Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

The big worry for LAB and the LDs is Johnson going – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited June 20 in General
imageThe big worry for LAB and the LDs is Johnson going – politicalbetting.com

The Redfield and Wilton Strategies chart tells the story of the last two and a bit years in UK politics from the perspective of the Johnson and Starmer net approval ratings. The latest poll out today has the LAB leader just in negative territory but a net 22% ahead of the PM.

Read the full story here

«13

Comments

  • londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 1,617
    Boris - nothing personal - but can you step down now please? Thanks 👍
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 1,647
    Where does a consistent Con +5, Lab -5 come from now? Even if Johnson goes?
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 6,970
    Boris - nothing personal - but can you scour own face off with brillo pad? Thanks
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 50,652
    Lucky for the Opposition then that he is stuck in Downing Street and 'aint going anywhere.

  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 6,970
    mwadams said:

    Where does a consistent Con +5, Lab -5 come from now? Even if Johnson goes?

    A sensible, serious leader is probably enough.
    But the Tories will pick Mark Francois or something because as a party they're ready for a padded cell.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 6,012

    Lucky for the Opposition then that he is stuck in Downing Street and 'aint going anywhere.

    Less lucky for all of us as British Citizens, though.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 20,945
    Farooq said:

    mwadams said:

    Where does a consistent Con +5, Lab -5 come from now? Even if Johnson goes?

    A sensible, serious leader is probably enough.
    But the Tories will pick Mark Francois or something because as a party they're ready for a padded cell.
    There's no polling evidence for that though.
    And so he stays.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 50,652
    Have we covered Trump turning on his own favourite daughter over election rig lie?

  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 2,939
    mwadams said:

    Where does a consistent Con +5, Lab -5 come from now? Even if Johnson goes?

    Certainty firming up from disenchanted mid term tories probably gets a couple % swing, then swingback
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 52,205
    I cannot see Boris leading into GE24 unless something remarkable happens

    Just noticed this, not sure if it has been reported yet

    A flight to take asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda next Tuesday has been allowed to go ahead by the High Court. Campaigners failed in their legal bid to halt the removals to the east African country, but the case will be heard by the Court of Appeal on Monday.

    Under the policy, those entering the UK illegally will be flown to Rwanda to apply for asylum there. About 31 people have been told they may be on the first flight.

    The government hopes the scheme will discourage asylum seekers from crossing the English Channel, by making it clear many cases will now be dealt with by Rwanda.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 20,934

    Have we covered Trump turning on his own favourite daughter over election rig lie?

    Do tell!
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,065
    mwadams said:

    Where does a consistent Con +5, Lab -5 come from now? Even if Johnson goes?

    If Boris goes, even SKS surely can't persist with his current strategy of trying to win by default. At which point he has to come up with some policies, and irrespective of what they are there are bound to be some people put off by them.

    Also, if Boris goes the media narrative shifts and SKS will get some scrutiny.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 4,188
    Re the second front, I've noted that a lot of the 2015-19 Tories who gained seats from LDs are businessy, community folks and can be wetter than wet. Seems like a smart way to hold those seats in tight contests, especially where the LDs retain the councils. By contrast the ones holding against the LDs were probably selected with less focus on moderate political positioning. So - for instance - I can imagine that never-LD seats fall at the next election, but North Norfolk remains Conservative.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 6,970

    mwadams said:

    Where does a consistent Con +5, Lab -5 come from now? Even if Johnson goes?

    Certainty firming up from disenchanted mid term tories probably gets a couple % swing, then swingback
    I don't think swingback is a real thing. Or, rather, I'm unconvinced so far by the concept.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 20,945

    mwadams said:

    Where does a consistent Con +5, Lab -5 come from now? Even if Johnson goes?

    Certainty firming up from disenchanted mid term tories probably gets a couple % swing, then swingback
    That would be the Tory hope.
    Gets less and less likely every day, mind.
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,139
    'The big worry for LAB and the LDs is Johnson going'

    Bang on the money, I would also add the SNP in Scotland into that mix. I am just really disappointed that only 148 Conservative MPs have so far worked this out. Far better for the longer term electorally prospects of the Conservative party that Boris goes sooner rather than later, a summer leadership contest this year would have been ideal. The longer Boris remains insitu in No10, the more chance he has of causing wider damage to the party's chances at the next GE. Fully expect the Conservatives to take an even bigger hit in the up coming by-elections now because MPs voted to keep him in place.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 16,591
    OT. If anyone wants to see American democracy going up in smoke watch Ch4 News. Some will find it frightening. Incredible to think America was once thought of as a beacon
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 20,945
    edited June 10
    Farooq said:

    mwadams said:

    Where does a consistent Con +5, Lab -5 come from now? Even if Johnson goes?

    Certainty firming up from disenchanted mid term tories probably gets a couple % swing, then swingback
    I don't think swingback is a real thing. Or, rather, I'm unconvinced so far by the concept.
    I'm unconvinced it's automatic. Didn't see much in 2017.
    Edit. I realise that isn't classic swingback.

    Found this ancient piece.

    https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2010/01/02/the-swingback-myth-do-governments-really-recover/
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 2,939
    edited June 10
    Farooq said:

    mwadams said:

    Where does a consistent Con +5, Lab -5 come from now? Even if Johnson goes?

    Certainty firming up from disenchanted mid term tories probably gets a couple % swing, then swingback
    I don't think swingback is a real thing. Or, rather, I'm unconvinced so far by the concept.
    I think its just a factor of moderate disenchantment being easier expressed as mid term 'ill vote oppisition' in an online poll than doing so at a GE
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,065
    dixiedean said:

    Farooq said:

    mwadams said:

    Where does a consistent Con +5, Lab -5 come from now? Even if Johnson goes?

    Certainty firming up from disenchanted mid term tories probably gets a couple % swing, then swingback
    I don't think swingback is a real thing. Or, rather, I'm unconvinced so far by the concept.
    I'm unconvinced it's automatic. Didn't see much in 2017.
    The 2015 parliament never really got to mid-term.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 2,939
    edited June 10
    dixiedean said:

    mwadams said:

    Where does a consistent Con +5, Lab -5 come from now? Even if Johnson goes?

    Certainty firming up from disenchanted mid term tories probably gets a couple % swing, then swingback
    That would be the Tory hope.
    Gets less and less likely every day, mind.
    No election in the short term to focus minds. The Tory decline is mainly Con to unlikely to vote. As in 97, the prospect of a lab govt will provoke some to vote. Its just a question of extent and how much actual vote shifting has occured by then
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,065

    Farooq said:

    mwadams said:

    Where does a consistent Con +5, Lab -5 come from now? Even if Johnson goes?

    Certainty firming up from disenchanted mid term tories probably gets a couple % swing, then swingback
    I don't think swingback is a real thing. Or, rather, I'm unconvinced so far by the concept.
    I think its just a factor of moderate disenchantment being easier expressed as mid term 'ill vote oppisition' in an online poll easier than doing so at a GE
    Right. The theory is that mid-term by-elections and opinion polls are referendums on the government, but general elections are choices between potential governments.

    The theory's sound enough in a conventional parliament where nothing significant happens politically that massively upends voting intention and causes a very early election.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 20,945
    Applicant said:

    dixiedean said:

    Farooq said:

    mwadams said:

    Where does a consistent Con +5, Lab -5 come from now? Even if Johnson goes?

    Certainty firming up from disenchanted mid term tories probably gets a couple % swing, then swingback
    I don't think swingback is a real thing. Or, rather, I'm unconvinced so far by the concept.
    I'm unconvinced it's automatic. Didn't see much in 2017.
    The 2015 parliament never really got to mid-term.
    Yes. I've edited the above. However. The idea that folk revert to a mean at elections is part of the theory of why swingback occurs. It didn't then.
    The other is, of course, that the government takes all the difficult decisions early then hands out gifts.
    Can't see that applying this time much.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 5,496
    edited June 10

    I cannot see Boris leading into GE24 unless something remarkable happens

    Just noticed this, not sure if it has been reported yet

    A flight to take asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda next Tuesday has been allowed to go ahead by the High Court. Campaigners failed in their legal bid to halt the removals to the east African country, but the case will be heard by the Court of Appeal on Monday.

    Under the policy, those entering the UK illegally will be flown to Rwanda to apply for asylum there. About 31 people have been told they may be on the first flight.

    The government hopes the scheme will discourage asylum seekers from crossing the English Channel, by making it clear many cases will now be dealt with by Rwanda.

    Appeal could well succeed. I think in fact the government may be happy to lose the appeal. Part of their not so cunning plan may be to have the courts disallow this policy so that they can get the praise from populists for trying, blame the wicked do gooders and courts, without having to actually implement this grisly charade.

    Actually implementing the policy has risks. Sentiment can change. Lots of Tory voters are not racists.

    (BTW I am not propounding an alternative solution. No good outcomes are available in the world's current dismal state. This is merely another, even worse than the some of the other bad ones.)

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 50,652
    Roger said:

    OT. If anyone wants to see American democracy going up in smoke watch Ch4 News. Some will find it frightening. Incredible to think America was once thought of as a beacon

    I fear the loons have only just got started.

  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 20,945
    Having said all that. I still think Con majority is favourite. But I'm beginning to think it will be wafer thin.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 5,496
    Applicant said:

    mwadams said:

    Where does a consistent Con +5, Lab -5 come from now? Even if Johnson goes?

    If Boris goes, even SKS surely can't persist with his current strategy of trying to win by default. At which point he has to come up with some policies, and irrespective of what they are there are bound to be some people put off by them.

    Also, if Boris goes the media narrative shifts and SKS will get some scrutiny.
    The next election can only be won by default, unless a leader is found from somewhere who combines the qualities of Garibaldi, Churchill, Clinton and Blair.

    There aren't any easy options when you are maxed out already on debt, deficit, taxes, spending, inflation, energy costs, Brexit, stagnation while at the same time NHS, education, housing, transport social care all want gazillions more expenditure.

    A handful of retail bargains and hand waving is what you are going to get + a few misleading promises, on all sides.

  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 52,205
    Applicant said:

    mwadams said:

    Where does a consistent Con +5, Lab -5 come from now? Even if Johnson goes?

    If Boris goes, even SKS surely can't persist with his current strategy of trying to win by default. At which point he has to come up with some policies, and irrespective of what they are there are bound to be some people put off by them.

    Also, if Boris goes the media narrative shifts and SKS will get some scrutiny.
    Not if, when ?
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 5,496
    dixiedean said:

    Having said all that. I still think Con majority is favourite. But I'm beginning to think it will be wafer thin.

    Only three outcomes apart from outliers: Tory majority or virtual majority; no stable government possible; Labour led but without a majority. Chances: 45%; 10%; 45%.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 16,591

    I cannot see Boris leading into GE24 unless something remarkable happens

    Just noticed this, not sure if it has been reported yet

    A flight to take asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda next Tuesday has been allowed to go ahead by the High Court. Campaigners failed in their legal bid to halt the removals to the east African country, but the case will be heard by the Court of Appeal on Monday.

    Under the policy, those entering the UK illegally will be flown to Rwanda to apply for asylum there. About 31 people have been told they may be on the first flight.

    The government hopes the scheme will discourage asylum seekers from crossing the English Channel, by making it clear many cases will now be dealt with by Rwanda.

    They could shoot them by firing squad. That should cement the reputations of Big Dog and his incontinent puppy Patel
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 22,384
    edited June 10
    Just the wife of the only supreme court judge who voted against turning over documents to the Jan 6th comission trying to over turn the election result

    https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1535296993173684224

    Nothing to see here.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 29,790
    Anyone who thinks Ukraine's territory should be given to Russia for 'peace' should read the following;

    https://russiavsworld.org/russian-soldiers-had-been-raping-her-for-a-week-the-story-of-a-19-year-old-girl-who-went-through-hell-in-mariupol/

    That is the horror you are condemning the Ukrainians to. There have been similar, and possibly worse, stories coming out of the areas of LNR and DNR that have been under Russian control for the last eight years.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 7,804
    Roger said:

    I cannot see Boris leading into GE24 unless something remarkable happens

    Just noticed this, not sure if it has been reported yet

    A flight to take asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda next Tuesday has been allowed to go ahead by the High Court. Campaigners failed in their legal bid to halt the removals to the east African country, but the case will be heard by the Court of Appeal on Monday.

    Under the policy, those entering the UK illegally will be flown to Rwanda to apply for asylum there. About 31 people have been told they may be on the first flight.

    The government hopes the scheme will discourage asylum seekers from crossing the English Channel, by making it clear many cases will now be dealt with by Rwanda.

    They could shoot them by firing squad. That should cement the reputations of Big Dog and his incontinent puppy Patel
    Come along - Priti Patel may have many faults, but you can't really conflate her existance with everything that goes wrong.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 34,892
    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Applicant said:

    MaxPB said:

    Applicant said:

    MaxPB said:

    Also the major criticism of UEFA for the ticket fiasco and the reason there were so many fakes floating around is because there was no security hologram this time around, that allowed fans to basically just print off their own using colour laser printers and perforated card. Tickets that are easy to forge is, IMO, inviting trouble.

    Wait, what? The last football game I went to was a National League game in April and the tickets for that had a hologram!
    They didn't, see here:



    The ticket on the left is real.
    That's utterly astonishing. Not even on the reverse? (I can't immediately find any pictures of the reverse online)
    Nah, no hologram at all. It made all the tickets very easy to fake. UEFA blamed the teams for insisting on paper tickets at first, as usual they're never responsible for their fuck ups, but the lack of the hologram is now being touted as the reason 5x as many fakes as they would normally see at a match like this were floating around.
    And the QR code?
    But that requires someone to actually scan them which is done at the entry gate not at the outer cordon.

    I'm not sure how many big football matches you've been to, I've been to a few and there's always an outer cordon where ticket holders have their tickets checked by eye and then the inside that it's ticket holders only. The reason the holograms exist on these kinds of tickets is to help the stewards at the outer cordon who don't have scanners to easily spot people with fakes.

    By not having the hologram UEFA took away this security layer and unsurprisingly a bunch of shysters with reasonably decent fake tickets were selling them just outside the outer cordon and some fans attempted to print their own. They got past the outer cordon easily and that's why there were all of these issues at the entry gates with people who had either been conned or were trying to con their way into the game making it impossible for legitimate ticket holders to get in.

    It was a UEFA fuck up and it looks as though the head of UEFA just got his gym buddy to take over as head of security despite being a complete novice and unsuitable for the job.
    I read that about UEFA, Two Slovenians eh. What are the odds

    Football is so fucked administratively. I guess it successfully generates so much money people don’t care about the governance - until something like this

    A bit like China, before Zero Covid
    Indeed and event security is probably the most critical bit of hosting a final. He's fucked up the Euro final in Wembley, the Europa League final this year and the Champions League final as well. Horrible record.
    More importantly, how is New Fatherhood? Are you sleeping? Covered in vom? Still elated? Depressed? Thinking of emigrating alone at night?

    I hope your experience is bright
    Tiring. Back to work now as well which is tough to leave behind wife and baby at home and traipse into the office twice a week.

    She's a pretty chill baby, eat, sleep, shit repeat.

    I'm averaging about 4 or 5 hours of sleep at the moment which is very draining having to work as well. I'm sure I'll get used to it though.
    Mate, it’s fucking tough. Sympathies

    At one point (month 3?) we could only get my eldest to sleep if I - literally - balanced her on my chest. Where she would slumber happily. I imagine my heartbeat was soothing and sounded womblike and maternal. Her mum could not do it because nipples, breastfeeding etc

    But of course with my tiny daughter on my chest that meant I could not sleep at all. I had to lie there, motionless, and rigid. I got about 3 hours a night for a while

    So grim! And the lack of sleep somehow builds up, like a toxin in the ecosystem. In the end I lapsed into a paternal post natal depression (it happens to 1 in 10 apparently). Luckily it was very short lived. A few weeks if that. But nasty

    Remember to self care! Dads are often neglected and ignored, and then Dads feel guilty for feeling like shit

    I think support for dads is way better than it used to be, the NCT stuff and support networks are completely different to what my dad described, my wife is also a bit of a star and our friends have come through with a big Deliveroo voucher. I totally understand the guilt aspect though, having to keep on top of the household while the baby sleeps along with my wife and then also only getting 4-5 hours of sleep per night and now having to work is tough. My mum has visited a few times now to help around the house, but she just kept getting in the way and making loads of noise. I moaned to my sister and she told my mum off a bit so she's actually been helpful the last couple of times, brought us two or three days worth of lunch has stopped lecturing us about small things.

    Right now I'm just battling through, our friends have been really good, the few that have come to visit already have kids so know the struggle. My friend's wife actually asked me how I was getting on and I got that guilty sensation again but it was nice to be considered. My sister has also been a star, she has a really tough time for her first so has been checking in with video calls, has visited loads and left her kids with her in laws, she's been great just sensing exactly what to do or say in any situation. I think she realises that we have a lot less of a support network that she did because my mother in law is in Switzerland and has so far not come to visit (though I'm minded to just let that stay as is, I can't see a visit from her being helpful) so she's stepped up a bit.

    Anyway, thanks for asking mate, sorry to unload!
  • RogerRoger Posts: 16,591
    edited June 10
    algarkirk said:

    I cannot see Boris leading into GE24 unless something remarkable happens

    Just noticed this, not sure if it has been reported yet

    A flight to take asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda next Tuesday has been allowed to go ahead by the High Court. Campaigners failed in their legal bid to halt the removals to the east African country, but the case will be heard by the Court of Appeal on Monday.

    Under the policy, those entering the UK illegally will be flown to Rwanda to apply for asylum there. About 31 people have been told they may be on the first flight.

    The government hopes the scheme will discourage asylum seekers from crossing the English Channel, by making it clear many cases will now be dealt with by Rwanda.

    Appeal could well succeed. I think in fact the government may be happy to lose the appeal. Part of their not so cunning plan may be to have the courts disallow this policy so that they can get the praise from populists for trying, blame the wicked do gooders and courts, without having to actually implement this grisly charade.

    Actually implementing the policy has risks. Sentiment can change. Lots of Tory voters are not racists.

    (BTW I am not propounding an alternative solution. No good outcomes are available in the world's current dismal state. This is merely another, even worse than the some of the other bad ones.)

    And there is always that strange phenomenon that has shown voters expect their leaders to be more civilised than they are themselves. It's one of the reasons Patel is so unpopular
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 1,647

    mwadams said:

    Where does a consistent Con +5, Lab -5 come from now? Even if Johnson goes?

    Certainty firming up from disenchanted mid term tories probably gets a couple % swing, then swingback
    Isn't swingback and disenchanted midterm Tories the same thing?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 45,383
    Roger said:

    I cannot see Boris leading into GE24 unless something remarkable happens

    Just noticed this, not sure if it has been reported yet

    A flight to take asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda next Tuesday has been allowed to go ahead by the High Court. Campaigners failed in their legal bid to halt the removals to the east African country, but the case will be heard by the Court of Appeal on Monday.

    Under the policy, those entering the UK illegally will be flown to Rwanda to apply for asylum there. About 31 people have been told they may be on the first flight.

    The government hopes the scheme will discourage asylum seekers from crossing the English Channel, by making it clear many cases will now be dealt with by Rwanda.

    They could shoot them by firing squad. That should cement the reputations of Big Dog and his incontinent puppy Patel
    Is she actually incontinent?
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 1,647

    Applicant said:

    mwadams said:

    Where does a consistent Con +5, Lab -5 come from now? Even if Johnson goes?

    If Boris goes, even SKS surely can't persist with his current strategy of trying to win by default. At which point he has to come up with some policies, and irrespective of what they are there are bound to be some people put off by them.

    Also, if Boris goes the media narrative shifts and SKS will get some scrutiny.
    Not if, when ?
    That depends on one or the other side actually coming up with a new policy that attracts more people than it puts off. Surely the whole point is that, barring that, SKS "doesn't lose" by default (and hence becomes PM).

    It's a.depressing state of affairs.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 2,397
    Roger said:

    algarkirk said:

    I cannot see Boris leading into GE24 unless something remarkable happens

    Just noticed this, not sure if it has been reported yet

    A flight to take asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda next Tuesday has been allowed to go ahead by the High Court. Campaigners failed in their legal bid to halt the removals to the east African country, but the case will be heard by the Court of Appeal on Monday.

    Under the policy, those entering the UK illegally will be flown to Rwanda to apply for asylum there. About 31 people have been told they may be on the first flight.

    The government hopes the scheme will discourage asylum seekers from crossing the English Channel, by making it clear many cases will now be dealt with by Rwanda.

    Appeal could well succeed. I think in fact the government may be happy to lose the appeal. Part of their not so cunning plan may be to have the courts disallow this policy so that they can get the praise from populists for trying, blame the wicked do gooders and courts, without having to actually implement this grisly charade.

    Actually implementing the policy has risks. Sentiment can change. Lots of Tory voters are not racists.

    (BTW I am not propounding an alternative solution. No good outcomes are available in the world's current dismal state. This is merely another, even worse than the some of the other bad ones.)

    And there is always that strange phenomenon that has shown voters expect their leaders to be more civilised than they are themselves. It's one of the reasons Patel is so unpopular
    And yet her ratings are almost bound to improve if the boat people stop coming.

    The Channel crossings problem can only be solved in one of two ways: by letting the unwanted migrants stay and pissing off a very large chunk of the electorate, or throwing them out and crushing their hopes and dreams in the process.

    That's life. As in so many cases, the fantasy of a scenario in which everyone can be kept happy doesn't exist.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 20,968
    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Applicant said:

    MaxPB said:

    Applicant said:

    MaxPB said:

    Also the major criticism of UEFA for the ticket fiasco and the reason there were so many fakes floating around is because there was no security hologram this time around, that allowed fans to basically just print off their own using colour laser printers and perforated card. Tickets that are easy to forge is, IMO, inviting trouble.

    Wait, what? The last football game I went to was a National League game in April and the tickets for that had a hologram!
    They didn't, see here:



    The ticket on the left is real.
    That's utterly astonishing. Not even on the reverse? (I can't immediately find any pictures of the reverse online)
    Nah, no hologram at all. It made all the tickets very easy to fake. UEFA blamed the teams for insisting on paper tickets at first, as usual they're never responsible for their fuck ups, but the lack of the hologram is now being touted as the reason 5x as many fakes as they would normally see at a match like this were floating around.
    And the QR code?
    But that requires someone to actually scan them which is done at the entry gate not at the outer cordon.

    I'm not sure how many big football matches you've been to, I've been to a few and there's always an outer cordon where ticket holders have their tickets checked by eye and then the inside that it's ticket holders only. The reason the holograms exist on these kinds of tickets is to help the stewards at the outer cordon who don't have scanners to easily spot people with fakes.

    By not having the hologram UEFA took away this security layer and unsurprisingly a bunch of shysters with reasonably decent fake tickets were selling them just outside the outer cordon and some fans attempted to print their own. They got past the outer cordon easily and that's why there were all of these issues at the entry gates with people who had either been conned or were trying to con their way into the game making it impossible for legitimate ticket holders to get in.

    It was a UEFA fuck up and it looks as though the head of UEFA just got his gym buddy to take over as head of security despite being a complete novice and unsuitable for the job.
    I read that about UEFA, Two Slovenians eh. What are the odds

    Football is so fucked administratively. I guess it successfully generates so much money people don’t care about the governance - until something like this

    A bit like China, before Zero Covid
    Indeed and event security is probably the most critical bit of hosting a final. He's fucked up the Euro final in Wembley, the Europa League final this year and the Champions League final as well. Horrible record.
    More importantly, how is New Fatherhood? Are you sleeping? Covered in vom? Still elated? Depressed? Thinking of emigrating alone at night?

    I hope your experience is bright
    Tiring. Back to work now as well which is tough to leave behind wife and baby at home and traipse into the office twice a week.

    She's a pretty chill baby, eat, sleep, shit repeat.

    I'm averaging about 4 or 5 hours of sleep at the moment which is very draining having to work as well. I'm sure I'll get used to it though.
    Mate, it’s fucking tough. Sympathies

    At one point (month 3?) we could only get my eldest to sleep if I - literally - balanced her on my chest. Where she would slumber happily. I imagine my heartbeat was soothing and sounded womblike and maternal. Her mum could not do it because nipples, breastfeeding etc

    But of course with my tiny daughter on my chest that meant I could not sleep at all. I had to lie there, motionless, and rigid. I got about 3 hours a night for a while

    So grim! And the lack of sleep somehow builds up, like a toxin in the ecosystem. In the end I lapsed into a paternal post natal depression (it happens to 1 in 10 apparently). Luckily it was very short lived. A few weeks if that. But nasty

    Remember to self care! Dads are often neglected and ignored, and then Dads feel guilty for feeling like shit

    I think support for dads is way better than it used to be, the NCT stuff and support networks are completely different to what my dad described, my wife is also a bit of a star and our friends have come through with a big Deliveroo voucher. I totally understand the guilt aspect though, having to keep on top of the household while the baby sleeps along with my wife and then also only getting 4-5 hours of sleep per night and now having to work is tough. My mum has visited a few times now to help around the house, but she just kept getting in the way and making loads of noise. I moaned to my sister and she told my mum off a bit so she's actually been helpful the last couple of times, brought us two or three days worth of lunch has stopped lecturing us about small things.

    Right now I'm just battling through, our friends have been really good, the few that have come to visit already have kids so know the struggle. My friend's wife actually asked me how I was getting on and I got that guilty sensation again but it was nice to be considered. My sister has also been a star, she has a really tough time for her first so has been checking in with video calls, has visited loads and left her kids with her in laws, she's been great just sensing exactly what to do or say in any situation. I think she realises that we have a lot less of a support network that she did because my mother in law is in Switzerland and has so far not come to visit (though I'm minded to just let that stay as is, I can't see a visit from her being helpful) so she's stepped up a bit.

    Anyway, thanks for asking mate, sorry to unload!
    Always unload. It’s good to share, in itself

    Plus on PB you have a ton of older guys who’ve been through parenting and can advise, it’s a resource

    One slightly underhand thing I did was sneak off to work in my “office” in central London and sometimes I’d go there and simply sleep through the day. Not very honourable but it worked for me and kept me sane, once every couple of weeks, in the worst moments. Maybe buy yourself a hotel room for the day if it gets too much?

    No one needs a breadwinning Dad who can barely function
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 6,012
    pigeon said:

    Roger said:

    algarkirk said:

    I cannot see Boris leading into GE24 unless something remarkable happens

    Just noticed this, not sure if it has been reported yet

    A flight to take asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda next Tuesday has been allowed to go ahead by the High Court. Campaigners failed in their legal bid to halt the removals to the east African country, but the case will be heard by the Court of Appeal on Monday.

    Under the policy, those entering the UK illegally will be flown to Rwanda to apply for asylum there. About 31 people have been told they may be on the first flight.

    The government hopes the scheme will discourage asylum seekers from crossing the English Channel, by making it clear many cases will now be dealt with by Rwanda.

    Appeal could well succeed. I think in fact the government may be happy to lose the appeal. Part of their not so cunning plan may be to have the courts disallow this policy so that they can get the praise from populists for trying, blame the wicked do gooders and courts, without having to actually implement this grisly charade.

    Actually implementing the policy has risks. Sentiment can change. Lots of Tory voters are not racists.

    (BTW I am not propounding an alternative solution. No good outcomes are available in the world's current dismal state. This is merely another, even worse than the some of the other bad ones.)

    And there is always that strange phenomenon that has shown voters expect their leaders to be more civilised than they are themselves. It's one of the reasons Patel is so unpopular
    And yet her ratings are almost bound to improve if the boat people stop coming.

    The Channel crossings problem can only be solved in one of two ways: by letting the unwanted migrants stay and pissing off a very large chunk of the electorate, or throwing them out and crushing their hopes and dreams in the process.

    That's life. As in so many cases, the fantasy of a scenario in which everyone can be kept happy doesn't exist.
    And only the first of those is logistically possible.

    We have known, since the announcement of this policy, that Rwanda only plan to take a few hundred people who land on British shores a year. One of their ministers made that clear on announcement day. They are not idiots and they have less capacity to assimilate tens of thousands of people than the UK does.

    So a 1% or so risk of deportation is meant to dissuade people from making the perilous Channel crossing. It's going to get overwhelmed now, which means it will never work.

    I know that telling people "you have been conned" is a very ineffective way of persuading them to change their minds. But if you have been persuaded that the Patel Plan has any hope of working on its own terms, that it's anyting other than a bit of (fairly nasty) perfomance...

    You've been conned.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 45,383
    pigeon said:

    Roger said:

    algarkirk said:

    I cannot see Boris leading into GE24 unless something remarkable happens

    Just noticed this, not sure if it has been reported yet

    A flight to take asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda next Tuesday has been allowed to go ahead by the High Court. Campaigners failed in their legal bid to halt the removals to the east African country, but the case will be heard by the Court of Appeal on Monday.

    Under the policy, those entering the UK illegally will be flown to Rwanda to apply for asylum there. About 31 people have been told they may be on the first flight.

    The government hopes the scheme will discourage asylum seekers from crossing the English Channel, by making it clear many cases will now be dealt with by Rwanda.

    Appeal could well succeed. I think in fact the government may be happy to lose the appeal. Part of their not so cunning plan may be to have the courts disallow this policy so that they can get the praise from populists for trying, blame the wicked do gooders and courts, without having to actually implement this grisly charade.

    Actually implementing the policy has risks. Sentiment can change. Lots of Tory voters are not racists.

    (BTW I am not propounding an alternative solution. No good outcomes are available in the world's current dismal state. This is merely another, even worse than the some of the other bad ones.)

    And there is always that strange phenomenon that has shown voters expect their leaders to be more civilised than they are themselves. It's one of the reasons Patel is so unpopular
    And yet her ratings are almost bound to improve if the boat people stop coming.

    The Channel crossings problem can only be solved in one of two ways: by letting the unwanted migrants stay and pissing off a very large chunk of the electorate, or throwing them out and crushing their hopes and dreams in the process.

    That's life. As in so many cases, the fantasy of a scenario in which everyone can be kept happy doesn't exist.
    The boat people only came by boat because traditional methods of crossing the channel had been shut down by Covid and Brexit.

    In the old days, you paid some bloke with a lorry £150 to lie on the floor behind a bunch of sacks of onions. Now, with travel volumes having collapsed, and there being far more checks your chance of being discovered has worsened.

    Or, in the old days, you flew into Leeds Airport and discarded your passport before landing.

    The overall number of migrants hasn't changed (in fact it's probably fallen quite sharply), it's just they've all being coming the same way.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 13,830
    New thread.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 20,968

    pigeon said:

    Roger said:

    algarkirk said:

    I cannot see Boris leading into GE24 unless something remarkable happens

    Just noticed this, not sure if it has been reported yet

    A flight to take asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda next Tuesday has been allowed to go ahead by the High Court. Campaigners failed in their legal bid to halt the removals to the east African country, but the case will be heard by the Court of Appeal on Monday.

    Under the policy, those entering the UK illegally will be flown to Rwanda to apply for asylum there. About 31 people have been told they may be on the first flight.

    The government hopes the scheme will discourage asylum seekers from crossing the English Channel, by making it clear many cases will now be dealt with by Rwanda.

    Appeal could well succeed. I think in fact the government may be happy to lose the appeal. Part of their not so cunning plan may be to have the courts disallow this policy so that they can get the praise from populists for trying, blame the wicked do gooders and courts, without having to actually implement this grisly charade.

    Actually implementing the policy has risks. Sentiment can change. Lots of Tory voters are not racists.

    (BTW I am not propounding an alternative solution. No good outcomes are available in the world's current dismal state. This is merely another, even worse than the some of the other bad ones.)

    And there is always that strange phenomenon that has shown voters expect their leaders to be more civilised than they are themselves. It's one of the reasons Patel is so unpopular
    And yet her ratings are almost bound to improve if the boat people stop coming.

    The Channel crossings problem can only be solved in one of two ways: by letting the unwanted migrants stay and pissing off a very large chunk of the electorate, or throwing them out and crushing their hopes and dreams in the process.

    That's life. As in so many cases, the fantasy of a scenario in which everyone can be kept happy doesn't exist.
    And only the first of those is logistically possible.

    We have known, since the announcement of this policy, that Rwanda only plan to take a few hundred people who land on British shores a year. One of their ministers made that clear on announcement day. They are not idiots and they have less capacity to assimilate tens of thousands of people than the UK does.

    So a 1% or so risk of deportation is meant to dissuade people from making the perilous Channel crossing. It's going to get overwhelmed now, which means it will never work.

    I know that telling people "you have been conned" is a very ineffective way of persuading them to change their minds. But if you have been persuaded that the Patel Plan has any hope of working on its own terms, that it's anyting other than a bit of (fairly nasty) perfomance...

    You've been conned.
    So what would you do?

    It really is not good enough to just say Oh let them all in. Indeed it is dangerously pathetic

    Pathetic, because you are unwilling to face reality, dangerous because by saying Let them all in you encourage millions more to try and you condemn thousands to death by drowning, trafficking, etc , and eventually you DO have to face the problem because it has got much worse, at which point you will face precisely the same dilemma
  • stodgestodge Posts: 10,265
    Evening all :)

    Once again it's all too easy to view the future through the prism of the past and assume what happened then will happen now. The events since the last GE make this a unique Parliament and assuming past polling characteristics will occur in the second half of the Parliament when they didn't in the first seems unwise.

    Will Johnson going make the difference some on here hope? Short answer, I don't know - it depends the event to which the anger has been internalised against Johnson himself or whether there is a deeper malaise against the Conservatives in general - arguably understandable after 12 years as the leading party.

    Any successor will face the same horrendous economic backdrop and it's hard to see (thought I note some on here have now called for the complete suspension of fuel duty. That was worth 26 billion in 2021/22 and of course with the petrol price running presumably even more as more people are coming back on to the roads.

    I don't see any Chancellor voluntarily wanting to give up £26-30 billion in revenue.

    Thus the central arguments for Johnson going - is he a loser? Is there anyone who would be a proven winner for the Conservatives? - remain unresolved. Hunt is no Heseltine and Sunak is no Major so the death spiral potentially goes on.

    This winter, assuming the conflict in Ukraine drags on, is going to be very difficult for a lot of people even those who have perhaps weathered the storm quite well to date.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 45,383

    New thread.

    Lies!
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 2,397
    rcs1000 said:

    pigeon said:

    Roger said:

    algarkirk said:

    I cannot see Boris leading into GE24 unless something remarkable happens

    Just noticed this, not sure if it has been reported yet

    A flight to take asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda next Tuesday has been allowed to go ahead by the High Court. Campaigners failed in their legal bid to halt the removals to the east African country, but the case will be heard by the Court of Appeal on Monday.

    Under the policy, those entering the UK illegally will be flown to Rwanda to apply for asylum there. About 31 people have been told they may be on the first flight.

    The government hopes the scheme will discourage asylum seekers from crossing the English Channel, by making it clear many cases will now be dealt with by Rwanda.

    Appeal could well succeed. I think in fact the government may be happy to lose the appeal. Part of their not so cunning plan may be to have the courts disallow this policy so that they can get the praise from populists for trying, blame the wicked do gooders and courts, without having to actually implement this grisly charade.

    Actually implementing the policy has risks. Sentiment can change. Lots of Tory voters are not racists.

    (BTW I am not propounding an alternative solution. No good outcomes are available in the world's current dismal state. This is merely another, even worse than the some of the other bad ones.)

    And there is always that strange phenomenon that has shown voters expect their leaders to be more civilised than they are themselves. It's one of the reasons Patel is so unpopular
    And yet her ratings are almost bound to improve if the boat people stop coming.

    The Channel crossings problem can only be solved in one of two ways: by letting the unwanted migrants stay and pissing off a very large chunk of the electorate, or throwing them out and crushing their hopes and dreams in the process.

    That's life. As in so many cases, the fantasy of a scenario in which everyone can be kept happy doesn't exist.
    The boat people only came by boat because traditional methods of crossing the channel had been shut down by Covid and Brexit.

    In the old days, you paid some bloke with a lorry £150 to lie on the floor behind a bunch of sacks of onions. Now, with travel volumes having collapsed, and there being far more checks your chance of being discovered has worsened.

    Or, in the old days, you flew into Leeds Airport and discarded your passport before landing.

    The overall number of migrants hasn't changed (in fact it's probably fallen quite sharply), it's just they've all being coming the same way.
    The fundamental point would not, of course, change if the Channel migrants were coming across on lorries or coming across on boats. The conflict between the wishes of asylum claimants to go where they like and the wishes of voters for them to go away is essentially insoluble.

    None of this would pose a particularly serious problem if there were a couple of thousand people who wanted to come to the UK each year, but there are tens of thousands trying to get across in the boats and many millions more who would ideally like to come if it were easier to get here. So somebody has to be disappointed - the voters or the migrants.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 7,804
    rcs1000 said:

    New thread.

    Lies!
    Pretty shocking.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 20,934
    Leon said:

    pigeon said:

    Roger said:

    algarkirk said:

    I cannot see Boris leading into GE24 unless something remarkable happens

    Just noticed this, not sure if it has been reported yet

    A flight to take asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda next Tuesday has been allowed to go ahead by the High Court. Campaigners failed in their legal bid to halt the removals to the east African country, but the case will be heard by the Court of Appeal on Monday.

    Under the policy, those entering the UK illegally will be flown to Rwanda to apply for asylum there. About 31 people have been told they may be on the first flight.

    The government hopes the scheme will discourage asylum seekers from crossing the English Channel, by making it clear many cases will now be dealt with by Rwanda.

    Appeal could well succeed. I think in fact the government may be happy to lose the appeal. Part of their not so cunning plan may be to have the courts disallow this policy so that they can get the praise from populists for trying, blame the wicked do gooders and courts, without having to actually implement this grisly charade.

    Actually implementing the policy has risks. Sentiment can change. Lots of Tory voters are not racists.

    (BTW I am not propounding an alternative solution. No good outcomes are available in the world's current dismal state. This is merely another, even worse than the some of the other bad ones.)

    And there is always that strange phenomenon that has shown voters expect their leaders to be more civilised than they are themselves. It's one of the reasons Patel is so unpopular
    And yet her ratings are almost bound to improve if the boat people stop coming.

    The Channel crossings problem can only be solved in one of two ways: by letting the unwanted migrants stay and pissing off a very large chunk of the electorate, or throwing them out and crushing their hopes and dreams in the process.

    That's life. As in so many cases, the fantasy of a scenario in which everyone can be kept happy doesn't exist.
    And only the first of those is logistically possible.

    We have known, since the announcement of this policy, that Rwanda only plan to take a few hundred people who land on British shores a year. One of their ministers made that clear on announcement day. They are not idiots and they have less capacity to assimilate tens of thousands of people than the UK does.

    So a 1% or so risk of deportation is meant to dissuade people from making the perilous Channel crossing. It's going to get overwhelmed now, which means it will never work.

    I know that telling people "you have been conned" is a very ineffective way of persuading them to change their minds. But if you have been persuaded that the Patel Plan has any hope of working on its own terms, that it's anyting other than a bit of (fairly nasty) perfomance...

    You've been conned.
    So what would you do?

    It really is not good enough to just say Oh let them all in. Indeed it is dangerously pathetic

    Pathetic, because you are unwilling to face reality, dangerous because by saying Let them all in you encourage millions more to try and you condemn thousands to death by drowning, trafficking, etc , and eventually you DO have to face the problem because it has got much worse, at which point you will face precisely the same dilemma
    The solution has been posted on here before: Stricter regulation of rogue employers; allow illegal immigrants a route to citizenship if they shop employers who flout the rules. If we stamp out the black-economy employers, the attraction reduces.

    I'd add ID cards for all too.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 28,878

    Boris - nothing personal - but can you step down now please? Thanks 👍

    Why nothing personal? It IS personal. 100%. The guy's a horror show.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 45,383
    pigeon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    pigeon said:

    Roger said:

    algarkirk said:

    I cannot see Boris leading into GE24 unless something remarkable happens

    Just noticed this, not sure if it has been reported yet

    A flight to take asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda next Tuesday has been allowed to go ahead by the High Court. Campaigners failed in their legal bid to halt the removals to the east African country, but the case will be heard by the Court of Appeal on Monday.

    Under the policy, those entering the UK illegally will be flown to Rwanda to apply for asylum there. About 31 people have been told they may be on the first flight.

    The government hopes the scheme will discourage asylum seekers from crossing the English Channel, by making it clear many cases will now be dealt with by Rwanda.

    Appeal could well succeed. I think in fact the government may be happy to lose the appeal. Part of their not so cunning plan may be to have the courts disallow this policy so that they can get the praise from populists for trying, blame the wicked do gooders and courts, without having to actually implement this grisly charade.

    Actually implementing the policy has risks. Sentiment can change. Lots of Tory voters are not racists.

    (BTW I am not propounding an alternative solution. No good outcomes are available in the world's current dismal state. This is merely another, even worse than the some of the other bad ones.)

    And there is always that strange phenomenon that has shown voters expect their leaders to be more civilised than they are themselves. It's one of the reasons Patel is so unpopular
    And yet her ratings are almost bound to improve if the boat people stop coming.

    The Channel crossings problem can only be solved in one of two ways: by letting the unwanted migrants stay and pissing off a very large chunk of the electorate, or throwing them out and crushing their hopes and dreams in the process.

    That's life. As in so many cases, the fantasy of a scenario in which everyone can be kept happy doesn't exist.
    The boat people only came by boat because traditional methods of crossing the channel had been shut down by Covid and Brexit.

    In the old days, you paid some bloke with a lorry £150 to lie on the floor behind a bunch of sacks of onions. Now, with travel volumes having collapsed, and there being far more checks your chance of being discovered has worsened.

    Or, in the old days, you flew into Leeds Airport and discarded your passport before landing.

    The overall number of migrants hasn't changed (in fact it's probably fallen quite sharply), it's just they've all being coming the same way.
    The fundamental point would not, of course, change if the Channel migrants were coming across on lorries or coming across on boats. The conflict between the wishes of asylum claimants to go where they like and the wishes of voters for them to go away is essentially insoluble.

    None of this would pose a particularly serious problem if there were a couple of thousand people who wanted to come to the UK each year, but there are tens of thousands trying to get across in the boats and many millions more who would ideally like to come if it were easier to get here. So somebody has to be disappointed - the voters or the migrants.
    Oh, I agree 100%, and it's why I'm all in favour of us building proper off shore processing facilities.

    *But*, the reality is that the problem seemed much worse than it was because - for a few weeks over the summer - large numbers of people were arriving by boat.

    If we go back to a world where there's two migrants coming in in fifty different ways a day, then it will fade from the headlines, even if it's actually many more people over the course of the year.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 45,383

    Leon said:

    pigeon said:

    Roger said:

    algarkirk said:

    I cannot see Boris leading into GE24 unless something remarkable happens

    Just noticed this, not sure if it has been reported yet

    A flight to take asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda next Tuesday has been allowed to go ahead by the High Court. Campaigners failed in their legal bid to halt the removals to the east African country, but the case will be heard by the Court of Appeal on Monday.

    Under the policy, those entering the UK illegally will be flown to Rwanda to apply for asylum there. About 31 people have been told they may be on the first flight.

    The government hopes the scheme will discourage asylum seekers from crossing the English Channel, by making it clear many cases will now be dealt with by Rwanda.

    Appeal could well succeed. I think in fact the government may be happy to lose the appeal. Part of their not so cunning plan may be to have the courts disallow this policy so that they can get the praise from populists for trying, blame the wicked do gooders and courts, without having to actually implement this grisly charade.

    Actually implementing the policy has risks. Sentiment can change. Lots of Tory voters are not racists.

    (BTW I am not propounding an alternative solution. No good outcomes are available in the world's current dismal state. This is merely another, even worse than the some of the other bad ones.)

    And there is always that strange phenomenon that has shown voters expect their leaders to be more civilised than they are themselves. It's one of the reasons Patel is so unpopular
    And yet her ratings are almost bound to improve if the boat people stop coming.

    The Channel crossings problem can only be solved in one of two ways: by letting the unwanted migrants stay and pissing off a very large chunk of the electorate, or throwing them out and crushing their hopes and dreams in the process.

    That's life. As in so many cases, the fantasy of a scenario in which everyone can be kept happy doesn't exist.
    And only the first of those is logistically possible.

    We have known, since the announcement of this policy, that Rwanda only plan to take a few hundred people who land on British shores a year. One of their ministers made that clear on announcement day. They are not idiots and they have less capacity to assimilate tens of thousands of people than the UK does.

    So a 1% or so risk of deportation is meant to dissuade people from making the perilous Channel crossing. It's going to get overwhelmed now, which means it will never work.

    I know that telling people "you have been conned" is a very ineffective way of persuading them to change their minds. But if you have been persuaded that the Patel Plan has any hope of working on its own terms, that it's anyting other than a bit of (fairly nasty) perfomance...

    You've been conned.
    So what would you do?

    It really is not good enough to just say Oh let them all in. Indeed it is dangerously pathetic

    Pathetic, because you are unwilling to face reality, dangerous because by saying Let them all in you encourage millions more to try and you condemn thousands to death by drowning, trafficking, etc , and eventually you DO have to face the problem because it has got much worse, at which point you will face precisely the same dilemma
    The solution has been posted on here before: Stricter regulation of rogue employers; allow illegal immigrants a route to citizenship if they shop employers who flout the rules. If we stamp out the black-economy employers, the attraction reduces.

    I'd add ID cards for all too.
    The fact that your local car wash is still staffed by Albanians working illegally tells you how seriously the government takes properly tackling this issue.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 6,012
    edited June 10
    Leon said:

    pigeon said:

    Roger said:

    algarkirk said:

    I cannot see Boris leading into GE24 unless something remarkable happens

    Just noticed this, not sure if it has been reported yet

    A flight to take asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda next Tuesday has been allowed to go ahead by the High Court. Campaigners failed in their legal bid to halt the removals to the east African country, but the case will be heard by the Court of Appeal on Monday.

    Under the policy, those entering the UK illegally will be flown to Rwanda to apply for asylum there. About 31 people have been told they may be on the first flight.

    The government hopes the scheme will discourage asylum seekers from crossing the English Channel, by making it clear many cases will now be dealt with by Rwanda.

    Appeal could well succeed. I think in fact the government may be happy to lose the appeal. Part of their not so cunning plan may be to have the courts disallow this policy so that they can get the praise from populists for trying, blame the wicked do gooders and courts, without having to actually implement this grisly charade.

    Actually implementing the policy has risks. Sentiment can change. Lots of Tory voters are not racists.

    (BTW I am not propounding an alternative solution. No good outcomes are available in the world's current dismal state. This is merely another, even worse than the some of the other bad ones.)

    And there is always that strange phenomenon that has shown voters expect their leaders to be more civilised than they are themselves. It's one of the reasons Patel is so unpopular
    And yet her ratings are almost bound to improve if the boat people stop coming.

    The Channel crossings problem can only be solved in one of two ways: by letting the unwanted migrants stay and pissing off a very large chunk of the electorate, or throwing them out and crushing their hopes and dreams in the process.

    That's life. As in so many cases, the fantasy of a scenario in which everyone can be kept happy doesn't exist.
    And only the first of those is logistically possible.

    We have known, since the announcement of this policy, that Rwanda only plan to take a few hundred people who land on British shores a year. One of their ministers made that clear on announcement day. They are not idiots and they have less capacity to assimilate tens of thousands of people than the UK does.

    So a 1% or so risk of deportation is meant to dissuade people from making the perilous Channel crossing. It's going to get overwhelmed now, which means it will never work.

    I know that telling people "you have been conned" is a very ineffective way of persuading them to change their minds. But if you have been persuaded that the Patel Plan has any hope of working on its own terms, that it's anyting other than a bit of (fairly nasty) perfomance...

    You've been conned.
    So what would you do?

    It really is not good enough to just say Oh let them all in. Indeed it is dangerously pathetic

    Pathetic, because you are unwilling to face reality, dangerous because by saying Let them all in you encourage millions more to try and you condemn thousands to death by drowning, trafficking, etc , and eventually you DO have to face the problem because it has got much worse, at which point you will face precisely the same dilemma
    Simple answer is- I don't know.

    But pretending to be Well Hard when there's negligable capacity to enforce your Well Hardness nixes your credibility in short order. And then you're worse off than you were before, because people clock that your threats have all the force of marshmallow.

    This is literally lesson one of behaviour management. Don't make stupid threats, because people work through them and then you look stupid. So don't tell me I'm not facing reality.

    (But to expand on my simple answer... Cameron was onto something when he suggested processing assylum applications much nearer to the place of need. The downside of that is that it will lead to the UK having to get much more involved... our distance from global trouble spots leaves us pretty well insulated. Compare how many people we give assylum to with France or Gremany, say.)
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 17,030

    Leon said:

    pigeon said:

    Roger said:

    algarkirk said:

    I cannot see Boris leading into GE24 unless something remarkable happens

    Just noticed this, not sure if it has been reported yet

    A flight to take asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda next Tuesday has been allowed to go ahead by the High Court. Campaigners failed in their legal bid to halt the removals to the east African country, but the case will be heard by the Court of Appeal on Monday.

    Under the policy, those entering the UK illegally will be flown to Rwanda to apply for asylum there. About 31 people have been told they may be on the first flight.

    The government hopes the scheme will discourage asylum seekers from crossing the English Channel, by making it clear many cases will now be dealt with by Rwanda.

    Appeal could well succeed. I think in fact the government may be happy to lose the appeal. Part of their not so cunning plan may be to have the courts disallow this policy so that they can get the praise from populists for trying, blame the wicked do gooders and courts, without having to actually implement this grisly charade.

    Actually implementing the policy has risks. Sentiment can change. Lots of Tory voters are not racists.

    (BTW I am not propounding an alternative solution. No good outcomes are available in the world's current dismal state. This is merely another, even worse than the some of the other bad ones.)

    And there is always that strange phenomenon that has shown voters expect their leaders to be more civilised than they are themselves. It's one of the reasons Patel is so unpopular
    And yet her ratings are almost bound to improve if the boat people stop coming.

    The Channel crossings problem can only be solved in one of two ways: by letting the unwanted migrants stay and pissing off a very large chunk of the electorate, or throwing them out and crushing their hopes and dreams in the process.

    That's life. As in so many cases, the fantasy of a scenario in which everyone can be kept happy doesn't exist.
    And only the first of those is logistically possible.

    We have known, since the announcement of this policy, that Rwanda only plan to take a few hundred people who land on British shores a year. One of their ministers made that clear on announcement day. They are not idiots and they have less capacity to assimilate tens of thousands of people than the UK does.

    So a 1% or so risk of deportation is meant to dissuade people from making the perilous Channel crossing. It's going to get overwhelmed now, which means it will never work.

    I know that telling people "you have been conned" is a very ineffective way of persuading them to change their minds. But if you have been persuaded that the Patel Plan has any hope of working on its own terms, that it's anyting other than a bit of (fairly nasty) perfomance...

    You've been conned.
    So what would you do?

    It really is not good enough to just say Oh let them all in. Indeed it is dangerously pathetic

    Pathetic, because you are unwilling to face reality, dangerous because by saying Let them all in you encourage millions more to try and you condemn thousands to death by drowning, trafficking, etc , and eventually you DO have to face the problem because it has got much worse, at which point you will face precisely the same dilemma
    The solution has been posted on here before: Stricter regulation of rogue employers; allow illegal immigrants a route to citizenship if they shop employers who flout the rules. If we stamp out the black-economy employers, the attraction reduces.

    I'd add ID cards for all too.
    No to ID cards. Absolutely no.
  • NorthofStokeNorthofStoke Posts: 1,562
    mwadams said:

    Where does a consistent Con +5, Lab -5 come from now? Even if Johnson goes?

    Events like the rail strikes? The next LP manifesto? Labour are not popular with or trusted by the majority but can win the next election particularly if the Tories keep Johnson (or choose a bad replacement). However, Labour have also a good chance of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory given the ideological leanings of the members and a lot of the PLP (and maybe SKS).
  • LeonLeon Posts: 20,968

    Leon said:

    pigeon said:

    Roger said:

    algarkirk said:

    I cannot see Boris leading into GE24 unless something remarkable happens

    Just noticed this, not sure if it has been reported yet

    A flight to take asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda next Tuesday has been allowed to go ahead by the High Court. Campaigners failed in their legal bid to halt the removals to the east African country, but the case will be heard by the Court of Appeal on Monday.

    Under the policy, those entering the UK illegally will be flown to Rwanda to apply for asylum there. About 31 people have been told they may be on the first flight.

    The government hopes the scheme will discourage asylum seekers from crossing the English Channel, by making it clear many cases will now be dealt with by Rwanda.

    Appeal could well succeed. I think in fact the government may be happy to lose the appeal. Part of their not so cunning plan may be to have the courts disallow this policy so that they can get the praise from populists for trying, blame the wicked do gooders and courts, without having to actually implement this grisly charade.

    Actually implementing the policy has risks. Sentiment can change. Lots of Tory voters are not racists.

    (BTW I am not propounding an alternative solution. No good outcomes are available in the world's current dismal state. This is merely another, even worse than the some of the other bad ones.)

    And there is always that strange phenomenon that has shown voters expect their leaders to be more civilised than they are themselves. It's one of the reasons Patel is so unpopular
    And yet her ratings are almost bound to improve if the boat people stop coming.

    The Channel crossings problem can only be solved in one of two ways: by letting the unwanted migrants stay and pissing off a very large chunk of the electorate, or throwing them out and crushing their hopes and dreams in the process.

    That's life. As in so many cases, the fantasy of a scenario in which everyone can be kept happy doesn't exist.
    And only the first of those is logistically possible.

    We have known, since the announcement of this policy, that Rwanda only plan to take a few hundred people who land on British shores a year. One of their ministers made that clear on announcement day. They are not idiots and they have less capacity to assimilate tens of thousands of people than the UK does.

    So a 1% or so risk of deportation is meant to dissuade people from making the perilous Channel crossing. It's going to get overwhelmed now, which means it will never work.

    I know that telling people "you have been conned" is a very ineffective way of persuading them to change their minds. But if you have been persuaded that the Patel Plan has any hope of working on its own terms, that it's anyting other than a bit of (fairly nasty) perfomance...

    You've been conned.
    So what would you do?

    It really is not good enough to just say Oh let them all in. Indeed it is dangerously pathetic

    Pathetic, because you are unwilling to face reality, dangerous because by saying Let them all in you encourage millions more to try and you condemn thousands to death by drowning, trafficking, etc , and eventually you DO have to face the prigoblem because it has got much worse, at which point you will face precisely the same dilemma
    The solution has been posted on here before: Stricter regulation of rogue employers; allow illegal immigrants a route to citizenship if they shop employers who flout the rules. If we stamp out the black-economy employers, the attraction reduces.

    I'd add ID cards for all too.
    This is just a fairytale

    Even if you did all that they will keep coming, in increasing numbers because we won’t send them back, they get free healthcare, welfare and food, and we speak English and we are humane

    So yours is no answer at all

    The only method that has been shown to work, around the world, is Australia’s. Send them somewhere else, which is safe but undesirable. Tolerable but displeasing. Then they soon stop coming and people stop drowning

    Hence Patel’s bid for Rwanda, hence Biden looking at Spain, hence Denmark considering something similar, hence the EU going even further and pushing back the boats thereby consigning thousands to slavery in Libya

    If the Labour patty gains power and the boat people keep coming (and I see no reason why they should stop) then Labour will face the same intense dilemma and I bet in the end they go for the same laborious solution: send them elsewhere. It’s either that or Let them all in (politically and socially unacceptable) or shoot at the boats as a deterrent (morally abhorrent, of course)


  • BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 2,715
    My mate’s just come back from holiday in Spain and he got a new tattoo. It’s a mix of the logo for his fish and chip business he’s just sold and a Ukraine tribute.


  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 1,913
    rcs1000 said:

    Roger said:

    I cannot see Boris leading into GE24 unless something remarkable happens

    Just noticed this, not sure if it has been reported yet

    A flight to take asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda next Tuesday has been allowed to go ahead by the High Court. Campaigners failed in their legal bid to halt the removals to the east African country, but the case will be heard by the Court of Appeal on Monday.

    Under the policy, those entering the UK illegally will be flown to Rwanda to apply for asylum there. About 31 people have been told they may be on the first flight.

    The government hopes the scheme will discourage asylum seekers from crossing the English Channel, by making it clear many cases will now be dealt with by Rwanda.

    They could shoot them by firing squad. That should cement the reputations of Big Dog and his incontinent puppy Patel
    Is she actually incontinent?
    The nappy explains the shape
  • vinovino Posts: 102
    Andy_JS said:

    Leon said:

    pigeon said:

    Roger said:

    algarkirk said:

    I cannot see Boris leading into GE24 unless something remarkable happens

    Just noticed this, not sure if it has been reported yet

    A flight to take asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda next Tuesday has been allowed to go ahead by the High Court. Campaigners failed in their legal bid to halt the removals to the east African country, but the case will be heard by the Court of Appeal on Monday.

    Under the policy, those entering the UK illegally will be flown to Rwanda to apply for asylum there. About 31 people have been told they may be on the first flight.

    The government hopes the scheme will discourage asylum seekers from crossing the English Channel, by making it clear many cases will now be dealt with by Rwanda.

    Appeal could well succeed. I think in fact the government may be happy to lose the appeal. Part of their not so cunning plan may be to have the courts disallow this policy so that they can get the praise from populists for trying, blame the wicked do gooders and courts, without having to actually implement this grisly charade.

    Actually implementing the policy has risks. Sentiment can change. Lots of Tory voters are not racists.

    (BTW I am not propounding an alternative solution. No good outcomes are available in the world's current dismal state. This is merely another, even worse than the some of the other bad ones.)

    And there is always that strange phenomenon that has shown voters expect their leaders to be more civilised than they are themselves. It's one of the reasons Patel is so unpopular
    And yet her ratings are almost bound to improve if the boat people stop coming.

    The Channel crossings problem can only be solved in one of two ways: by letting the unwanted migrants stay and pissing off a very large chunk of the electorate, or throwing them out and crushing their hopes and dreams in the process.

    That's life. As in so many cases, the fantasy of a scenario in which everyone can be kept happy doesn't exist.
    And only the first of those is logistically possible.

    We have known, since the announcement of this policy, that Rwanda only plan to take a few hundred people who land on British shores a year. One of their ministers made that clear on announcement day. They are not idiots and they have less capacity to assimilate tens of thousands of people than the UK does.

    So a 1% or so risk of deportation is meant to dissuade people from making the perilous Channel crossing. It's going to get overwhelmed now, which means it will never work.

    I know that telling people "you have been conned" is a very ineffective way of persuading them to change their minds. But if you have been persuaded that the Patel Plan has any hope of working on its own terms, that it's anyting other than a bit of (fairly nasty) perfomance...

    You've been conned.
    So what would you do?

    It really is not good enough to just say Oh let them all in. Indeed it is dangerously pathetic

    Pathetic, because you are unwilling to face reality, dangerous because by saying Let them all in you encourage millions more to try and you condemn thousands to death by drowning, trafficking, etc , and eventually you DO have to face the problem because it has got much worse, at which point you will face precisely the same dilemma
    The solution has been posted on here before: Stricter regulation of rogue employers; allow illegal immigrants a route to citizenship if they shop employers who flout the rules. If we stamp out the black-economy employers, the attraction reduces.

    I'd add ID cards for all too.
    No to ID cards. Absolutely no.
    Why not?
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 1,913
    Omnium said:

    rcs1000 said:

    New thread.

    Lies!
    Pretty shocking.
    #LockHimUp
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 17,030
    vino said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Leon said:

    pigeon said:

    Roger said:

    algarkirk said:

    I cannot see Boris leading into GE24 unless something remarkable happens

    Just noticed this, not sure if it has been reported yet

    A flight to take asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda next Tuesday has been allowed to go ahead by the High Court. Campaigners failed in their legal bid to halt the removals to the east African country, but the case will be heard by the Court of Appeal on Monday.

    Under the policy, those entering the UK illegally will be flown to Rwanda to apply for asylum there. About 31 people have been told they may be on the first flight.

    The government hopes the scheme will discourage asylum seekers from crossing the English Channel, by making it clear many cases will now be dealt with by Rwanda.

    Appeal could well succeed. I think in fact the government may be happy to lose the appeal. Part of their not so cunning plan may be to have the courts disallow this policy so that they can get the praise from populists for trying, blame the wicked do gooders and courts, without having to actually implement this grisly charade.

    Actually implementing the policy has risks. Sentiment can change. Lots of Tory voters are not racists.

    (BTW I am not propounding an alternative solution. No good outcomes are available in the world's current dismal state. This is merely another, even worse than the some of the other bad ones.)

    And there is always that strange phenomenon that has shown voters expect their leaders to be more civilised than they are themselves. It's one of the reasons Patel is so unpopular
    And yet her ratings are almost bound to improve if the boat people stop coming.

    The Channel crossings problem can only be solved in one of two ways: by letting the unwanted migrants stay and pissing off a very large chunk of the electorate, or throwing them out and crushing their hopes and dreams in the process.

    That's life. As in so many cases, the fantasy of a scenario in which everyone can be kept happy doesn't exist.
    And only the first of those is logistically possible.

    We have known, since the announcement of this policy, that Rwanda only plan to take a few hundred people who land on British shores a year. One of their ministers made that clear on announcement day. They are not idiots and they have less capacity to assimilate tens of thousands of people than the UK does.

    So a 1% or so risk of deportation is meant to dissuade people from making the perilous Channel crossing. It's going to get overwhelmed now, which means it will never work.

    I know that telling people "you have been conned" is a very ineffective way of persuading them to change their minds. But if you have been persuaded that the Patel Plan has any hope of working on its own terms, that it's anyting other than a bit of (fairly nasty) perfomance...

    You've been conned.
    So what would you do?

    It really is not good enough to just say Oh let them all in. Indeed it is dangerously pathetic

    Pathetic, because you are unwilling to face reality, dangerous because by saying Let them all in you encourage millions more to try and you condemn thousands to death by drowning, trafficking, etc , and eventually you DO have to face the problem because it has got much worse, at which point you will face precisely the same dilemma
    The solution has been posted on here before: Stricter regulation of rogue employers; allow illegal immigrants a route to citizenship if they shop employers who flout the rules. If we stamp out the black-economy employers, the attraction reduces.

    I'd add ID cards for all too.
    No to ID cards. Absolutely no.
    Why not?
    Because they aren't the British way of doing things.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 2,397

    pigeon said:

    Roger said:

    algarkirk said:

    I cannot see Boris leading into GE24 unless something remarkable happens

    Just noticed this, not sure if it has been reported yet

    A flight to take asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda next Tuesday has been allowed to go ahead by the High Court. Campaigners failed in their legal bid to halt the removals to the east African country, but the case will be heard by the Court of Appeal on Monday.

    Under the policy, those entering the UK illegally will be flown to Rwanda to apply for asylum there. About 31 people have been told they may be on the first flight.

    The government hopes the scheme will discourage asylum seekers from crossing the English Channel, by making it clear many cases will now be dealt with by Rwanda.

    Appeal could well succeed. I think in fact the government may be happy to lose the appeal. Part of their not so cunning plan may be to have the courts disallow this policy so that they can get the praise from populists for trying, blame the wicked do gooders and courts, without having to actually implement this grisly charade.

    Actually implementing the policy has risks. Sentiment can change. Lots of Tory voters are not racists.

    (BTW I am not propounding an alternative solution. No good outcomes are available in the world's current dismal state. This is merely another, even worse than the some of the other bad ones.)

    And there is always that strange phenomenon that has shown voters expect their leaders to be more civilised than they are themselves. It's one of the reasons Patel is so unpopular
    And yet her ratings are almost bound to improve if the boat people stop coming.

    The Channel crossings problem can only be solved in one of two ways: by letting the unwanted migrants stay and pissing off a very large chunk of the electorate, or throwing them out and crushing their hopes and dreams in the process.

    That's life. As in so many cases, the fantasy of a scenario in which everyone can be kept happy doesn't exist.
    And only the first of those is logistically possible.

    We have known, since the announcement of this policy, that Rwanda only plan to take a few hundred people who land on British shores a year. One of their ministers made that clear on announcement day. They are not idiots and they have less capacity to assimilate tens of thousands of people than the UK does.

    So a 1% or so risk of deportation is meant to dissuade people from making the perilous Channel crossing. It's going to get overwhelmed now, which means it will never work.

    I know that telling people "you have been conned" is a very ineffective way of persuading them to change their minds. But if you have been persuaded that the Patel Plan has any hope of working on its own terms, that it's anyting other than a bit of (fairly nasty) perfomance...

    You've been conned.
    The Rwanda plan is nasty. Anything that doesn't give the migrants everything they want is, by definition, being nasty to them. And no, it won't solve the problem. It probably falls into the category of "slightly better than nothing," but under the likely assumption that it fails to have a sufficient deterrent effect to stifle the flow, somebody will have to come up with another idea eventually. And that idea is bound to be even nastier, because it consists either of telling the population of the UK that it is powerless to decide who can and cannot live here and must simply put up with whoever wants to come, or going the full Australia, building a much larger gulag in another third country or a distant overseas territory like the Falklands, and filling it with huge numbers of boat people until word reaches those yet to make the journey that it is hopeless and they should give up trying.

    Again, there is no cosy or particularly good solution to this problem. It doesn't exist. Even somehow making the chronically dysfunctional Home Office much more efficient at processing asylum claims, and setting up a system that allows for processing near to some particularly shitty countries that people are fleeing from (with successful applicants flown directly into Heathrow) won't solve anything, because the rejects won't give up and will try to come anyway.

    Fundamentally, the entire post-WW2 system for managing migration and asylum claims was devised in an era in which people were very much less mobile, and flows of millions of both refugees and economic migrants from distant corners of the Earth did not happen and was not anticipated. Its continuing operation is now coming into direct conflict with the established will of democratically elected Governments and their people, as seen not just here but in places like Greece, where they've had to cope with a much more serious boat people problem than us, and have tried to deal with it with a chain of internment camps. How do you reform it in such a fashion that both resident and migrant populations are satisfied? You can't.

    The current Government is not a good one, but no successor is going to do very much better at dealing with irregular migration either. There is no approach available that's not both very expensive and liable to upset an awful lot of people.
  • vinovino Posts: 102
    Andy_JS said:

    vino said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Leon said:

    pigeon said:

    Roger said:

    algarkirk said:

    I cannot see Boris leading into GE24 unless something remarkable happens

    Just noticed this, not sure if it has been reported yet

    A flight to take asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda next Tuesday has been allowed to go ahead by the High Court. Campaigners failed in their legal bid to halt the removals to the east African country, but the case will be heard by the Court of Appeal on Monday.

    Under the policy, those entering the UK illegally will be flown to Rwanda to apply for asylum there. About 31 people have been told they may be on the first flight.

    The government hopes the scheme will discourage asylum seekers from crossing the English Channel, by making it clear many cases will now be dealt with by Rwanda.

    Appeal could well succeed. I think in fact the government may be happy to lose the appeal. Part of their not so cunning plan may be to have the courts disallow this policy so that they can get the praise from populists for trying, blame the wicked do gooders and courts, without having to actually implement this grisly charade.

    Actually implementing the policy has risks. Sentiment can change. Lots of Tory voters are not racists.

    (BTW I am not propounding an alternative solution. No good outcomes are available in the world's current dismal state. This is merely another, even worse than the some of the other bad ones.)

    And there is always that strange phenomenon that has shown voters expect their leaders to be more civilised than they are themselves. It's one of the reasons Patel is so unpopular
    And yet her ratings are almost bound to improve if the boat people stop coming.

    The Channel crossings problem can only be solved in one of two ways: by letting the unwanted migrants stay and pissing off a very large chunk of the electorate, or throwing them out and crushing their hopes and dreams in the process.

    That's life. As in so many cases, the fantasy of a scenario in which everyone can be kept happy doesn't exist.
    And only the first of those is logistically possible.

    We have known, since the announcement of this policy, that Rwanda only plan to take a few hundred people who land on British shores a year. One of their ministers made that clear on announcement day. They are not idiots and they have less capacity to assimilate tens of thousands of people than the UK does.

    So a 1% or so risk of deportation is meant to dissuade people from making the perilous Channel crossing. It's going to get overwhelmed now, which means it will never work.

    I know that telling people "you have been conned" is a very ineffective way of persuading them to change their minds. But if you have been persuaded that the Patel Plan has any hope of working on its own terms, that it's anyting other than a bit of (fairly nasty) perfomance...

    You've been conned.
    So what would you do?

    It really is not good enough to just say Oh let them all in. Indeed it is dangerously pathetic

    Pathetic, because you are unwilling to face reality, dangerous because by saying Let them all in you encourage millions more to try and you condemn thousands to death by drowning, trafficking, etc , and eventually you DO have to face the problem because it has got much worse, at which point you will face precisely the same dilemma
    The solution has been posted on here before: Stricter regulation of rogue employers; allow illegal immigrants a route to citizenship if they shop employers who flout the rules. If we stamp out the black-economy employers, the attraction reduces.

    I'd add ID cards for all too.
    No to ID cards. Absolutely no.
    Why not?
    Because they aren't the British way of doing things.
    fair comment
  • LeonLeon Posts: 20,968
    edited June 10
    pigeon said:

    pigeon said:

    Roger said:

    algarkirk said:

    I cannot see Boris leading into GE24 unless something remarkable happens

    Just noticed this, not sure if it has been reported yet

    A flight to take asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda next Tuesday has been allowed to go ahead by the High Court. Campaigners failed in their legal bid to halt the removals to the east African country, but the case will be heard by the Court of Appeal on Monday.

    Under the policy, those entering the UK illegally will be flown to Rwanda to apply for asylum there. About 31 people have been told they may be on the first flight.

    The government hopes the scheme will discourage asylum seekers from crossing the English Channel, by making it clear many cases will now be dealt with by Rwanda.

    Appeal could well succeed. I think in fact the government may be happy to lose the appeal. Part of their not so cunning plan may be to have the courts disallow this policy so that they can get the praise from populists for trying, blame the wicked do gooders and courts, without having to actually implement this grisly charade.

    Actually implementing the policy has risks. Sentiment can change. Lots of Tory voters are not racists.

    (BTW I am not propounding an alternative solution. No good outcomes are available in the world's current dismal state. This is merely another, even worse than the some of the other bad ones.)

    And there is always that strange phenomenon that has shown voters expect their leaders to be more civilised than they are themselves. It's one of the reasons Patel is so unpopular
    And yet her ratings are almost bound to improve if the boat people stop coming.

    The Channel crossings problem can only be solved in one of two ways: by letting the unwanted migrants stay and pissing off a very large chunk of the electorate, or throwing them out and crushing their hopes and dreams in the process.

    That's life. As in so many cases, the fantasy of a scenario in which everyone can be kept happy doesn't exist.
    And only the first of those is logistically possible.

    We have known, since the announcement of this policy, that Rwanda only plan to take a few hundred people who land on British shores a year. One of their ministers made that clear on announcement day. They are not idiots and they have less capacity to assimilate tens of thousands of people than the UK does.

    So a 1% or so risk of deportation is meant to dissuade people from making the perilous Channel crossing. It's going to get overwhelmed now, which means it will never work.

    I know that telling people "you have been conned" is a very ineffective way of persuading them to change their minds. But if you have been persuaded that the Patel Plan has any hope of working on its own terms, that it's anyting other than a bit of (fairly nasty) perfomance...

    You've been conned.
    The Rwanda plan is nasty. Anything that doesn't give the migrants everything they want is, by definition, being nasty to them. And no, it won't solve the problem. It probably falls into the category of "slightly better than nothing," but under the likely assumption that it fails to have a sufficient deterrent effect to stifle the flow, somebody will have to come up with another idea eventually. And that idea is bound to be even nastier, because it consists either of telling the population of the UK that it is powerless to decide who can and cannot live here and must simply put up with whoever wants to come, or going the full Australia, building a much larger gulag in another third country or a distant overseas territory like the Falklands, and filling it with huge numbers of boat people until word reaches those yet to make the journey that it is hopeless and they should give up trying.

    Again, there is no cosy or particularly good solution to this problem. It doesn't exist. Even somehow making the chronically dysfunctional Home Office much more efficient at processing asylum claims, and setting up a system that allows for processing near to some particularly shitty countries that people are fleeing from (with successful applicants flown directly into Heathrow) won't solve anything, because the rejects won't give up and will try to come anyway.

    Fundamentally, the entire post-WW2 system for managing migration and asylum claims was devised in an era in which people were very much less mobile, and flows of millions of both refugees and economic migrants from distant corners of the Earth did not happen and was not anticipated. Its continuing operation is now coming into direct conflict with the established will of democratically elected Governments and their people, as seen not just here but in places like Greece, where they've had to cope with a much more serious boat people problem than us, and have tried to deal with it with a chain of internment camps. How do you reform it in such a fashion that both resident and migrant populations are satisfied? You can't.

    The current Government is not a good one, but no successor is going to do very much better at dealing with irregular migration either. There is no approach available that's not both very expensive and liable to upset an awful lot of people.
    Exactly right. And very eloquent. The more feeble minded PB-ers have yet to grasp these inescapable truths. You are either unfair to the British people, or you are unfair to the migrants. Given that Her Majesty’s Government is elected to serve the British people, the choice is inevitable

    And being quite ruthless and unfair to migrants NOW means you can avoid being much crueller and way more unfair later. No one dies trying to reach Australia now
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 6,029

    Anyone who thinks Ukraine's territory should be given to Russia for 'peace' should read the following;

    https://russiavsworld.org/russian-soldiers-had-been-raping-her-for-a-week-the-story-of-a-19-year-old-girl-who-went-through-hell-in-mariupol/

    That is the horror you are condemning the Ukrainians to. There have been similar, and possibly worse, stories coming out of the areas of LNR and DNR that have been under Russian control for the last eight years.

    Given the slowness over weapons supplies it increasingly seems to me that many (most?) in the west don't want Ukraine to win. And by win all we mean is regain its territory and protect its citizens from war crimes. That would seem to be too much for some in the west though, who'd rather Putin be given something so he'll hopefully keep quiet.

    Many of those western countries were liberated by others from Nazis. Yet they aren't even prepared to provide the weapons so that Ukrainians can liberate themselves from the modern day equivalent.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 98,988
    edited June 10
    Evidence? The Tory voteshare actually increased in polls today after Johnson survived his VONC. Nobody else in the Tory party has Boris' charisma and personality and nobody else would do any better at this time, indeed most alternatives would do worse.

    Note too Sunak does no better than Boris v Starmer as preferred PM either
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 6,012
    edited June 10
    pigeon said:

    pigeon said:

    Roger said:

    algarkirk said:

    I cannot see Boris leading into GE24 unless something remarkable happens

    Just noticed this, not sure if it has been reported yet

    A flight to take asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda next Tuesday has been allowed to go ahead by the High Court. Campaigners failed in their legal bid to halt the removals to the east African country, but the case will be heard by the Court of Appeal on Monday.

    Under the policy, those entering the UK illegally will be flown to Rwanda to apply for asylum there. About 31 people have been told they may be on the first flight.

    The government hopes the scheme will discourage asylum seekers from crossing the English Channel, by making it clear many cases will now be dealt with by Rwanda.

    Appeal could well succeed. I think in fact the government may be happy to lose the appeal. Part of their not so cunning plan may be to have the courts disallow this policy so that they can get the praise from populists for trying, blame the wicked do gooders and courts, without having to actually implement this grisly charade.

    Actually implementing the policy has risks. Sentiment can change. Lots of Tory voters are not racists.

    (BTW I am not propounding an alternative solution. No good outcomes are available in the world's current dismal state. This is merely another, even worse than the some of the other bad ones.)

    And there is always that strange phenomenon that has shown voters expect their leaders to be more civilised than they are themselves. It's one of the reasons Patel is so unpopular
    And yet her ratings are almost bound to improve if the boat people stop coming.

    The Channel crossings problem can only be solved in one of two ways: by letting the unwanted migrants stay and pissing off a very large chunk of the electorate, or throwing them out and crushing their hopes and dreams in the process.

    That's life. As in so many cases, the fantasy of a scenario in which everyone can be kept happy doesn't exist.
    And only the first of those is logistically possible.

    We have known, since the announcement of this policy, that Rwanda only plan to take a few hundred people who land on British shores a year. One of their ministers made that clear on announcement day. They are not idiots and they have less capacity to assimilate tens of thousands of people than the UK does.

    So a 1% or so risk of deportation is meant to dissuade people from making the perilous Channel crossing. It's going to get overwhelmed now, which means it will never work.

    I know that telling people "you have been conned" is a very ineffective way of persuading them to change their minds. But if you have been persuaded that the Patel Plan has any hope of working on its own terms, that it's anyting other than a bit of (fairly nasty) perfomance...

    You've been conned.
    The Rwanda plan is nasty. Anything that doesn't give the migrants everything they want is, by definition, being nasty to them. And no, it won't solve the problem. It probably falls into the category of "slightly better than nothing," but under the likely assumption that it fails to have a sufficient deterrent effect to stifle the flow, somebody will have to come up with another idea eventually. And that idea is bound to be even nastier, because it consists either of telling the population of the UK that it is powerless to decide who can and cannot live here and must simply put up with whoever wants to come, or going the full Australia, building a much larger gulag in another third country or a distant overseas territory like the Falklands, and filling it with huge numbers of boat people until word reaches those yet to make the journey that it is hopeless and they should give up trying.

    Again, there is no cosy or particularly good solution to this problem. It doesn't exist. Even somehow making the chronically dysfunctional Home Office much more efficient at processing asylum claims, and setting up a system that allows for processing near to some particularly shitty countries that people are fleeing from (with successful applicants flown directly into Heathrow) won't solve anything, because the rejects won't give up and will try to come anyway.

    Fundamentally, the entire post-WW2 system for managing migration and asylum claims was devised in an era in which people were very much less mobile, and flows of millions of both refugees and economic migrants from distant corners of the Earth did not happen and was not anticipated. Its continuing operation is now coming into direct conflict with the established will of democratically elected Governments and their people, as seen not just here but in places like Greece, where they've had to cope with a much more serious boat people problem than us, and have tried to deal with it with a chain of internment camps. How do you reform it in such a fashion that both resident and migrant populations are satisfied? You can't.

    The current Government is not a good one, but no successor is going to do very much better at dealing with irregular migration either. There is no approach available that's not both very expensive and liable to upset an awful lot of people.
    But the point isn't that this scheme is nasty but effective. There's a possible conversation to be had there.

    The point about this scheme is that, for all of the noise, all the headlines, all the shouting... it simply doesn't have the capacity to work. The Rwandan government have made it clear that they are planning on taking a few thousand people over five years.

    Let's say that a planeload of migrants is sent to Africa next Tuesday. All that hype, all those headlines... that's probably how many will arrive on small boats in a day or so. And the boats will keep coming faster than the planes will leave. And compared with the risk of crossing the Channel, the additional risk of being deported afterwards simply isn't worth worrying about.

    Now there are two possibilities. One is that the government is too innumerate to work this out. The can't work out that "a few hundred a year" is less than "tens of thousands a year". I hope that isn't true, but with the incumbents, it's possible.

    The other is worse. That the government know this is vanishingly unlikely to work, but don't care. Get some headlines, blame lawyers and bishops and let the real problem fester. It's all just a debating game.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 20,934
    Andy_JS said:

    vino said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Leon said:

    pigeon said:

    Roger said:

    algarkirk said:

    I cannot see Boris leading into GE24 unless something remarkable happens

    Just noticed this, not sure if it has been reported yet

    A flight to take asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda next Tuesday has been allowed to go ahead by the High Court. Campaigners failed in their legal bid to halt the removals to the east African country, but the case will be heard by the Court of Appeal on Monday.

    Under the policy, those entering the UK illegally will be flown to Rwanda to apply for asylum there. About 31 people have been told they may be on the first flight.

    The government hopes the scheme will discourage asylum seekers from crossing the English Channel, by making it clear many cases will now be dealt with by Rwanda.

    Appeal could well succeed. I think in fact the government may be happy to lose the appeal. Part of their not so cunning plan may be to have the courts disallow this policy so that they can get the praise from populists for trying, blame the wicked do gooders and courts, without having to actually implement this grisly charade.

    Actually implementing the policy has risks. Sentiment can change. Lots of Tory voters are not racists.

    (BTW I am not propounding an alternative solution. No good outcomes are available in the world's current dismal state. This is merely another, even worse than the some of the other bad ones.)

    And there is always that strange phenomenon that has shown voters expect their leaders to be more civilised than they are themselves. It's one of the reasons Patel is so unpopular
    And yet her ratings are almost bound to improve if the boat people stop coming.

    The Channel crossings problem can only be solved in one of two ways: by letting the unwanted migrants stay and pissing off a very large chunk of the electorate, or throwing them out and crushing their hopes and dreams in the process.

    That's life. As in so many cases, the fantasy of a scenario in which everyone can be kept happy doesn't exist.
    And only the first of those is logistically possible.

    We have known, since the announcement of this policy, that Rwanda only plan to take a few hundred people who land on British shores a year. One of their ministers made that clear on announcement day. They are not idiots and they have less capacity to assimilate tens of thousands of people than the UK does.

    So a 1% or so risk of deportation is meant to dissuade people from making the perilous Channel crossing. It's going to get overwhelmed now, which means it will never work.

    I know that telling people "you have been conned" is a very ineffective way of persuading them to change their minds. But if you have been persuaded that the Patel Plan has any hope of working on its own terms, that it's anyting other than a bit of (fairly nasty) perfomance...

    You've been conned.
    So what would you do?

    It really is not good enough to just say Oh let them all in. Indeed it is dangerously pathetic

    Pathetic, because you are unwilling to face reality, dangerous because by saying Let them all in you encourage millions more to try and you condemn thousands to death by drowning, trafficking, etc , and eventually you DO have to face the problem because it has got much worse, at which point you will face precisely the same dilemma
    The solution has been posted on here before: Stricter regulation of rogue employers; allow illegal immigrants a route to citizenship if they shop employers who flout the rules. If we stamp out the black-economy employers, the attraction reduces.

    I'd add ID cards for all too.
    No to ID cards. Absolutely no.
    Why not?
    Because they aren't the British way of doing things.
    Nor is shipping people off to Rwanda.
  • vinovino Posts: 102
    vino said:

    Andy_JS said:

    vino said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Leon said:

    pigeon said:

    Roger said:

    algarkirk said:

    I cannot see Boris leading into GE24 unless something remarkable happens

    Just noticed this, not sure if it has been reported yet

    A flight to take asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda next Tuesday has been allowed to go ahead by the High Court. Campaigners failed in their legal bid to halt the removals to the east African country, but the case will be heard by the Court of Appeal on Monday.

    Under the policy, those entering the UK illegally will be flown to Rwanda to apply for asylum there. About 31 people have been told they may be on the first flight.

    The government hopes the scheme will discourage asylum seekers from crossing the English Channel, by making it clear many cases will now be dealt with by Rwanda.

    Appeal could well succeed. I think in fact the government may be happy to lose the appeal. Part of their not so cunning plan may be to have the courts disallow this policy so that they can get the praise from populists for trying, blame the wicked do gooders and courts, without having to actually implement this grisly charade.

    Actually implementing the policy has risks. Sentiment can change. Lots of Tory voters are not racists.

    (BTW I am not propounding an alternative solution. No good outcomes are available in the world's current dismal state. This is merely another, even worse than the some of the other bad ones.)

    And there is always that strange phenomenon that has shown voters expect their leaders to be more civilised than they are themselves. It's one of the reasons Patel is so unpopular
    And yet her ratings are almost bound to improve if the boat people stop coming.

    The Channel crossings problem can only be solved in one of two ways: by letting the unwanted migrants stay and pissing off a very large chunk of the electorate, or throwing them out and crushing their hopes and dreams in the process.

    That's life. As in so many cases, the fantasy of a scenario in which everyone can be kept happy doesn't exist.
    And only the first of those is logistically possible.

    We have known, since the announcement of this policy, that Rwanda only plan to take a few hundred people who land on British shores a year. One of their ministers made that clear on announcement day. They are not idiots and they have less capacity to assimilate tens of thousands of people than the UK does.

    So a 1% or so risk of deportation is meant to dissuade people from making the perilous Channel crossing. It's going to get overwhelmed now, which means it will never work.

    I know that telling people "you have been conned" is a very ineffective way of persuading them to change their minds. But if you have been persuaded that the Patel Plan has any hope of working on its own terms, that it's anyting other than a bit of (fairly nasty) perfomance...

    You've been conned.
    So what would you do?

    It really is not good enough to just say Oh let them all in. Indeed it is dangerously pathetic

    Pathetic, because you are unwilling to face reality, dangerous because by saying Let them all in you encourage millions more to try and you condemn thousands to death by drowning, trafficking, etc , and eventually you DO have to face the problem because it has got much worse, at which point you will face precisely the same dilemma
    The solution has been posted on here before: Stricter regulation of rogue employers; allow illegal immigrants a route to citizenship if they shop employers who flout the rules. If we stamp out the black-economy employers, the attraction reduces.

    I'd add ID cards for all too.
    No to ID cards. Absolutely no.
    Why not?
    Because they aren't the British way of doing things.
    fair comment
    voting id cards?
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 2,397
    HYUFD said:

    Evidence? The Tory voteshare actually increased in polls today after Johnson survived his VONC. Nobody else in the Tory party has Boris' charisma and personality and nobody else would do any better at this time, indeed most alternatives would do worse.

    Note too Sunak does no better than Boris v Starmer as preferred PM either

    These questions are often restricted to Johnson, Starmer and Sunak because most of the British population are not political obsessives and have little or no idea of who any of the other players are. And it doesn't seem especially outrageous to imagine that a relatively obscure replacement for Johnson (i.e. most of the cabinet and almost everyone outside of it) might have a chance of rebuilding some level of confidence and trust amongst the electorate. As distinct from the Fat Albatross, who is firmly established in the public consciousness as an inveterate liar whose word on any subject is believed by almost no-one.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 2,397

    pigeon said:

    pigeon said:

    Roger said:

    algarkirk said:

    I cannot see Boris leading into GE24 unless something remarkable happens

    Just noticed this, not sure if it has been reported yet

    A flight to take asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda next Tuesday has been allowed to go ahead by the High Court. Campaigners failed in their legal bid to halt the removals to the east African country, but the case will be heard by the Court of Appeal on Monday.

    Under the policy, those entering the UK illegally will be flown to Rwanda to apply for asylum there. About 31 people have been told they may be on the first flight.

    The government hopes the scheme will discourage asylum seekers from crossing the English Channel, by making it clear many cases will now be dealt with by Rwanda.

    Appeal could well succeed. I think in fact the government may be happy to lose the appeal. Part of their not so cunning plan may be to have the courts disallow this policy so that they can get the praise from populists for trying, blame the wicked do gooders and courts, without having to actually implement this grisly charade.

    Actually implementing the policy has risks. Sentiment can change. Lots of Tory voters are not racists.

    (BTW I am not propounding an alternative solution. No good outcomes are available in the world's current dismal state. This is merely another, even worse than the some of the other bad ones.)

    And there is always that strange phenomenon that has shown voters expect their leaders to be more civilised than they are themselves. It's one of the reasons Patel is so unpopular
    And yet her ratings are almost bound to improve if the boat people stop coming.

    The Channel crossings problem can only be solved in one of two ways: by letting the unwanted migrants stay and pissing off a very large chunk of the electorate, or throwing them out and crushing their hopes and dreams in the process.

    That's life. As in so many cases, the fantasy of a scenario in which everyone can be kept happy doesn't exist.
    And only the first of those is logistically possible.

    We have known, since the announcement of this policy, that Rwanda only plan to take a few hundred people who land on British shores a year. One of their ministers made that clear on announcement day. They are not idiots and they have less capacity to assimilate tens of thousands of people than the UK does.

    So a 1% or so risk of deportation is meant to dissuade people from making the perilous Channel crossing. It's going to get overwhelmed now, which means it will never work.

    I know that telling people "you have been conned" is a very ineffective way of persuading them to change their minds. But if you have been persuaded that the Patel Plan has any hope of working on its own terms, that it's anyting other than a bit of (fairly nasty) perfomance...

    You've been conned.
    The Rwanda plan is nasty. Anything that doesn't give the migrants everything they want is, by definition, being nasty to them. And no, it won't solve the problem. It probably falls into the category of "slightly better than nothing," but under the likely assumption that it fails to have a sufficient deterrent effect to stifle the flow, somebody will have to come up with another idea eventually. And that idea is bound to be even nastier, because it consists either of telling the population of the UK that it is powerless to decide who can and cannot live here and must simply put up with whoever wants to come, or going the full Australia, building a much larger gulag in another third country or a distant overseas territory like the Falklands, and filling it with huge numbers of boat people until word reaches those yet to make the journey that it is hopeless and they should give up trying.

    Again, there is no cosy or particularly good solution to this problem. It doesn't exist. Even somehow making the chronically dysfunctional Home Office much more efficient at processing asylum claims, and setting up a system that allows for processing near to some particularly shitty countries that people are fleeing from (with successful applicants flown directly into Heathrow) won't solve anything, because the rejects won't give up and will try to come anyway.

    Fundamentally, the entire post-WW2 system for managing migration and asylum claims was devised in an era in which people were very much less mobile, and flows of millions of both refugees and economic migrants from distant corners of the Earth did not happen and was not anticipated. Its continuing operation is now coming into direct conflict with the established will of democratically elected Governments and their people, as seen not just here but in places like Greece, where they've had to cope with a much more serious boat people problem than us, and have tried to deal with it with a chain of internment camps. How do you reform it in such a fashion that both resident and migrant populations are satisfied? You can't.

    The current Government is not a good one, but no successor is going to do very much better at dealing with irregular migration either. There is no approach available that's not both very expensive and liable to upset an awful lot of people.
    But the point isn't that this scheme is nasty but effective. There's a possible conversation to be had there.

    The point about this scheme is that, for all of the noise, all the headlines, all the shouting... it simply doesn't have the capacity to work. The Rwandan government have made it clear that they are planning on taking a few thousand people over five years.

    Let's say that a planeload of migrants is sent to Africa next Tuesday. All that hype, all those headlines... that's probably how many will arrive on small boats in a day or so. And the boats will keep coming faster than the planes will leave. And compared with the risk of crossing the Channel, the additional risk of being deported afterwards simply isn't worth worrying about.

    Now there are two possibilities. One is that the government is too innumerate to work this out. The can't work out that "a few hundred a year" is less than "tens of thousands a year". I hope that isn't true, but with the incumbents, it's possible.

    The other is worse. That the government know this is vanishingly unlikely to work, but don't care. Get some headlines, blame lawyers and bishops and let the real problem fester. It's all just a debating game.
    That's a fair point.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 16,690
    HYUFD said:

    Evidence? The Tory voteshare actually increased in polls today after Johnson survived his VONC. Nobody else in the Tory party has Boris' charisma and personality and nobody else would do any better at this time, indeed most alternatives would do worse.

    Note too Sunak does no better than Boris v Starmer as preferred PM either

    If you want to retain the lying buffoon go right ahead.

    It's only the nation and the reputation of the Conservative Party that will suffer.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 20,934
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    pigeon said:

    Roger said:

    algarkirk said:

    I cannot see Boris leading into GE24 unless something remarkable happens

    Just noticed this, not sure if it has been reported yet

    A flight to take asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda next Tuesday has been allowed to go ahead by the High Court. Campaigners failed in their legal bid to halt the removals to the east African country, but the case will be heard by the Court of Appeal on Monday.

    Under the policy, those entering the UK illegally will be flown to Rwanda to apply for asylum there. About 31 people have been told they may be on the first flight.

    The government hopes the scheme will discourage asylum seekers from crossing the English Channel, by making it clear many cases will now be dealt with by Rwanda.

    Appeal could well succeed. I think in fact the government may be happy to lose the appeal. Part of their not so cunning plan may be to have the courts disallow this policy so that they can get the praise from populists for trying, blame the wicked do gooders and courts, without having to actually implement this grisly charade.

    Actually implementing the policy has risks. Sentiment can change. Lots of Tory voters are not racists.

    (BTW I am not propounding an alternative solution. No good outcomes are available in the world's current dismal state. This is merely another, even worse than the some of the other bad ones.)

    And there is always that strange phenomenon that has shown voters expect their leaders to be more civilised than they are themselves. It's one of the reasons Patel is so unpopular
    And yet her ratings are almost bound to improve if the boat people stop coming.

    The Channel crossings problem can only be solved in one of two ways: by letting the unwanted migrants stay and pissing off a very large chunk of the electorate, or throwing them out and crushing their hopes and dreams in the process.

    That's life. As in so many cases, the fantasy of a scenario in which everyone can be kept happy doesn't exist.
    And only the first of those is logistically possible.

    We have known, since the announcement of this policy, that Rwanda only plan to take a few hundred people who land on British shores a year. One of their ministers made that clear on announcement day. They are not idiots and they have less capacity to assimilate tens of thousands of people than the UK does.

    So a 1% or so risk of deportation is meant to dissuade people from making the perilous Channel crossing. It's going to get overwhelmed now, which means it will never work.

    I know that telling people "you have been conned" is a very ineffective way of persuading them to change their minds. But if you have been persuaded that the Patel Plan has any hope of working on its own terms, that it's anyting other than a bit of (fairly nasty) perfomance...

    You've been conned.
    So what would you do?

    It really is not good enough to just say Oh let them all in. Indeed it is dangerously pathetic

    Pathetic, because you are unwilling to face reality, dangerous because by saying Let them all in you encourage millions more to try and you condemn thousands to death by drowning, trafficking, etc , and eventually you DO have to face the prigoblem because it has got much worse, at which point you will face precisely the same dilemma
    The solution has been posted on here before: Stricter regulation of rogue employers; allow illegal immigrants a route to citizenship if they shop employers who flout the rules. If we stamp out the black-economy employers, the attraction reduces.

    I'd add ID cards for all too.
    This is just a fairytale

    Even if you did all that they will keep coming, in increasing numbers because we won’t send them back, they get free healthcare, welfare and food, and we speak English and we are humane

    So yours is no answer at all

    The only method that has been shown to work, around the world, is Australia’s. Send them somewhere else, which is safe but undesirable. Tolerable but displeasing. Then they soon stop coming and people stop drowning

    Hence Patel’s bid for Rwanda, hence Biden looking at Spain, hence Denmark considering something similar, hence the EU going even further and pushing back the boats thereby consigning thousands to slavery in Libya

    If the Labour patty gains power and the boat people keep coming (and I see no reason why they should stop) then Labour will face the same intense dilemma and I bet in the end they go for the same laborious solution: send them elsewhere. It’s either that or Let them all in (politically and socially unacceptable) or shoot at the boats as a deterrent (morally abhorrent, of course)

    They don't get welfare, unless they are picked up and put in an asylum centre (which is the last thing most illegal immigrants want). What they get is a subsistence living in a modern-day slavery setting. Because, as @rcs1000 rightly points out, the government continues to turn a blind eye to black-economy employers.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 42,827
    One of the great speeches of Congress has been given by Liz Chaney taking on Trump and his lies full on. Some highlights on this thread: https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2022/6/10/2103338/-High-Praise-for-Liz-Cheney
    I urge those who have not seen or heard this yet to listen. Clear, measured, unequivocal, just superb.

    You'd really like to think that this is it for Trump but in a country now enduring a mass shooting a day which cannot agree about banning semi automatic rifles, who knows. Tremendous courage though. Really exceptional.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 20,968
    Jesus, the Armenian Genocide only gets worse

    They have now resorted to cannibalism

    (I am reading The Hundred Year Walk, it is compelling but harrowing)
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 20,945
    That wasn't much of a thread.
    Like a Boris "reset" speech.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 45,383
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    pigeon said:

    Roger said:

    algarkirk said:

    I cannot see Boris leading into GE24 unless something remarkable happens

    Just noticed this, not sure if it has been reported yet

    A flight to take asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda next Tuesday has been allowed to go ahead by the High Court. Campaigners failed in their legal bid to halt the removals to the east African country, but the case will be heard by the Court of Appeal on Monday.

    Under the policy, those entering the UK illegally will be flown to Rwanda to apply for asylum there. About 31 people have been told they may be on the first flight.

    The government hopes the scheme will discourage asylum seekers from crossing the English Channel, by making it clear many cases will now be dealt with by Rwanda.

    Appeal could well succeed. I think in fact the government may be happy to lose the appeal. Part of their not so cunning plan may be to have the courts disallow this policy so that they can get the praise from populists for trying, blame the wicked do gooders and courts, without having to actually implement this grisly charade.

    Actually implementing the policy has risks. Sentiment can change. Lots of Tory voters are not racists.

    (BTW I am not propounding an alternative solution. No good outcomes are available in the world's current dismal state. This is merely another, even worse than the some of the other bad ones.)

    And there is always that strange phenomenon that has shown voters expect their leaders to be more civilised than they are themselves. It's one of the reasons Patel is so unpopular
    And yet her ratings are almost bound to improve if the boat people stop coming.

    The Channel crossings problem can only be solved in one of two ways: by letting the unwanted migrants stay and pissing off a very large chunk of the electorate, or throwing them out and crushing their hopes and dreams in the process.

    That's life. As in so many cases, the fantasy of a scenario in which everyone can be kept happy doesn't exist.
    And only the first of those is logistically possible.

    We have known, since the announcement of this policy, that Rwanda only plan to take a few hundred people who land on British shores a year. One of their ministers made that clear on announcement day. They are not idiots and they have less capacity to assimilate tens of thousands of people than the UK does.

    So a 1% or so risk of deportation is meant to dissuade people from making the perilous Channel crossing. It's going to get overwhelmed now, which means it will never work.

    I know that telling people "you have been conned" is a very ineffective way of persuading them to change their minds. But if you have been persuaded that the Patel Plan has any hope of working on its own terms, that it's anyting other than a bit of (fairly nasty) perfomance...

    You've been conned.
    So what would you do?

    It really is not good enough to just say Oh let them all in. Indeed it is dangerously pathetic

    Pathetic, because you are unwilling to face reality, dangerous because by saying Let them all in you encourage millions more to try and you condemn thousands to death by drowning, trafficking, etc , and eventually you DO have to face the prigoblem because it has got much worse, at which point you will face precisely the same dilemma
    The solution has been posted on here before: Stricter regulation of rogue employers; allow illegal immigrants a route to citizenship if they shop employers who flout the rules. If we stamp out the black-economy employers, the attraction reduces.

    I'd add ID cards for all too.
    This is just a fairytale

    Even if you did all that they will keep coming, in increasing numbers because we won’t send them back, they get free healthcare, welfare and food, and we speak English and we are humane

    So yours is no answer at all

    The only method that has been shown to work, around the world, is Australia’s. Send them somewhere else, which is safe but undesirable. Tolerable but displeasing. Then they soon stop coming and people stop drowning

    Hence Patel’s bid for Rwanda, hence Biden looking at Spain, hence Denmark considering something similar, hence the EU going even further and pushing back the boats thereby consigning thousands to slavery in Libya

    If the Labour patty gains power and the boat people keep coming (and I see no reason why they should stop) then Labour will face the same intense dilemma and I bet in the end they go for the same laborious solution: send them elsewhere. It’s either that or Let them all in (politically and socially unacceptable) or shoot at the boats as a deterrent (morally abhorrent, of course)


    That's not actually true.

    There are plenty of places - such as Switzerland and Norway - that are richer than us, which have open borders, and which have very low levels of illegal immigration. (The difference between Sweden and Norway is particularly stark - literally a 100x difference in the number of illegal immigrants.)

    The issue is that it implementing measures to remove demand pull is hard, and we (as a country) are understandably loathe to implement measures such as ID cards which make separating the legal from the illegal much easier.
  • vinovino Posts: 102
    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    pigeon said:

    Roger said:

    algarkirk said:

    I cannot see Boris leading into GE24 unless something remarkable happens

    Just noticed this, not sure if it has been reported yet

    A flight to take asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda next Tuesday has been allowed to go ahead by the High Court. Campaigners failed in their legal bid to halt the removals to the east African country, but the case will be heard by the Court of Appeal on Monday.

    Under the policy, those entering the UK illegally will be flown to Rwanda to apply for asylum there. About 31 people have been told they may be on the first flight.

    The government hopes the scheme will discourage asylum seekers from crossing the English Channel, by making it clear many cases will now be dealt with by Rwanda.

    Appeal could well succeed. I think in fact the government may be happy to lose the appeal. Part of their not so cunning plan may be to have the courts disallow this policy so that they can get the praise from populists for trying, blame the wicked do gooders and courts, without having to actually implement this grisly charade.

    Actually implementing the policy has risks. Sentiment can change. Lots of Tory voters are not racists.

    (BTW I am not propounding an alternative solution. No good outcomes are available in the world's current dismal state. This is merely another, even worse than the some of the other bad ones.)

    And there is always that strange phenomenon that has shown voters expect their leaders to be more civilised than they are themselves. It's one of the reasons Patel is so unpopular
    And yet her ratings are almost bound to improve if the boat people stop coming.

    The Channel crossings problem can only be solved in one of two ways: by letting the unwanted migrants stay and pissing off a very large chunk of the electorate, or throwing them out and crushing their hopes and dreams in the process.

    That's life. As in so many cases, the fantasy of a scenario in which everyone can be kept happy doesn't exist.
    And only the first of those is logistically possible.

    We have known, since the announcement of this policy, that Rwanda only plan to take a few hundred people who land on British shores a year. One of their ministers made that clear on announcement day. They are not idiots and they have less capacity to assimilate tens of thousands of people than the UK does.

    So a 1% or so risk of deportation is meant to dissuade people from making the perilous Channel crossing. It's going to get overwhelmed now, which means it will never work.

    I know that telling people "you have been conned" is a very ineffective way of persuading them to change their minds. But if you have been persuaded that the Patel Plan has any hope of working on its own terms, that it's anyting other than a bit of (fairly nasty) perfomance...

    You've been conned.
    So what would you do?

    It really is not good enough to just say Oh let them all in. Indeed it is dangerously pathetic

    Pathetic, because you are unwilling to face reality, dangerous because by saying Let them all in you encourage millions more to try and you condemn thousands to death by drowning, trafficking, etc , and eventually you DO have to face the prigoblem because it has got much worse, at which point you will face precisely the same dilemma
    The solution has been posted on here before: Stricter regulation of rogue employers; allow illegal immigrants a route to citizenship if they shop employers who flout the rules. If we stamp out the black-economy employers, the attraction reduces.

    I'd add ID cards for all too.
    This is just a fairytale

    Even if you did all that they will keep coming, in increasing numbers because we won’t send them back, they get free healthcare, welfare and food, and we speak English and we are humane

    So yours is no answer at all

    The only method that has been shown to work, around the world, is Australia’s. Send them somewhere else, which is safe but undesirable. Tolerable but displeasing. Then they soon stop coming and people stop drowning

    Hence Patel’s bid for Rwanda, hence Biden looking at Spain, hence Denmark considering something similar, hence the EU going even further and pushing back the boats thereby consigning thousands to slavery in Libya

    If the Labour patty gains power and the boat people keep coming (and I see no reason why they should stop) then Labour will face the same intense dilemma and I bet in the end they go for the same laborious solution: send them elsewhere. It’s either that or Let them all in (politically and socially unacceptable) or shoot at the boats as a deterrent (morally abhorrent, of course)


    That's not actually true.

    There are plenty of places - such as Switzerland and Norway - that are richer than us, which have open borders, and which have very low levels of illegal immigration. (The difference between Sweden and Norway is particularly stark - literally a 100x difference in the number of illegal immigrants.)

    The issue is that it implementing measures to remove demand pull is hard, and we (as a country) are understandably loathe to implement measures such as ID cards which make separating the legal from the illegal much easier.
    A YouGov survey for The Times found a majority in favour of reintroducing identity cards, with high levels of support for granting extra powers and tools to the security services. "The survey reveals that most people would support the compulsory carrying of ID cards, with 57% support among the control group and 61-63% among those who were asked the crime/terrorism variants.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 45,383
    pigeon said:

    pigeon said:

    Roger said:

    algarkirk said:

    I cannot see Boris leading into GE24 unless something remarkable happens

    Just noticed this, not sure if it has been reported yet

    A flight to take asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda next Tuesday has been allowed to go ahead by the High Court. Campaigners failed in their legal bid to halt the removals to the east African country, but the case will be heard by the Court of Appeal on Monday.

    Under the policy, those entering the UK illegally will be flown to Rwanda to apply for asylum there. About 31 people have been told they may be on the first flight.

    The government hopes the scheme will discourage asylum seekers from crossing the English Channel, by making it clear many cases will now be dealt with by Rwanda.

    Appeal could well succeed. I think in fact the government may be happy to lose the appeal. Part of their not so cunning plan may be to have the courts disallow this policy so that they can get the praise from populists for trying, blame the wicked do gooders and courts, without having to actually implement this grisly charade.

    Actually implementing the policy has risks. Sentiment can change. Lots of Tory voters are not racists.

    (BTW I am not propounding an alternative solution. No good outcomes are available in the world's current dismal state. This is merely another, even worse than the some of the other bad ones.)

    And there is always that strange phenomenon that has shown voters expect their leaders to be more civilised than they are themselves. It's one of the reasons Patel is so unpopular
    And yet her ratings are almost bound to improve if the boat people stop coming.

    The Channel crossings problem can only be solved in one of two ways: by letting the unwanted migrants stay and pissing off a very large chunk of the electorate, or throwing them out and crushing their hopes and dreams in the process.

    That's life. As in so many cases, the fantasy of a scenario in which everyone can be kept happy doesn't exist.
    And only the first of those is logistically possible.

    We have known, since the announcement of this policy, that Rwanda only plan to take a few hundred people who land on British shores a year. One of their ministers made that clear on announcement day. They are not idiots and they have less capacity to assimilate tens of thousands of people than the UK does.

    So a 1% or so risk of deportation is meant to dissuade people from making the perilous Channel crossing. It's going to get overwhelmed now, which means it will never work.

    I know that telling people "you have been conned" is a very ineffective way of persuading them to change their minds. But if you have been persuaded that the Patel Plan has any hope of working on its own terms, that it's anyting other than a bit of (fairly nasty) perfomance...

    You've been conned.
    The Rwanda plan is nasty. Anything that doesn't give the migrants everything they want is, by definition, being nasty to them. And no, it won't solve the problem. It probably falls into the category of "slightly better than nothing," but under the likely assumption that it fails to have a sufficient deterrent effect to stifle the flow, somebody will have to come up with another idea eventually. And that idea is bound to be even nastier, because it consists either of telling the population of the UK that it is powerless to decide who can and cannot live here and must simply put up with whoever wants to come, or going the full Australia, building a much larger gulag in another third country or a distant overseas territory like the Falklands, and filling it with huge numbers of boat people until word reaches those yet to make the journey that it is hopeless and they should give up trying.

    Again, there is no cosy or particularly good solution to this problem. It doesn't exist. Even somehow making the chronically dysfunctional Home Office much more efficient at processing asylum claims, and setting up a system that allows for processing near to some particularly shitty countries that people are fleeing from (with successful applicants flown directly into Heathrow) won't solve anything, because the rejects won't give up and will try to come anyway.

    Fundamentally, the entire post-WW2 system for managing migration and asylum claims was devised in an era in which people were very much less mobile, and flows of millions of both refugees and economic migrants from distant corners of the Earth did not happen and was not anticipated. Its continuing operation is now coming into direct conflict with the established will of democratically elected Governments and their people, as seen not just here but in places like Greece, where they've had to cope with a much more serious boat people problem than us, and have tried to deal with it with a chain of internment camps. How do you reform it in such a fashion that both resident and migrant populations are satisfied? You can't.

    The current Government is not a good one, but no successor is going to do very much better at dealing with irregular migration either. There is no approach available that's not both very expensive and liable to upset an awful lot of people.
    As an aside, I don't think your contention that people are much less mobile is actually true. Look at the period from 1850 to 1915, the movement of people - to the US, Canada, Australia, Argentina, etc. - absolutely swamps today's flows, and had major societal impacts on both the countries left behind and the ones they went to.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 20,934
    HYUFD said:

    Evidence? The Tory voteshare actually increased in polls today after Johnson survived his VONC. Nobody else in the Tory party has Boris' charisma and personality and nobody else would do any better at this time, indeed most alternatives would do worse.

    Note too Sunak does no better than Boris v Starmer as preferred PM either

    Which polls are you talking about @HYUFD?

    The only post-VoNC poll I can see in wiki is the Redfield&Wilton poll giving Labour and 8% lead (up from 4%)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 17,045
    rcs1000 said:

    pigeon said:

    pigeon said:

    Roger said:

    algarkirk said:

    I cannot see Boris leading into GE24 unless something remarkable happens

    Just noticed this, not sure if it has been reported yet

    A flight to take asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda next Tuesday has been allowed to go ahead by the High Court. Campaigners failed in their legal bid to halt the removals to the east African country, but the case will be heard by the Court of Appeal on Monday.

    Under the policy, those entering the UK illegally will be flown to Rwanda to apply for asylum there. About 31 people have been told they may be on the first flight.

    The government hopes the scheme will discourage asylum seekers from crossing the English Channel, by making it clear many cases will now be dealt with by Rwanda.

    Appeal could well succeed. I think in fact the government may be happy to lose the appeal. Part of their not so cunning plan may be to have the courts disallow this policy so that they can get the praise from populists for trying, blame the wicked do gooders and courts, without having to actually implement this grisly charade.

    Actually implementing the policy has risks. Sentiment can change. Lots of Tory voters are not racists.

    (BTW I am not propounding an alternative solution. No good outcomes are available in the world's current dismal state. This is merely another, even worse than the some of the other bad ones.)

    And there is always that strange phenomenon that has shown voters expect their leaders to be more civilised than they are themselves. It's one of the reasons Patel is so unpopular
    And yet her ratings are almost bound to improve if the boat people stop coming.

    The Channel crossings problem can only be solved in one of two ways: by letting the unwanted migrants stay and pissing off a very large chunk of the electorate, or throwing them out and crushing their hopes and dreams in the process.

    That's life. As in so many cases, the fantasy of a scenario in which everyone can be kept happy doesn't exist.
    And only the first of those is logistically possible.

    We have known, since the announcement of this policy, that Rwanda only plan to take a few hundred people who land on British shores a year. One of their ministers made that clear on announcement day. They are not idiots and they have less capacity to assimilate tens of thousands of people than the UK does.

    So a 1% or so risk of deportation is meant to dissuade people from making the perilous Channel crossing. It's going to get overwhelmed now, which means it will never work.

    I know that telling people "you have been conned" is a very ineffective way of persuading them to change their minds. But if you have been persuaded that the Patel Plan has any hope of working on its own terms, that it's anyting other than a bit of (fairly nasty) perfomance...

    You've been conned.
    The Rwanda plan is nasty. Anything that doesn't give the migrants everything they want is, by definition, being nasty to them. And no, it won't solve the problem. It probably falls into the category of "slightly better than nothing," but under the likely assumption that it fails to have a sufficient deterrent effect to stifle the flow, somebody will have to come up with another idea eventually. And that idea is bound to be even nastier, because it consists either of telling the population of the UK that it is powerless to decide who can and cannot live here and must simply put up with whoever wants to come, or going the full Australia, building a much larger gulag in another third country or a distant overseas territory like the Falklands, and filling it with huge numbers of boat people until word reaches those yet to make the journey that it is hopeless and they should give up trying.

    Again, there is no cosy or particularly good solution to this problem. It doesn't exist. Even somehow making the chronically dysfunctional Home Office much more efficient at processing asylum claims, and setting up a system that allows for processing near to some particularly shitty countries that people are fleeing from (with successful applicants flown directly into Heathrow) won't solve anything, because the rejects won't give up and will try to come anyway.

    Fundamentally, the entire post-WW2 system for managing migration and asylum claims was devised in an era in which people were very much less mobile, and flows of millions of both refugees and economic migrants from distant corners of the Earth did not happen and was not anticipated. Its continuing operation is now coming into direct conflict with the established will of democratically elected Governments and their people, as seen not just here but in places like Greece, where they've had to cope with a much more serious boat people problem than us, and have tried to deal with it with a chain of internment camps. How do you reform it in such a fashion that both resident and migrant populations are satisfied? You can't.

    The current Government is not a good one, but no successor is going to do very much better at dealing with irregular migration either. There is no approach available that's not both very expensive and liable to upset an awful lot of people.
    As an aside, I don't think your contention that people are much less mobile is actually true. Look at the period from 1850 to 1915, the movement of people - to the US, Canada, Australia, Argentina, etc. - absolutely swamps today's flows, and had major societal impacts on both the countries left behind and the ones they went to.
    Not half as much as the flow from Africa to the US 1650-1850

    Thank god the British empire was the altruistic, non racist force for good it was. Phew.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 45,383
    IshmaelZ said:

    rcs1000 said:

    pigeon said:

    pigeon said:

    Roger said:

    algarkirk said:

    I cannot see Boris leading into GE24 unless something remarkable happens

    Just noticed this, not sure if it has been reported yet

    A flight to take asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda next Tuesday has been allowed to go ahead by the High Court. Campaigners failed in their legal bid to halt the removals to the east African country, but the case will be heard by the Court of Appeal on Monday.

    Under the policy, those entering the UK illegally will be flown to Rwanda to apply for asylum there. About 31 people have been told they may be on the first flight.

    The government hopes the scheme will discourage asylum seekers from crossing the English Channel, by making it clear many cases will now be dealt with by Rwanda.

    Appeal could well succeed. I think in fact the government may be happy to lose the appeal. Part of their not so cunning plan may be to have the courts disallow this policy so that they can get the praise from populists for trying, blame the wicked do gooders and courts, without having to actually implement this grisly charade.

    Actually implementing the policy has risks. Sentiment can change. Lots of Tory voters are not racists.

    (BTW I am not propounding an alternative solution. No good outcomes are available in the world's current dismal state. This is merely another, even worse than the some of the other bad ones.)

    And there is always that strange phenomenon that has shown voters expect their leaders to be more civilised than they are themselves. It's one of the reasons Patel is so unpopular
    And yet her ratings are almost bound to improve if the boat people stop coming.

    The Channel crossings problem can only be solved in one of two ways: by letting the unwanted migrants stay and pissing off a very large chunk of the electorate, or throwing them out and crushing their hopes and dreams in the process.

    That's life. As in so many cases, the fantasy of a scenario in which everyone can be kept happy doesn't exist.
    And only the first of those is logistically possible.

    We have known, since the announcement of this policy, that Rwanda only plan to take a few hundred people who land on British shores a year. One of their ministers made that clear on announcement day. They are not idiots and they have less capacity to assimilate tens of thousands of people than the UK does.

    So a 1% or so risk of deportation is meant to dissuade people from making the perilous Channel crossing. It's going to get overwhelmed now, which means it will never work.

    I know that telling people "you have been conned" is a very ineffective way of persuading them to change their minds. But if you have been persuaded that the Patel Plan has any hope of working on its own terms, that it's anyting other than a bit of (fairly nasty) perfomance...

    You've been conned.
    The Rwanda plan is nasty. Anything that doesn't give the migrants everything they want is, by definition, being nasty to them. And no, it won't solve the problem. It probably falls into the category of "slightly better than nothing," but under the likely assumption that it fails to have a sufficient deterrent effect to stifle the flow, somebody will have to come up with another idea eventually. And that idea is bound to be even nastier, because it consists either of telling the population of the UK that it is powerless to decide who can and cannot live here and must simply put up with whoever wants to come, or going the full Australia, building a much larger gulag in another third country or a distant overseas territory like the Falklands, and filling it with huge numbers of boat people until word reaches those yet to make the journey that it is hopeless and they should give up trying.

    Again, there is no cosy or particularly good solution to this problem. It doesn't exist. Even somehow making the chronically dysfunctional Home Office much more efficient at processing asylum claims, and setting up a system that allows for processing near to some particularly shitty countries that people are fleeing from (with successful applicants flown directly into Heathrow) won't solve anything, because the rejects won't give up and will try to come anyway.

    Fundamentally, the entire post-WW2 system for managing migration and asylum claims was devised in an era in which people were very much less mobile, and flows of millions of both refugees and economic migrants from distant corners of the Earth did not happen and was not anticipated. Its continuing operation is now coming into direct conflict with the established will of democratically elected Governments and their people, as seen not just here but in places like Greece, where they've had to cope with a much more serious boat people problem than us, and have tried to deal with it with a chain of internment camps. How do you reform it in such a fashion that both resident and migrant populations are satisfied? You can't.

    The current Government is not a good one, but no successor is going to do very much better at dealing with irregular migration either. There is no approach available that's not both very expensive and liable to upset an awful lot of people.
    As an aside, I don't think your contention that people are much less mobile is actually true. Look at the period from 1850 to 1915, the movement of people - to the US, Canada, Australia, Argentina, etc. - absolutely swamps today's flows, and had major societal impacts on both the countries left behind and the ones they went to.
    Not half as much as the flow from Africa to the US 1650-1850

    Thank god the British empire was the altruistic, non racist force for good it was. Phew.
    Fair point - I was thinking of voluntary flow.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 2,397
    rcs1000 said:

    pigeon said:

    pigeon said:

    Roger said:

    algarkirk said:

    I cannot see Boris leading into GE24 unless something remarkable happens

    Just noticed this, not sure if it has been reported yet

    A flight to take asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda next Tuesday has been allowed to go ahead by the High Court. Campaigners failed in their legal bid to halt the removals to the east African country, but the case will be heard by the Court of Appeal on Monday.

    Under the policy, those entering the UK illegally will be flown to Rwanda to apply for asylum there. About 31 people have been told they may be on the first flight.

    The government hopes the scheme will discourage asylum seekers from crossing the English Channel, by making it clear many cases will now be dealt with by Rwanda.

    Appeal could well succeed. I think in fact the government may be happy to lose the appeal. Part of their not so cunning plan may be to have the courts disallow this policy so that they can get the praise from populists for trying, blame the wicked do gooders and courts, without having to actually implement this grisly charade.

    Actually implementing the policy has risks. Sentiment can change. Lots of Tory voters are not racists.

    (BTW I am not propounding an alternative solution. No good outcomes are available in the world's current dismal state. This is merely another, even worse than the some of the other bad ones.)

    And there is always that strange phenomenon that has shown voters expect their leaders to be more civilised than they are themselves. It's one of the reasons Patel is so unpopular
    And yet her ratings are almost bound to improve if the boat people stop coming.

    The Channel crossings problem can only be solved in one of two ways: by letting the unwanted migrants stay and pissing off a very large chunk of the electorate, or throwing them out and crushing their hopes and dreams in the process.

    That's life. As in so many cases, the fantasy of a scenario in which everyone can be kept happy doesn't exist.
    And only the first of those is logistically possible.

    We have known, since the announcement of this policy, that Rwanda only plan to take a few hundred people who land on British shores a year. One of their ministers made that clear on announcement day. They are not idiots and they have less capacity to assimilate tens of thousands of people than the UK does.

    So a 1% or so risk of deportation is meant to dissuade people from making the perilous Channel crossing. It's going to get overwhelmed now, which means it will never work.

    I know that telling people "you have been conned" is a very ineffective way of persuading them to change their minds. But if you have been persuaded that the Patel Plan has any hope of working on its own terms, that it's anyting other than a bit of (fairly nasty) perfomance...

    You've been conned.
    The Rwanda plan is nasty. Anything that doesn't give the migrants everything they want is, by definition, being nasty to them. And no, it won't solve the problem. It probably falls into the category of "slightly better than nothing," but under the likely assumption that it fails to have a sufficient deterrent effect to stifle the flow, somebody will have to come up with another idea eventually. And that idea is bound to be even nastier, because it consists either of telling the population of the UK that it is powerless to decide who can and cannot live here and must simply put up with whoever wants to come, or going the full Australia, building a much larger gulag in another third country or a distant overseas territory like the Falklands, and filling it with huge numbers of boat people until word reaches those yet to make the journey that it is hopeless and they should give up trying.

    Again, there is no cosy or particularly good solution to this problem. It doesn't exist. Even somehow making the chronically dysfunctional Home Office much more efficient at processing asylum claims, and setting up a system that allows for processing near to some particularly shitty countries that people are fleeing from (with successful applicants flown directly into Heathrow) won't solve anything, because the rejects won't give up and will try to come anyway.

    Fundamentally, the entire post-WW2 system for managing migration and asylum claims was devised in an era in which people were very much less mobile, and flows of millions of both refugees and economic migrants from distant corners of the Earth did not happen and was not anticipated. Its continuing operation is now coming into direct conflict with the established will of democratically elected Governments and their people, as seen not just here but in places like Greece, where they've had to cope with a much more serious boat people problem than us, and have tried to deal with it with a chain of internment camps. How do you reform it in such a fashion that both resident and migrant populations are satisfied? You can't.

    The current Government is not a good one, but no successor is going to do very much better at dealing with irregular migration either. There is no approach available that's not both very expensive and liable to upset an awful lot of people.
    As an aside, I don't think your contention that people are much less mobile is actually true. Look at the period from 1850 to 1915, the movement of people - to the US, Canada, Australia, Argentina, etc. - absolutely swamps today's flows, and had major societal impacts on both the countries left behind and the ones they went to.
    Very well, I'll qualify the previous statement: people obviously moved around the globe in large numbers prior to the First World War, but they weren't typically travelling to places where the recipient state was unwilling and unable to accommodate them. The phenomenon of people moving from relatively poor to much richer countries, uninvited and unwanted, not merely in large numbers but likely in a continuous and unending flow, is something quite novel.

    Commonwealth migration to the UK post-WW2 was large-scale but was also planned and invited. The acceptance of the Ugandan Asian refugees in the 1970s was done in a hurry, but involved a finite and manageable number of people, not an open-ended commitment. Contemporary irregular migration is something different.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 98,988

    HYUFD said:

    Evidence? The Tory voteshare actually increased in polls today after Johnson survived his VONC. Nobody else in the Tory party has Boris' charisma and personality and nobody else would do any better at this time, indeed most alternatives would do worse.

    Note too Sunak does no better than Boris v Starmer as preferred PM either

    Which polls are you talking about @HYUFD?

    The only post-VoNC poll I can see in wiki is the Redfield&Wilton poll giving Labour and 8% lead (up from 4%)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election
    Tory voteshare up 1% in the new Techne poll today for starters

    https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1535223935230410752?s=20&t=xzfH5e9XA14sOK3Ao5ixGg
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 22,503

    Andy_JS said:

    vino said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Leon said:

    pigeon said:

    Roger said:

    algarkirk said:

    I cannot see Boris leading into GE24 unless something remarkable happens

    Just noticed this, not sure if it has been reported yet

    A flight to take asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda next Tuesday has been allowed to go ahead by the High Court. Campaigners failed in their legal bid to halt the removals to the east African country, but the case will be heard by the Court of Appeal on Monday.

    Under the policy, those entering the UK illegally will be flown to Rwanda to apply for asylum there. About 31 people have been told they may be on the first flight.

    The government hopes the scheme will discourage asylum seekers from crossing the English Channel, by making it clear many cases will now be dealt with by Rwanda.

    Appeal could well succeed. I think in fact the government may be happy to lose the appeal. Part of their not so cunning plan may be to have the courts disallow this policy so that they can get the praise from populists for trying, blame the wicked do gooders and courts, without having to actually implement this grisly charade.

    Actually implementing the policy has risks. Sentiment can change. Lots of Tory voters are not racists.

    (BTW I am not propounding an alternative solution. No good outcomes are available in the world's current dismal state. This is merely another, even worse than the some of the other bad ones.)

    And there is always that strange phenomenon that has shown voters expect their leaders to be more civilised than they are themselves. It's one of the reasons Patel is so unpopular
    And yet her ratings are almost bound to improve if the boat people stop coming.

    The Channel crossings problem can only be solved in one of two ways: by letting the unwanted migrants stay and pissing off a very large chunk of the electorate, or throwing them out and crushing their hopes and dreams in the process.

    That's life. As in so many cases, the fantasy of a scenario in which everyone can be kept happy doesn't exist.
    And only the first of those is logistically possible.

    We have known, since the announcement of this policy, that Rwanda only plan to take a few hundred people who land on British shores a year. One of their ministers made that clear on announcement day. They are not idiots and they have less capacity to assimilate tens of thousands of people than the UK does.

    So a 1% or so risk of deportation is meant to dissuade people from making the perilous Channel crossing. It's going to get overwhelmed now, which means it will never work.

    I know that telling people "you have been conned" is a very ineffective way of persuading them to change their minds. But if you have been persuaded that the Patel Plan has any hope of working on its own terms, that it's anyting other than a bit of (fairly nasty) perfomance...

    You've been conned.
    So what would you do?

    It really is not good enough to just say Oh let them all in. Indeed it is dangerously pathetic

    Pathetic, because you are unwilling to face reality, dangerous because by saying Let them all in you encourage millions more to try and you condemn thousands to death by drowning, trafficking, etc , and eventually you DO have to face the problem because it has got much worse, at which point you will face precisely the same dilemma
    The solution has been posted on here before: Stricter regulation of rogue employers; allow illegal immigrants a route to citizenship if they shop employers who flout the rules. If we stamp out the black-economy employers, the attraction reduces.

    I'd add ID cards for all too.
    No to ID cards. Absolutely no.
    Why not?
    Because they aren't the British way of doing things.
    Nor is shipping people off to Rwanda.
    It was not. It is now "British".
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 17,030

    Andy_JS said:

    vino said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Leon said:

    pigeon said:

    Roger said:

    algarkirk said:

    I cannot see Boris leading into GE24 unless something remarkable happens

    Just noticed this, not sure if it has been reported yet

    A flight to take asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda next Tuesday has been allowed to go ahead by the High Court. Campaigners failed in their legal bid to halt the removals to the east African country, but the case will be heard by the Court of Appeal on Monday.

    Under the policy, those entering the UK illegally will be flown to Rwanda to apply for asylum there. About 31 people have been told they may be on the first flight.

    The government hopes the scheme will discourage asylum seekers from crossing the English Channel, by making it clear many cases will now be dealt with by Rwanda.

    Appeal could well succeed. I think in fact the government may be happy to lose the appeal. Part of their not so cunning plan may be to have the courts disallow this policy so that they can get the praise from populists for trying, blame the wicked do gooders and courts, without having to actually implement this grisly charade.

    Actually implementing the policy has risks. Sentiment can change. Lots of Tory voters are not racists.

    (BTW I am not propounding an alternative solution. No good outcomes are available in the world's current dismal state. This is merely another, even worse than the some of the other bad ones.)

    And there is always that strange phenomenon that has shown voters expect their leaders to be more civilised than they are themselves. It's one of the reasons Patel is so unpopular
    And yet her ratings are almost bound to improve if the boat people stop coming.

    The Channel crossings problem can only be solved in one of two ways: by letting the unwanted migrants stay and pissing off a very large chunk of the electorate, or throwing them out and crushing their hopes and dreams in the process.

    That's life. As in so many cases, the fantasy of a scenario in which everyone can be kept happy doesn't exist.
    And only the first of those is logistically possible.

    We have known, since the announcement of this policy, that Rwanda only plan to take a few hundred people who land on British shores a year. One of their ministers made that clear on announcement day. They are not idiots and they have less capacity to assimilate tens of thousands of people than the UK does.

    So a 1% or so risk of deportation is meant to dissuade people from making the perilous Channel crossing. It's going to get overwhelmed now, which means it will never work.

    I know that telling people "you have been conned" is a very ineffective way of persuading them to change their minds. But if you have been persuaded that the Patel Plan has any hope of working on its own terms, that it's anyting other than a bit of (fairly nasty) perfomance...

    You've been conned.
    So what would you do?

    It really is not good enough to just say Oh let them all in. Indeed it is dangerously pathetic

    Pathetic, because you are unwilling to face reality, dangerous because by saying Let them all in you encourage millions more to try and you condemn thousands to death by drowning, trafficking, etc , and eventually you DO have to face the problem because it has got much worse, at which point you will face precisely the same dilemma
    The solution has been posted on here before: Stricter regulation of rogue employers; allow illegal immigrants a route to citizenship if they shop employers who flout the rules. If we stamp out the black-economy employers, the attraction reduces.

    I'd add ID cards for all too.
    No to ID cards. Absolutely no.
    Why not?
    Because they aren't the British way of doing things.
    Nor is shipping people off to Rwanda.
    A country that doesn't defend its borders is a country that doesn't exist.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 98,988

    HYUFD said:

    Evidence? The Tory voteshare actually increased in polls today after Johnson survived his VONC. Nobody else in the Tory party has Boris' charisma and personality and nobody else would do any better at this time, indeed most alternatives would do worse.

    Note too Sunak does no better than Boris v Starmer as preferred PM either

    If you want to retain the lying buffoon go right ahead.

    It's only the nation and the reputation of the Conservative Party that will suffer.
    Leftwingers like you of course want to get rid of Boris just as you wanted to get rid of Thatcher as they were general election winners.


    Same as we Conservatives wanted to get rid of general election winner Blair and correctly as Labour has lost 4 consecutive general elections since he went
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 20,945
    This thread appears to have had a Lazarus-like recovery. Like the greased piglet himself it's getting on with the job for now.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 22,503
    Andy_JS said:

    Andy_JS said:

    vino said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Leon said:

    pigeon said:

    Roger said:

    algarkirk said:

    I cannot see Boris leading into GE24 unless something remarkable happens

    Just noticed this, not sure if it has been reported yet

    A flight to take asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda next Tuesday has been allowed to go ahead by the High Court. Campaigners failed in their legal bid to halt the removals to the east African country, but the case will be heard by the Court of Appeal on Monday.

    Under the policy, those entering the UK illegally will be flown to Rwanda to apply for asylum there. About 31 people have been told they may be on the first flight.

    The government hopes the scheme will discourage asylum seekers from crossing the English Channel, by making it clear many cases will now be dealt with by Rwanda.

    Appeal could well succeed. I think in fact the government may be happy to lose the appeal. Part of their not so cunning plan may be to have the courts disallow this policy so that they can get the praise from populists for trying, blame the wicked do gooders and courts, without having to actually implement this grisly charade.

    Actually implementing the policy has risks. Sentiment can change. Lots of Tory voters are not racists.

    (BTW I am not propounding an alternative solution. No good outcomes are available in the world's current dismal state. This is merely another, even worse than the some of the other bad ones.)

    And there is always that strange phenomenon that has shown voters expect their leaders to be more civilised than they are themselves. It's one of the reasons Patel is so unpopular
    And yet her ratings are almost bound to improve if the boat people stop coming.

    The Channel crossings problem can only be solved in one of two ways: by letting the unwanted migrants stay and pissing off a very large chunk of the electorate, or throwing them out and crushing their hopes and dreams in the process.

    That's life. As in so many cases, the fantasy of a scenario in which everyone can be kept happy doesn't exist.
    And only the first of those is logistically possible.

    We have known, since the announcement of this policy, that Rwanda only plan to take a few hundred people who land on British shores a year. One of their ministers made that clear on announcement day. They are not idiots and they have less capacity to assimilate tens of thousands of people than the UK does.

    So a 1% or so risk of deportation is meant to dissuade people from making the perilous Channel crossing. It's going to get overwhelmed now, which means it will never work.

    I know that telling people "you have been conned" is a very ineffective way of persuading them to change their minds. But if you have been persuaded that the Patel Plan has any hope of working on its own terms, that it's anyting other than a bit of (fairly nasty) perfomance...

    You've been conned.
    So what would you do?

    It really is not good enough to just say Oh let them all in. Indeed it is dangerously pathetic

    Pathetic, because you are unwilling to face reality, dangerous because by saying Let them all in you encourage millions more to try and you condemn thousands to death by drowning, trafficking, etc , and eventually you DO have to face the problem because it has got much worse, at which point you will face precisely the same dilemma
    The solution has been posted on here before: Stricter regulation of rogue employers; allow illegal immigrants a route to citizenship if they shop employers who flout the rules. If we stamp out the black-economy employers, the attraction reduces.

    I'd add ID cards for all too.
    No to ID cards. Absolutely no.
    Why not?
    Because they aren't the British way of doing things.
    Nor is shipping people off to Rwanda.
    A country that doesn't defend its borders is a country that doesn't exist.
    Before the Brexit referendum, I questioned the inability of Brexiters on PB to resolve the problem olf NI. I asked how they would resolve the problem of migrants coming into the UK via NI? I was told in the most lordly and patrician manner that it was so passe to worry about guarding the borders. Other measures would be taken internally within the UK ...
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 45,383
    pigeon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    pigeon said:

    pigeon said:

    Roger said:

    algarkirk said:

    I cannot see Boris leading into GE24 unless something remarkable happens

    Just noticed this, not sure if it has been reported yet

    A flight to take asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda next Tuesday has been allowed to go ahead by the High Court. Campaigners failed in their legal bid to halt the removals to the east African country, but the case will be heard by the Court of Appeal on Monday.

    Under the policy, those entering the UK illegally will be flown to Rwanda to apply for asylum there. About 31 people have been told they may be on the first flight.

    The government hopes the scheme will discourage asylum seekers from crossing the English Channel, by making it clear many cases will now be dealt with by Rwanda.

    Appeal could well succeed. I think in fact the government may be happy to lose the appeal. Part of their not so cunning plan may be to have the courts disallow this policy so that they can get the praise from populists for trying, blame the wicked do gooders and courts, without having to actually implement this grisly charade.

    Actually implementing the policy has risks. Sentiment can change. Lots of Tory voters are not racists.

    (BTW I am not propounding an alternative solution. No good outcomes are available in the world's current dismal state. This is merely another, even worse than the some of the other bad ones.)

    And there is always that strange phenomenon that has shown voters expect their leaders to be more civilised than they are themselves. It's one of the reasons Patel is so unpopular
    And yet her ratings are almost bound to improve if the boat people stop coming.

    The Channel crossings problem can only be solved in one of two ways: by letting the unwanted migrants stay and pissing off a very large chunk of the electorate, or throwing them out and crushing their hopes and dreams in the process.

    That's life. As in so many cases, the fantasy of a scenario in which everyone can be kept happy doesn't exist.
    And only the first of those is logistically possible.

    We have known, since the announcement of this policy, that Rwanda only plan to take a few hundred people who land on British shores a year. One of their ministers made that clear on announcement day. They are not idiots and they have less capacity to assimilate tens of thousands of people than the UK does.

    So a 1% or so risk of deportation is meant to dissuade people from making the perilous Channel crossing. It's going to get overwhelmed now, which means it will never work.

    I know that telling people "you have been conned" is a very ineffective way of persuading them to change their minds. But if you have been persuaded that the Patel Plan has any hope of working on its own terms, that it's anyting other than a bit of (fairly nasty) perfomance...

    You've been conned.
    The Rwanda plan is nasty. Anything that doesn't give the migrants everything they want is, by definition, being nasty to them. And no, it won't solve the problem. It probably falls into the category of "slightly better than nothing," but under the likely assumption that it fails to have a sufficient deterrent effect to stifle the flow, somebody will have to come up with another idea eventually. And that idea is bound to be even nastier, because it consists either of telling the population of the UK that it is powerless to decide who can and cannot live here and must simply put up with whoever wants to come, or going the full Australia, building a much larger gulag in another third country or a distant overseas territory like the Falklands, and filling it with huge numbers of boat people until word reaches those yet to make the journey that it is hopeless and they should give up trying.

    Again, there is no cosy or particularly good solution to this problem. It doesn't exist. Even somehow making the chronically dysfunctional Home Office much more efficient at processing asylum claims, and setting up a system that allows for processing near to some particularly shitty countries that people are fleeing from (with successful applicants flown directly into Heathrow) won't solve anything, because the rejects won't give up and will try to come anyway.

    Fundamentally, the entire post-WW2 system for managing migration and asylum claims was devised in an era in which people were very much less mobile, and flows of millions of both refugees and economic migrants from distant corners of the Earth did not happen and was not anticipated. Its continuing operation is now coming into direct conflict with the established will of democratically elected Governments and their people, as seen not just here but in places like Greece, where they've had to cope with a much more serious boat people problem than us, and have tried to deal with it with a chain of internment camps. How do you reform it in such a fashion that both resident and migrant populations are satisfied? You can't.

    The current Government is not a good one, but no successor is going to do very much better at dealing with irregular migration either. There is no approach available that's not both very expensive and liable to upset an awful lot of people.
    As an aside, I don't think your contention that people are much less mobile is actually true. Look at the period from 1850 to 1915, the movement of people - to the US, Canada, Australia, Argentina, etc. - absolutely swamps today's flows, and had major societal impacts on both the countries left behind and the ones they went to.
    Very well, I'll qualify the previous statement: people obviously moved around the globe in large numbers prior to the First World War, but they weren't typically travelling to places where the recipient state was unwilling and unable to accommodate them. The phenomenon of people moving from relatively poor to much richer countries, uninvited and unwanted, not merely in large numbers but likely in a continuous and unending flow, is something quite novel.

    Commonwealth migration to the UK post-WW2 was large-scale but was also planned and invited. The acceptance of the Ugandan Asian refugees in the 1970s was done in a hurry, but involved a finite and manageable number of people, not an open-ended commitment. Contemporary irregular migration is something different.
    That's a good summary.

    Still, I wouldn't underestimate the extent to which indigenous people (of all kinds) were unhappy with newcomers. There was certainly considerable opposition to - for example - Kenyan Asians coming to the UK.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 22,503
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Evidence? The Tory voteshare actually increased in polls today after Johnson survived his VONC. Nobody else in the Tory party has Boris' charisma and personality and nobody else would do any better at this time, indeed most alternatives would do worse.

    Note too Sunak does no better than Boris v Starmer as preferred PM either

    Which polls are you talking about @HYUFD?

    The only post-VoNC poll I can see in wiki is the Redfield&Wilton poll giving Labour and 8% lead (up from 4%)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election
    Tory voteshare up 1% in the new Techne poll today for starters

    https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1535223935230410752?s=20&t=xzfH5e9XA14sOK3Ao5ixGg
    There is this strange and novel concept called "margin of error", as part of a wider body of theory and practice called "statistics". I commend them to you.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 42,827
    Carnyx said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Andy_JS said:

    vino said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Leon said:

    pigeon said:

    Roger said:

    algarkirk said:

    I cannot see Boris leading into GE24 unless something remarkable happens

    Just noticed this, not sure if it has been reported yet

    A flight to take asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda next Tuesday has been allowed to go ahead by the High Court. Campaigners failed in their legal bid to halt the removals to the east African country, but the case will be heard by the Court of Appeal on Monday.

    Under the policy, those entering the UK illegally will be flown to Rwanda to apply for asylum there. About 31 people have been told they may be on the first flight.

    The government hopes the scheme will discourage asylum seekers from crossing the English Channel, by making it clear many cases will now be dealt with by Rwanda.

    Appeal could well succeed. I think in fact the government may be happy to lose the appeal. Part of their not so cunning plan may be to have the courts disallow this policy so that they can get the praise from populists for trying, blame the wicked do gooders and courts, without having to actually implement this grisly charade.

    Actually implementing the policy has risks. Sentiment can change. Lots of Tory voters are not racists.

    (BTW I am not propounding an alternative solution. No good outcomes are available in the world's current dismal state. This is merely another, even worse than the some of the other bad ones.)

    And there is always that strange phenomenon that has shown voters expect their leaders to be more civilised than they are themselves. It's one of the reasons Patel is so unpopular
    And yet her ratings are almost bound to improve if the boat people stop coming.

    The Channel crossings problem can only be solved in one of two ways: by letting the unwanted migrants stay and pissing off a very large chunk of the electorate, or throwing them out and crushing their hopes and dreams in the process.

    That's life. As in so many cases, the fantasy of a scenario in which everyone can be kept happy doesn't exist.
    And only the first of those is logistically possible.

    We have known, since the announcement of this policy, that Rwanda only plan to take a few hundred people who land on British shores a year. One of their ministers made that clear on announcement day. They are not idiots and they have less capacity to assimilate tens of thousands of people than the UK does.

    So a 1% or so risk of deportation is meant to dissuade people from making the perilous Channel crossing. It's going to get overwhelmed now, which means it will never work.

    I know that telling people "you have been conned" is a very ineffective way of persuading them to change their minds. But if you have been persuaded that the Patel Plan has any hope of working on its own terms, that it's anyting other than a bit of (fairly nasty) perfomance...

    You've been conned.
    So what would you do?

    It really is not good enough to just say Oh let them all in. Indeed it is dangerously pathetic

    Pathetic, because you are unwilling to face reality, dangerous because by saying Let them all in you encourage millions more to try and you condemn thousands to death by drowning, trafficking, etc , and eventually you DO have to face the problem because it has got much worse, at which point you will face precisely the same dilemma
    The solution has been posted on here before: Stricter regulation of rogue employers; allow illegal immigrants a route to citizenship if they shop employers who flout the rules. If we stamp out the black-economy employers, the attraction reduces.

    I'd add ID cards for all too.
    No to ID cards. Absolutely no.
    Why not?
    Because they aren't the British way of doing things.
    Nor is shipping people off to Rwanda.
    A country that doesn't defend its borders is a country that doesn't exist.
    Before the Brexit referendum, I questioned the inability of Brexiters on PB to resolve the problem olf NI. I asked how they would resolve the problem of migrants coming into the UK via NI? I was told in the most lordly and patrician manner that it was so passe to worry about guarding the borders. Other measures would be taken internally within the UK ...
    Which is what Robert recommends with good evidence of what works from around the world. But in this country we looked at May's "hostile environment" and shuddered. It is just not the way we do things. It seems immoral, cruel and plainly leaves people open to vicious exploitation. As long as the majority of us feel that way, and I am sure we do, internal checks simply will not work.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 41,048
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Evidence? The Tory voteshare actually increased in polls today after Johnson survived his VONC. Nobody else in the Tory party has Boris' charisma and personality and nobody else would do any better at this time, indeed most alternatives would do worse.

    Note too Sunak does no better than Boris v Starmer as preferred PM either

    Which polls are you talking about @HYUFD?

    The only post-VoNC poll I can see in wiki is the Redfield&Wilton poll giving Labour and 8% lead (up from 4%)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election
    Tory voteshare up 1% in the new Techne poll today for starters

    https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1535223935230410752?s=20&t=xzfH5e9XA14sOK3Ao5ixGg
    Wow, a whopping 1%?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 45,383
    Andy_JS said:

    Andy_JS said:

    vino said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Leon said:

    pigeon said:

    Roger said:

    algarkirk said:

    I cannot see Boris leading into GE24 unless something remarkable happens

    Just noticed this, not sure if it has been reported yet

    A flight to take asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda next Tuesday has been allowed to go ahead by the High Court. Campaigners failed in their legal bid to halt the removals to the east African country, but the case will be heard by the Court of Appeal on Monday.

    Under the policy, those entering the UK illegally will be flown to Rwanda to apply for asylum there. About 31 people have been told they may be on the first flight.

    The government hopes the scheme will discourage asylum seekers from crossing the English Channel, by making it clear many cases will now be dealt with by Rwanda.

    Appeal could well succeed. I think in fact the government may be happy to lose the appeal. Part of their not so cunning plan may be to have the courts disallow this policy so that they can get the praise from populists for trying, blame the wicked do gooders and courts, without having to actually implement this grisly charade.

    Actually implementing the policy has risks. Sentiment can change. Lots of Tory voters are not racists.

    (BTW I am not propounding an alternative solution. No good outcomes are available in the world's current dismal state. This is merely another, even worse than the some of the other bad ones.)

    And there is always that strange phenomenon that has shown voters expect their leaders to be more civilised than they are themselves. It's one of the reasons Patel is so unpopular
    And yet her ratings are almost bound to improve if the boat people stop coming.

    The Channel crossings problem can only be solved in one of two ways: by letting the unwanted migrants stay and pissing off a very large chunk of the electorate, or throwing them out and crushing their hopes and dreams in the process.

    That's life. As in so many cases, the fantasy of a scenario in which everyone can be kept happy doesn't exist.
    And only the first of those is logistically possible.

    We have known, since the announcement of this policy, that Rwanda only plan to take a few hundred people who land on British shores a year. One of their ministers made that clear on announcement day. They are not idiots and they have less capacity to assimilate tens of thousands of people than the UK does.

    So a 1% or so risk of deportation is meant to dissuade people from making the perilous Channel crossing. It's going to get overwhelmed now, which means it will never work.

    I know that telling people "you have been conned" is a very ineffective way of persuading them to change their minds. But if you have been persuaded that the Patel Plan has any hope of working on its own terms, that it's anyting other than a bit of (fairly nasty) perfomance...

    You've been conned.
    So what would you do?

    It really is not good enough to just say Oh let them all in. Indeed it is dangerously pathetic

    Pathetic, because you are unwilling to face reality, dangerous because by saying Let them all in you encourage millions more to try and you condemn thousands to death by drowning, trafficking, etc , and eventually you DO have to face the problem because it has got much worse, at which point you will face precisely the same dilemma
    The solution has been posted on here before: Stricter regulation of rogue employers; allow illegal immigrants a route to citizenship if they shop employers who flout the rules. If we stamp out the black-economy employers, the attraction reduces.

    I'd add ID cards for all too.
    No to ID cards. Absolutely no.
    Why not?
    Because they aren't the British way of doing things.
    Nor is shipping people off to Rwanda.
    A country that doesn't defend its borders is a country that doesn't exist.
    I think you have two choices: one is to have very strong borders, but then very few controls when people are in country (which is the UK way); the other is to be relaxed at the borders, but then implement extensive internal checks (which is the Swiss or Norwegian way).

    It is essentially impossible to live as an illegal immigrant in Norway, because you can't get a bank account, a job, or a place to stay. Nor can you sleep rough.

    Neither is a panacea. Our strategy allows Albanians (and others) to arrive on tourist visas and never leave. The Swiss/Norwegian one means that regular people are required to check and confirm that Franz is allowed to rent a room to sleep in.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 22,503
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Evidence? The Tory voteshare actually increased in polls today after Johnson survived his VONC. Nobody else in the Tory party has Boris' charisma and personality and nobody else would do any better at this time, indeed most alternatives would do worse.

    Note too Sunak does no better than Boris v Starmer as preferred PM either

    If you want to retain the lying buffoon go right ahead.

    It's only the nation and the reputation of the Conservative Party that will suffer.
    Leftwingers like you of course want to get rid of Boris just as you wanted to get rid of Thatcher as they were general election winners.


    Same as we Conservatives wanted to get rid of general election winner Blair and correctly as Labour has lost 4 consecutive general elections since he went
    "we conservatives"

    "leftwingers" are those who want to get rid of Mr Johnson

    Novel definitions of conservatives ...
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 276
    I have long thought that an essential part of any solution to America's illegal immigration problems was a strengthening (and, probably, reform) of our E-Verify program: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Verify

    "E-Verify compares information from an employee's Employment Eligibility Verification Form I-9 to data from U.S. government records. If the information matches, that employee is eligible to work in the United States. If there is a mismatch, E-Verify alerts the employer and the employee is allowed to work while he or she resolves the problem; they must contact the appropriate agency to resolve the mismatch within eight federal government work days from the referral date.[4] The program is operated by the DHS in partnership with the Social Security Administration. According to the DHS website, more than 700,000 employers used E-Verify as of 2018.[5]

    Research shows that E-Verify harms the labor market outcomes of illegal immigrants and improves the labor market outcomes of Mexican legal immigrants and U.S.-born Hispanics, but has no impact on labor market outcomes for non-Hispanic white Americans.[6] A 2016 study suggests that E-Verify reduces the number of illegal immigrants in states that have mandated use of E-Verify for all employers, and further notes that the program may deter illegal immigration to the United States in general."
    (Links omitted.)

    If you read the entire article, you'll learn that some states require using E-Verify -- and some states forbid using it. And that it is opposed by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Farm Bureau, which mostly represents wealthier farmers, and corporate farms.
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 2,792
    Andy_JS said:

    Andy_JS said:

    vino said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Leon said:

    pigeon said:

    Roger said:

    algarkirk said:

    I cannot see Boris leading into GE24 unless something remarkable happens

    Just noticed this, not sure if it has been reported yet

    A flight to take asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda next Tuesday has been allowed to go ahead by the High Court. Campaigners failed in their legal bid to halt the removals to the east African country, but the case will be heard by the Court of Appeal on Monday.

    Under the policy, those entering the UK illegally will be flown to Rwanda to apply for asylum there. About 31 people have been told they may be on the first flight.

    The government hopes the scheme will discourage asylum seekers from crossing the English Channel, by making it clear many cases will now be dealt with by Rwanda.

    Appeal could well succeed. I think in fact the government may be happy to lose the appeal. Part of their not so cunning plan may be to have the courts disallow this policy so that they can get the praise from populists for trying, blame the wicked do gooders and courts, without having to actually implement this grisly charade.

    Actually implementing the policy has risks. Sentiment can change. Lots of Tory voters are not racists.

    (BTW I am not propounding an alternative solution. No good outcomes are available in the world's current dismal state. This is merely another, even worse than the some of the other bad ones.)

    And there is always that strange phenomenon that has shown voters expect their leaders to be more civilised than they are themselves. It's one of the reasons Patel is so unpopular
    And yet her ratings are almost bound to improve if the boat people stop coming.

    The Channel crossings problem can only be solved in one of two ways: by letting the unwanted migrants stay and pissing off a very large chunk of the electorate, or throwing them out and crushing their hopes and dreams in the process.

    That's life. As in so many cases, the fantasy of a scenario in which everyone can be kept happy doesn't exist.
    And only the first of those is logistically possible.

    We have known, since the announcement of this policy, that Rwanda only plan to take a few hundred people who land on British shores a year. One of their ministers made that clear on announcement day. They are not idiots and they have less capacity to assimilate tens of thousands of people than the UK does.

    So a 1% or so risk of deportation is meant to dissuade people from making the perilous Channel crossing. It's going to get overwhelmed now, which means it will never work.

    I know that telling people "you have been conned" is a very ineffective way of persuading them to change their minds. But if you have been persuaded that the Patel Plan has any hope of working on its own terms, that it's anyting other than a bit of (fairly nasty) perfomance...

    You've been conned.
    So what would you do?

    It really is not good enough to just say Oh let them all in. Indeed it is dangerously pathetic

    Pathetic, because you are unwilling to face reality, dangerous because by saying Let them all in you encourage millions more to try and you condemn thousands to death by drowning, trafficking, etc , and eventually you DO have to face the problem because it has got much worse, at which point you will face precisely the same dilemma
    The solution has been posted on here before: Stricter regulation of rogue employers; allow illegal immigrants a route to citizenship if they shop employers who flout the rules. If we stamp out the black-economy employers, the attraction reduces.

    I'd add ID cards for all too.
    No to ID cards. Absolutely no.
    Why not?
    Because they aren't the British way of doing things.
    Nor is shipping people off to Rwanda.
    A country that doesn't defend its borders is a country that doesn't exist.
    Oh give over Andy. This is not about protecting our borders!
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 20,934
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Evidence? The Tory voteshare actually increased in polls today after Johnson survived his VONC. Nobody else in the Tory party has Boris' charisma and personality and nobody else would do any better at this time, indeed most alternatives would do worse.

    Note too Sunak does no better than Boris v Starmer as preferred PM either

    Which polls are you talking about @HYUFD?

    The only post-VoNC poll I can see in wiki is the Redfield&Wilton poll giving Labour and 8% lead (up from 4%)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election
    Tory voteshare up 1% in the new Techne poll today for starters

    https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1535223935230410752?s=20&t=xzfH5e9XA14sOK3Ao5ixGg
    You're going to ignore the Redfield & Wilton then?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 20,945
    Derby County's takeover missed the deadline. Now all up in the air again.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 45,383

    I have long thought that an essential part of any solution to America's illegal immigration problems was a strengthening (and, probably, reform) of our E-Verify program: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Verify

    "E-Verify compares information from an employee's Employment Eligibility Verification Form I-9 to data from U.S. government records. If the information matches, that employee is eligible to work in the United States. If there is a mismatch, E-Verify alerts the employer and the employee is allowed to work while he or she resolves the problem; they must contact the appropriate agency to resolve the mismatch within eight federal government work days from the referral date.[4] The program is operated by the DHS in partnership with the Social Security Administration. According to the DHS website, more than 700,000 employers used E-Verify as of 2018.[5]

    Research shows that E-Verify harms the labor market outcomes of illegal immigrants and improves the labor market outcomes of Mexican legal immigrants and U.S.-born Hispanics, but has no impact on labor market outcomes for non-Hispanic white Americans.[6] A 2016 study suggests that E-Verify reduces the number of illegal immigrants in states that have mandated use of E-Verify for all employers, and further notes that the program may deter illegal immigration to the United States in general."
    (Links omitted.)

    If you read the entire article, you'll learn that some states require using E-Verify -- and some states forbid using it. And that it is opposed by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Farm Bureau, which mostly represents wealthier farmers, and corporate farms.

    I did a video on just this issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NG4NCHuvCC4
This discussion has been closed.