect both sides would temper their views then. But overall, this remains realtively civilsed.
As James O'Brien endlessly says, compassion for the conned. Whilst some people really are thick ignorant scum (in general, not just politics) there is a real problem in this country where manipulative politicians and their client media sing any old lie and people now accept the lie as truth. We can't even say they don't know its a lie - most now do but accept it because it winds up "the left", "the woke", "the liberals" etc etc.
I have no problem at all with people who reach different conclusions to me by a different read of the facts. Great - we all have opinions are we're entitled to them. I am less sympathetic to people whose opinions are based on entrenched lies or worse still are told to knowingly spread something they know is a lie to people they think won't know better.
You mentioned a Corbynite which demonstrates this is not a left vs right party political issue - the hard left are as bad as the hard right. Its just that the hard right happen to be in government at the moment, so more people read the lies in the Daily Mail than the lies in Socialist Appeal.
this is not a hard right government
Authoritarian a better word? Acts illegally - both in closing parliament and the behaviour of its leading ministers Lies to parliament - truth not a concern Pliant state media pushing official spin without question
Its closer to Putin than Zelinskiy.
This not remotely a Putinist government.
On the same trajectory though. Say "I'm elected I can do what I want". Rig the electoral system to stay in office. Lie and make an lie the official truth. Clamp down on LGBT rights. Broadcast propaganda and declare a clampdown on dissenting voices. Its all there.
They interviewed people in Calais waiting to cross. Some (not all) said if it is implemented no one will bother crossing the Channel - “we will stay in France or Germany”
So it might work as it is intended to work: AS A DETERRENT
There’s a lot of wilful misunderstanding on here. The policy is not to fly tens of thousands to Rwanda, it is to fly the first few hundred, get the message that This is what the UK does, and thus deter all others from making a futile and potentially fatal Channel crossing. Thereby saving lives
Or is it more humane, to allow children to drown in crappy boats 15 miles off Dover?
Even more humane would have been to open processing centres in Calais. And open up legal means to claim asylum (some countries have zero legal route). I can only imagine how desperate you must be to stick your child on one of these boats. They aren't all economic migrants.
As for Rwanda, we accepted 100% of asylum claims made from people fleeing Rwanda over the last few years. So we know its a safe place to render people to. The people who fled have told us all about it.
I'm amused by reasonable people who seem to lose all reason when it comes to politics. I chat regularly to a Corynite who thinks the Ukraine is stuffed to the gills with Nazis because Putin said so. He knows his views are way out in left field, but he thinks others are perfectly entitled to their views. We can discuss politics and occasionally do. It never becomes heated
The reason I voted Leave in the end was because some Remainers showed what I can only call spite when confronted by democracy. Telling potential Leave voters they are thick. ignorant, scum, and they shouldn't be allowed to vote tends to have that effect.
I like the discussions on here, but even some perfectly reasonable posters tend to go barmy when Brexit comes up. Face to face, is different to writing anonymously, and I suspect both sides would temper their views then. But overall, this remains realtively civilsed.
As James O'Brien endlessly says, compassion for the conned. Whilst some people really are thick ignorant scum (in general, not just politics) there is a real problem in this country where manipulative politicians and their client media sing any old lie and people now accept the lie as truth. We can't even say they don't know its a lie - most now do but accept it because it winds up "the left", "the woke", "the liberals" etc etc.
I have no problem at all with people who reach different conclusions to me by a different read of the facts. Great - we all have opinions are we're entitled to them. I am less sympathetic to people whose opinions are based on entrenched lies or worse still are told to knowingly spread something they know is a lie to people they think won't know better.
You mentioned a Corbynite which demonstrates this is not a left vs right party political issue - the hard left are as bad as the hard right. Its just that the hard right happen to be in government at the moment, so more people read the lies in the Daily Mail than the lies in Socialist Appeal.
this is not a hard right government
Authoritarian a better word? Acts illegally - both in closing parliament and the behaviour of its leading ministers Lies to parliament - truth not a concern Pliant state media pushing official spin without question
Its closer to Putin than Zelinskiy.
This not remotely a Putinist government.
On the same trajectory though. Say "I'm elected I can do what I want". Rig the electoral system to stay in office. Lie and make an lie the official truth. Clamp down on LGBT rights. Broadcast propaganda and declare a clampdown on dissenting voices. Its all there.
“Clamp down on LGBT rights”???
I must have missed the bit where Boris started putting gays in gulags. Perhaps I was abroad
It’s this kind of drivel which makes you a risible commenter
I'm amused by reasonable people who seem to lose all reason when it comes to politics. I chat regularly to a Corynite who thinks the Ukraine is stuffed to the gills with Nazis because Putin said so. He knows his views are way out in left field, but he thinks others are perfectly entitled to their views. We can discuss politics and occasionally do. It never becomes heated
The reason I voted Leave in the end was because some Remainers showed what I can only call spite when confronted by democracy. Telling potential Leave voters they are thick. ignorant, scum, and they shouldn't be allowed to vote tends to have that effect.
I like the discussions on here, but even some perfectly reasonable posters tend to go barmy when Brexit comes up. Face to face, is different to writing anonymously, and I suspect both sides would temper their views then. But overall, this remains realtively civilsed.
As James O'Brien endlessly says, compassion for the conned. Whilst some people really are thick ignorant scum (in general, not just politics) there is a real problem in this country where manipulative politicians and their client media sing any old lie and people now accept the lie as truth. We can't even say they don't know its a lie - most now do but accept it because it winds up "the left", "the woke", "the liberals" etc etc.
I have no problem at all with people who reach different conclusions to me by a different read of the facts. Great - we all have opinions are we're entitled to them. I am less sympathetic to people whose opinions are based on entrenched lies or worse still are told to knowingly spread something they know is a lie to people they think won't know better.
You mentioned a Corbynite which demonstrates this is not a left vs right party political issue - the hard left are as bad as the hard right. Its just that the hard right happen to be in government at the moment, so more people read the lies in the Daily Mail than the lies in Socialist Appeal.
this is not a hard right government
Authoritarian a better word? Acts illegally - both in closing parliament and the behaviour of its leading ministers Lies to parliament - truth not a concern Pliant state media pushing official spin without question
Its closer to Putin than Zelinskiy.
This not remotely a Putinist government.
On the same trajectory though. Say "I'm elected I can do what I want". Rig the electoral system to stay in office. Lie and make an lie the official truth. Clamp down on LGBT rights. Broadcast propaganda and declare a clampdown on dissenting voices. Its all there.
Clampdown on LGBT rights? Maybe I've missed that one.
Benefits are better in France so refugees wanting to move to the UK are doing so for other reasons . Family connections and the English language are the main pull factors . This is why refugees there are not generally from old French colonies who because of similar reasons will want to stay in France .
The Rwandan policy is something dreamt up by no 10 not to tackle the refugee problem but to start a fight with lawyers and the Lords and eventually use that as a vehicle to remove the UK from the ECHR .
The uninformed will of course cheer the government on as their rights are flushed down the toilet and they become sheep parroting the Daily Mail and the rest of the right wing press .
The Orbanisation of the UK will only stop once the criminal cabal and moral cesspit in no 10 are shown the door.
We really need to attack this myth. Being dumped into the housing association property that nobody sane will live in due to rampant crime, or months in a dump hotel nobody will stay in. With non-cash vouchers for food. Hardly the life of riley is it?
There aren't many of those. The number of Empty HA properties is under 1% according to the most recent numbers for England.
Strangely, in a housing shortage, there is high occupancy.
I recall one Evening Standard headline, breathlessly telling us of 23,000! empty! homes! in London.
That was, 23K homes in Greater London.
There are 3.6 million homes in Greater London.
The 23K included houses uninhabitable while being renovated.....
In England we have had this issue tightly managed since 2005 or so. Remember it is devolved, so numbers for WSNI are separate. There's always been high occupancy since then. We get the phenomenon of some people shouting louder to make a small problem seem more significant.
There has been a small bump in 'empties' during the pandemic of about 0.1% of homes, which has now fallen back again. I had a couple of properties empty for 18 months that were being sold from mum's estate to fund IHT. Can't sell it until yo get probate, which took 18 months, and can't rent it out because after Covid Regs getting vacant possession to sell it would also take 12-18 months.
Comments
I suspect the Kazak government is more concerned about domestic threats of an uprising or coup than external ones.
Belarus too.
Behind all this is the fact that many (most?) immigrants are not 100% economic or 100% refugees. Their motives are a mix.
I thought that the British government had said that you can only make an asylum claim in Britain. Not from abroad. Hence people trying to get here. If so, isn't the obvious answer to open offices in France and to allow asylum claims to be processed there rather than risking a dangerous cross-Channel journey?
Oh and do what @rcs1000 has recommended re illegal employment.
I expect I'm missing something.
Takes Mariupol. Declares a triumph and digs in in the way he has for 8 years in Ukraine. Then gives his army 3 months R&R before a summer attack
That is runs and wickets not wins and losses.
OKC my condolences.
So of course I would prefer Spain over Ireland.
And stop and think about what it's like to be a refugee. You probably need some emotional support from someone you know and trust. Am I going to get that in Toulouse? No. Am I going to get it in Granada? Yes. So I would happily walk past Toulouse to get there.
Russia’s banned list [Google Translate]
1. Boris JOHNSON (Alexander Boris de Pfeffel JOHNSON) - Prime Minister;
2. Dominic Rennie RAAB - Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Justice;
3. Elizabeth TRASS (Elizabeth Mary TRUSS) - Minister of Foreign Affairs;
4. Ben WALLACE - Secretary of Defense;
5. Grant SHAPPS - Minister of Transport;
6. Priti PATEL - Minister of the Interior;
7. Rishi SUNAK - Minister of Finance;
8. Kwasi KWARTENG - Minister of Entrepreneurship, Energy and Industrial Strategy;
9. Nadine Vanessa DORRIES - Minister of Digitalization, Culture, Media and Sports;
10. James HEAPPEY - Deputy Secretary of Defense;
11 Nicola Ferguson STURGEON - First Minister of Scotland;
12. Suella BRAVERMAN - Attorney General for England and Wales;
13. Theresa MAY is a Conservative MP and former British Prime Minister.
https://mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/news/1809607/
I’m not sorry. The bus ride was the most beautiful and breathtaking I’ve ever experienced, and this is the view from my bus stop at Mont Louis.
For what must be a small number who fail but can't be sent back this is hardly a UK-only problem. If it is unsafe to return an escaped criminal to wherever the same will be true in countries like Germany who take vastly more than we do. So again we need international co-operation not fear of the forrin.
Explains why I find his words difficult to digest.
So rather than opening an office in France they create requirement to cross the Channel in a small boat before you can make your application, which reduces the number who try and even further reduces the number who actually arrive as many will either give up or drown.
New York Times article from 2020, states EU prepared to finish a deal to send asylum seekers... oh you know the rest.
https://twitter.com/barristershorse/status/1515103864298643468
*certain people*: The greatest empire the world has ever known which gave the world a common language.
*same certain people*: You speak English? Fcuk off and speak it somewhere else.
Of course, migration rose as a concern for the electorate when Blair et al. were keen to 'rub the Right's face in diversity'. That worked out well.
I recall one Evening Standard headline, breathlessly telling us of 23,000! empty! homes! in London.
That was, 23K homes in Greater London.
There are 3.6 million homes in Greater London.
The 23K included houses uninhabitable while being renovated.....
The rich want the right to pretend that they don't live in Britain.
Paul Waugh
@paulwaugh
·
1h
But one MP on Partygate: “Some of us have rumbled Boris, but the people in our local parties haven’t. Many of them still love him. The penny will only drop if we’re losing councillors that they’ve bust a gut to get elected. That’s when the scales may fall from their eyes.”
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1515250402555576323
The latter choose to come in part voluntarily, and so if the goal is "UK" rather than another safe country, the probabilty of being sent elsewhere may well have an impact.
And nothing for Drake? (Has he been vocal at all?)
Acts illegally - both in closing parliament and the behaviour of its leading ministers
Lies to parliament - truth not a concern
Pliant state media pushing official spin without question
Its closer to Putin than Zelinskiy.
@visegrad24
·
1h
The defenders of Mariupol have released a new picture to prove to the world that they are still holding firm.
The city has not fallen, Mariupol is still fighting.
https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1515262118119059458
I want independence and shot of the sorry AND gangsters currently running the country. If only Labour was not run by London millionaire unionists and assorted lickspittles.
"Housing asylum seekers who have entered UK by unofficial means in purpose-built “reception centres” rather than hotels"
All voters
Fair 56%
Unfair 20%
Cons
Fair 80%
Unfair 5%
Labour
Fair 33%
Unfair 39%
YouGov March 21
Matthew "I don't understand the Government policy" Goodwin.
You cannot enter a country by legitimate means to gain asylum, how is this so difficult to understand!
If we did that, I bet the numbers would halve over night
All voters
Need 37%
Legality 50%
Cons
Need 20%
Legality 73%
Lab
Need 61%
Legality 28%
YouGov March 21
Meaningless, you cannot get asylum by entering a company legally, wtf is this question
All voters
Fair 61%
Unfair 21%
Cons
Fair 84%
Unfair 6%
Labour
Fair 41%
Unfair 39%
YouGov Mar 2021
We would have to leave every refugee convention for that, the ones that we created that BTW allowed Ukrainian refugees to come here, which the public supports
Think snakes and ladders - if you land on 98, you go to 3....
They interviewed people in Calais waiting to cross. Some (not all) said if it is implemented no one will bother crossing the Channel - “we will stay in France or Germany”
So it might work as it is intended to work: AS A DETERRENT
There’s a lot of wilful misunderstanding on here. The policy is not to fly tens of thousands to Rwanda, it is to fly the first few hundred, get the message that This is what the UK does, and thus deter all others from making a futile and potentially fatal Channel crossing. Thereby saving lives
Or is it more humane, to allow children to drown in crappy boats 15 miles off Dover?
Maybe there's just been a speech from Raab or Braverman setting out 'ideas'!
Bozza and Priti get two days of good headlines.
That's about it, but the rest of us (including the rest of the government) weren't involved in the project, were we?
Which is like deporting me to Rwanda. Explain the logic of that?
That applies to quite a few policy areas where things might be mitigated or slimmed down after initial uproar or problems.
It's one reason it sometimes really is 'time for a change', for the good of both sides.
Take it from a teacher- there is zero point making a threat that you don't have the physical capacity to carry out
But at least they are trying
At the moment the government is spending £5 million A DAY on housing these channel crossers in hostels. £1.5bn a year. And every year the number of crossers doubles. This is unsustainable - and then some. It also means HMG can spend quite a lot on “Rwanda” before it is less cost effective
So something must be done. This is something. It is also humane, if ruthless. And the intent is noble - to simply stop channel crossers in the first place
This is what Australia did - and it worked
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61126360
There are plenty of alternatives, as you suggest.
There's also the idea of agreeing with France to take a number if extra asylum seekers each year, contingent on their reducing the number of channel crossings.
And its hardly as if we can do what we like now. Remember that the police rounded up and persecuted in some cases women protesting peacefully against the murder of Sarah Everard by a police officer. And laws have been passed to make certain protests illegal. Not many more steps until screaming at people "THATS WOKE! YOU ARE WOKE! YOU SUPPORT RAPISTS POSING AS WOMEN!" just turns into shutting up dissenters properly. With lies told about it in parliament and just accepted.
Not remotely a left / right partisan issue. The hard authoritarian left also like to deny reality and silence dissenters. So we have to clamp down hard on it before it becomes insidious. Especially when its a populist shill like Boris Johnson.
Tyrant is hyperbole, agreed.
As for Rwanda, we accepted 100% of asylum claims made from people fleeing Rwanda over the last few years. So we know its a safe place to render people to. The people who fled have told us all about it.
I must have missed the bit where Boris started putting gays in gulags. Perhaps I was abroad
It’s this kind of drivel which makes you a risible commenter
There has been a small bump in 'empties' during the pandemic of about 0.1% of homes, which has now fallen back again. I had a couple of properties empty for 18 months that were being sold from mum's estate to fund IHT. Can't sell it until yo get probate, which took 18 months, and can't rent it out because after Covid Regs getting vacant possession to sell it would also take 12-18 months.