Penny Mordaunt now favourite in next CON leader betting – politicalbetting.com

System

Penny Mordaunt now favourite in next CON leader betting – politicalbetting.com

The chart from Smarkets shows the latest betting on who will be the next Conservative leader. The big change is that Jeremy Hunt’s position at the top of the betting has now been moved and Penny Mordaunt takes his place.

Read the full story here

SandyRentool

First?

Edit: Punters betting with the contents of their trousers, rather than their heads?

IshmaelZ

Good but I want to see truss much further out

rottenborough

The fact that they are all within three or four points of each other shows why Johnson has not been replaced.

tlg86

https://order-order.com/2022/06/14/revealed-brexit-hating-libdem-husband-of-controversial-cadwalladr-decision-judge/

I'm tempted to say that they could have chosen a better judge to preside over the Banks v Cadwalladr case, but then I suspect many judges would have such conflicts of interest.

MoonRabbit

Morgan?

Nigelb

SandyRentool said:

First?

Edit: Punters betting with the contents of their trousers, rather than their heads?

Who are you suggesting has the horn for Hunt ?

IshmaelZ

Mexicanpete said:

IshmaelZ said:

Cefalu has a via Robert Baden Powell (fundatore del scoutismo) which we can all agree is a wholesome counterweight to all that Thelemite kinkery.

Are you in Cefalu?

That's where I was last week. Castelbueno is worth look if you haven't already been.

I'm back buying diesel in Morrisons, Haverfordwest at £192.9 a litre. Shame!

Yes just arrived for 2 nights, need time in Palermo (I am a citrus obsessive and the botanical gardens have 141 varieties) but will see if CB is fittable in

Refilling my hire car is going to cost 2.06 EUR l by the look of it

Mexicanpete

tlg86 said:

https://order-order.com/2022/06/14/revealed-brexit-hating-libdem-husband-of-controversial-cadwalladr-decision-judge/

I'm tempted to say that they could have chosen a better judge to preside over the Banks v Cadwalladr case, but then I suspect many judges would have such conflicts of interest.

Justice can never be fair, if it adjudicates against patriots like Banks.

Should we send these Remainer liberal leftie judges to Rwanda where they belong?

Applicant

FPT.

Cookie said:

turbotubbs said:

Sandpit said:

turbotubbs said:

Cookie said:

Gardenwalker said:

bondegezou said:

TOPPING said:

bondegezou said:

Your analogy would be more convincing were it not for the fact that we’re talking about an agreement made just a few years ago by the same government. We’re not talking about righting some great historical wrong: we’re talking about the Conservatives making signing this treaty their central manifesto pledge and now, a short time later, decrying the exact same treaty as fundamentally broken.

Just like when debating with @HYUFD when he is on a roll I get the feeling that you can state this transparently obvious truth to @Bart as often as you want and the essential truthness of it still won't get through to him.

To be charitable I hope he ( @Bart ) is actually saying that he gets this just that it is phenomenally bad politics conducted by phenomenally bad politicians.

Although he keeps on forgetting to add that last bit to his posts.

I respect BR’s arguments as being honest and reasoned.

Leon said:

Cookie said:

MoonRabbit said:

On topic. What a beautiful flag.

I’m now on PB Dave for 3rd too. 🙂

It's one of the better ones.
You can see all of the county flags here. https://britishcountyflags.com/english-county-flags/

For the edification of pb.com, I shall rank them from best to worst.


1) Cornwall (a proper flag, this. Not too fussy and wouldn't look the least bit daft as a national flag. Attractive and unusual colour combination.)
2) Kent (admirably simple and a nice image)
3) Devon (again, simple, elegant, quite convincing as a country flag)
4) Essex (bold, slightly aggressive)
5) Cheshire (I originally had this as top, which was a little partisan. I've tried to be more neutral about it. But I genuinely do like the colour combination and the overall effect.)
6) Somerset (simple and distinctive – loses marks for red and yellow – though there is sadly quiet a lot of red and yellow in subsequent designs)
7) Warwickshire (not just a bear, but a bear with, I don’t know, some sort of coat rack)
8) Yorkshire
9) Middlesex (nice flag, but clearly copied from Essex)
10) Northumberland (if you must do red and yellow do it simply)
11) Dorset (ditto)
12) Surrey (well this is bold and interesting, at least. Reminiscent of Croatia’s football kit)
13) Staffordshire (I like the layout and the emblem – would have been higher with a nicer colour scheme than red and yellow)
14) Suffolk
15) Westmorland
16) Lancashire
17) Durham
18) Derbyshire (fairly nice design – but blue and light green is even uglier than red and yellow. And if there is a white or yellow border around the green cross they should be bold enough to show it)
19) Gloucestershire (again, loses points for the blue/green)
20) Northamptonshire (brown and yellow is no better than red and yellow)
21) Worcesterhire (I like neither the colour scheme nor the wiggly lines, and pears are silly, but the sum is actually more pleasing than the parts)
22) Leicestershire
23) Berkshire (looks a bit more like an illustration from a child’s storybook than a flag)
24) Shropshire (Rather frighteningly busy but an agreeable enough overall impression)
25) Cumberland
26) Lincolnshire
27) Cambridgehire (possibly the dullest flag of the lot, but not ugly as such)
28) Nottinghamshire (loses points for Nottinghamshire’s irritating persistent obsession with Robin Hood, who is just as associated with several other counties – it is the baddy who came from Nottingham)
29) Buckinghamshire
30) Hertfordshire
31) Herefordshire (much, much too much brown)
32) Hampshire
33) Wiltshire (I’m not sure what those stripes are doing, not what that thing in the middle is)
34) Oxfordshire (far, far too busy – looks like it’s been designed by committee)
35) Huntingdonshire (quite simple, but also quite stupid)
36) Rutland
37) Sussex (I quite like the blue and yellow. But six tiny birds in a triangle?)
38) Norfolk (this is just plain uninspiring, and looks like someone creature has walked across it).
39) Bedfordshire (far too much going on, and none of it good)

Great list. Good work, Sir! This is why I come to PB

Noticeable that, the nearer you get to a county being an imaginable if tiny COUNTRY, the better and more plausible the flag as a flag of independence?

Cornwall has the best claim of any English county to being an independent country. And their flag is the most distinctive

After Cornwall, Kent and Essex have very distinct identities - the men of Kent etc, then Yorkshire at number 8… Northumberland 10

And the counties at the bottom are pretty much the counties you can least imagine having some separate national identity (with the possible exception of Norfolk): Beds, Sussex, Rutland, Hunts, Oxon, Wilts

I wonder if this is true of American states? The most likely to secede is probably Texas. With its distinctive Lone Star flag….

The question is how many you can identify by just looking at the flag.

I’d say,
Cornwall
Yorkshire
Lancashire
Essex
Kent
Warwickshire
Maybe Hertfordshire

Also, but only by deduction, Leicestershire and Worcestershire.

For me, Cornwall, Devon, Essex, Kent, Cheshire, Lancashire, Northumberland, Warwickshire, Worcestershire and Leicestershire. And I could have made a stab at Derbyshire through semi-familoarity and Nottinghamshire with the Robin Hood thing. And Rutland because of Ruddles beer. A bit of knowledge of county cricket helps.

There was at least one summer of Panini Stickers for County Cricket - might have been a one off. Shiny silver county badges. First time I'd seen the ashes trophy and had no concept of the scale...

Edit - apparently 1983

The ashes trophy is bigger than the European Cup - until you actually see it.

That was my impression too...

OK, then pb, best sporting trophies?

I always hesitate to give football any credit, but the best sporting trophy for my eyes is the FA Cup. It is perfect. It is the archetype from which all other trophies differ in some slightly disappointing way.
Also give an honourable mention to the Football World Cup, which manages to be quite different to most trophies and yet not awful. ]
The European Cup is just too big. What happens when size is mistaken for quality.

The Ashes is well worth celebrating and its tininess is charming, but really, it's a bit silly isn't it?

I rather like the Claret Jug at the Open. I like how specific it is in its purpose.

I also rather like that massive plate thing they have at Wimbledon.

I feel I ought to like the Snooker World Championship Trophy, but can't actually bring it to mind. So it can't be that good.

So I'm going to go for:
#1 FA Cup
#2 Claret Jug

Many other fine trophies, but no others really come close to those two.

Technically the Ashes urn isn't the trophy, the oversize crystal one is.

The Venus Rosewater Dish for the Ladies' Singles is much more special than the Gentemen's, which with the pineapple on top is just bizarre.

The snooker world championship is this one:



But this is something the North American sports tend to get right. The Stanley Cup and the Vince Lombardi trophy are great, and I like the MLB Commmissioner's Trophy with all the flags. The NBA one is kind of a lame knockoff of the Lombardi, though.

MoonRabbit

On topic. I have £50 on Mark Harper at 40-1 in this leadership race. I strongly believe now there will be no vacancy this side of a general election that produces a result which ousts Boris. With the Brexit right ERG controlling things with Boris in number 10, Harper will only be in the running as their candidate with Boris out the picture. In an after the general election contest the final 2 will be the ERG backed candidate representing the right v AN Other. So I am more than confident of winning this one.

Mexicanpete

IshmaelZ said:

Mexicanpete said:

IshmaelZ said:

Cefalu has a via Robert Baden Powell (fundatore del scoutismo) which we can all agree is a wholesome counterweight to all that Thelemite kinkery.

Are you in Cefalu?

That's where I was last week. Castelbueno is worth look if you haven't already been.

I'm back buying diesel in Morrisons, Haverfordwest at £192.9 a litre. Shame!

Yes just arrived for 2 nights, need time in Palermo (I am a citrus obsessive and the botanical gardens have 141 varieties) but will see if CB is fittable in

Refilling my hire car is going to cost 2.06 EUR l by the look of it

CB easy to get to with a car. Pleasant, but no Ragusa.

Palermo is unfortunately not the jewel in the Sicilian crown. Enjoy the fruit nonetheless!

RobD

She’s in danger of becoming the frontrunner? Never a good thing.

Applicant

RobD said:

She’s in danger of becoming the frontrunner? Never a good thing.

Not least because of all the "lay the favourite" jokes...

Applicant

49 off 19 balls since tea.

StuartDickson

Boris Johnson will lead the Brexit Revolutionary Party at the next general election.

Boris Johnson will lead the Brexit Revolutionary Party to defeat at the next general election.

TheScreamingEagles

My word.

Bairstow.

TheScreamingEagles

Black Caps will win this.

Next wicket and the Black Caps are in to the tail.

Flatlander

TheScreamingEagles said:

Black Caps will win this.

Next wicket and the Black Caps are in to the tail.

Top class entertainment though

rcs1000

Keystone said:

Leon said:

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

TOPPING said:

Cyclefree said:

Leon said:

Cyclefree said:

Leon said:

Cyclefree said:

Leon said:

FF43 said:

I know we're unlikely to get any joined up thinking from this deeply unserious government, but what actually is their claim for Rwanda?

Is that Rwanda is so horrible, would-be users of people smugglers - almost 'entirely genuine asylum seekers escaping persecution - will choose torture or death instead?

Or is that Rwanda is kind, like Britain but with more sunshine? The asylum seekers will be well looked after - the people smugglers are doing a useful job?

It’s because it is safe, but fairly grim

If you’re an asylum seeker (which most of them are not, they are economic migrants) then you would be happy with safety alone. If they are not happy, then it was something else that attracted them all the way to the UK, it wasn’t “asylum” per se

Do it, Priti, do it

One of the people scheduled to be deported is a 19-year old Iranian who has 2 brothers, 4 uncles and their families, all of them British citizens, living here. That is why he is here.

Now, tell me why it is a good thing to deport him to Rwanda.

To discourage others

Every case will have a bleeding heart story attached. There is no happy or easy solution to this. But the best solution - for everyone - is the Australian solution. We cannot just let them all in, that’s giving up all control of our borders and will encourage yet more to come, 100,000s a year

Oz shows that you have to be tough for a few months, then they stop. I profoundly doubt the UKG has the bollocks to do an Oz. so we will yield, and the problem will get worse, and the next time around the dilemma will be even more acute

You do not discourage anyone by deporting one individual. Even the government has admitted that only a few hundred at most will be deported.

This is just performative cruelty to an individual who has close family here.

And before you ask what would I do, I put my ideas down a few months back. They were rather more intelligent than this sort of ineffective nonsense.

I think i remember your ideas, despite them being forgettable kittens-n-roses nonsense. But do tell us again

The current Refugee Convention is no longer fit for purpose. The distinction between an asylum seeker and economic migrant is nonsensical. We want to have a sensible level of immigration, which attracts the people we want and gives us some level of control.

So opt out of the Conventions, agree an annual number of migrants with a points based system: skills, family connections etc, after proper open debate in Parliament, followed by necessary planning for infrastructure / services etc. Merely being a refugee and persecuted is insufficient to get you a place - save in very exceptional circumstances. Applications made from outside the U.K. only - thus disincentivising travel here. If you get accepted,you get flown here safely.

Plus @rcs1000's measures to discourage the black economy.

Something along these lines would be better than what we have now.

Not that any party will propose this.

But if I do set up "The Kittens'n'Roses" party (and frankly I feel it is mighty churlish of the country not to put me in charge) then something like this will be in my manifesto.

That and making people have nice front gardens and banning plastic grass.

What about the channel crossings.

Deal with the French.
We agree to take 2000 refugees from France each month - but from a centre inland, not from Calais.
For every migrant who arrive in the UK by boat, we reduce that total by 2.

Totals to be reset each year.

And.,.. how do you stop the Channel crossings?

There is a hundred miles of coastline, or more. A near infinity of beaches and coves. It is impossible to police all that 24/7/365. I believe the French when they say they literally cannot do it. Tho they could certainly do MORE

The only way is to deter, make it not worth the crossing. Rwanda

Next

You seem to forget that - before Covid - Channel Crossing barely existed at all.

You’re delusional. This is nothing to do with covid, or, if it is associated it is mostly accidental

True story: I remember watching a programme about Channel crossing BY LORRY several years ago (long before Covid). Back then I suddenly thought, Fuck, why don’t they just come by boat? What’s stopping them? It will be much easer and we can’t turn them back because they might drown

It was an epiphany, and it turned out I was right. Once you realise a boat is the best way, there is no going back. As it were. Think of it as like the Wheeled Luggage of Illicit Migration to Britain. Once we all realised wheeled luggage made way more sense, that is what we did, about 30 years after it was invented

BTW we need to put a time frame around our bet

You said “a year” and a 50% drop so I suggest this, as we are near the solstice:

@rcs1000 bets @leon that migrations to the UK by boat, in toto, will be at least 50% down in the period 21 June 2022 to 21 June 2023, from where they were in the period 21 June 2021 to 21 June 2022

@leon disagrees!

The loser will pay £50 to a refugee charity chosen by the winner

@edmundintokyo, as per, can be the traditional arbiter of disputes

Agreed?

Perhaps a better question might be - how to stop cross-Mediterranean immigration? "Illegal immigration" into the UK is likely to be a function of flows into Spain, Italy, Greece and Turkey. And those numbers are already in the hundreds of thousands per year - and are rising.

Patel's measures might successfully lower the proportion of illegal immigrants into Europe who continue on to the UK.

But the rising tide is likely to mean overall numbers continue to rise...

Fortunately, the United Nations has a portal with data on Mediterranean crossings: https://data.unhcr.org/en/situations/mediterranean

"And those numbers are already in the hundreds of thousands per year - and are rising"

This is the chart on the boat crossings of the Med:

Sandpit

tlg86 said:

https://order-order.com/2022/06/14/revealed-brexit-hating-libdem-husband-of-controversial-cadwalladr-decision-judge/

I'm tempted to say that they could have chosen a better judge to preside over the Banks v Cadwalladr case, but then I suspect many judges would have such conflicts of interest.

There will always be some issues, but given the nature of the case perhaps another judge wouldn’t have been open to such headlines.

Given that the judgement was, and I paraphrase, that Mr Banks was defamed, but that it’s not possible to cause him material harm with words, it’s hardly surprising that he is now looking to appeal the decision.

Sandpit

Here come the runs!

DecrepiterJohnL

Mexicanpete said:

tlg86 said:

https://order-order.com/2022/06/14/revealed-brexit-hating-libdem-husband-of-controversial-cadwalladr-decision-judge/

I'm tempted to say that they could have chosen a better judge to preside over the Banks v Cadwalladr case, but then I suspect many judges would have such conflicts of interest.

Justice can never be fair, if it adjudicates against patriots like Banks.

Should we send these Remainer liberal leftie judges to Rwanda where they belong?

There will be plenty of empty seats for the judges if only eight (if that) refugees are on the plane.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61799914

Sandpit

TheScreamingEagles said:

Black Caps will win this.

Next wicket and the Black Caps are in to the tail.

Just as well we can bat deep.

Cookie

TheScreamingEagles said:

Black Caps will win this.

Next wicket and the Black Caps are in to the tail.

Not quite fair, that - Foakes can bat quite pleasantly. After that, yes. And that Stokes knee looks a problem.

DavidL

MoonRabbit said:

Morgan?

I thought it was another member of this undistinguished cabinet I had never heard of but I think its a typo for Mordaunt. Predictive text will get us all in the end.

BartholomewRoberts

Bairstow potentially within one boundary from the fastest century since 1902.

Remarkable considering the developments of cricket in recent years that record hasn't yet been broken in 120 years.

DavidL

Cookie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Black Caps will win this.

Next wicket and the Black Caps are in to the tail.

Not quite fair, that - Foakes can bat quite pleasantly. After that, yes. And that Stokes knee looks a problem.

Thee is absolutely no scoreboard pressure left here now. Either NZ bowl England out or England win.

Gardenwalker

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Mexicanpete said:

tlg86 said:

https://order-order.com/2022/06/14/revealed-brexit-hating-libdem-husband-of-controversial-cadwalladr-decision-judge/

I'm tempted to say that they could have chosen a better judge to preside over the Banks v Cadwalladr case, but then I suspect many judges would have such conflicts of interest.

Justice can never be fair, if it adjudicates against patriots like Banks.

Should we send these Remainer liberal leftie judges to Rwanda where they belong?

There will be plenty of empty seats for the judges if only eight (if that) refugees are on the plane.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61799914

How many Rwandans are coming back?

According to polling the country is split on this issue. The Opposition’s best approach is to lead on the inefficacy of this measure.

Northern_Al

tlg86 said:

https://order-order.com/2022/06/14/revealed-brexit-hating-libdem-husband-of-controversial-cadwalladr-decision-judge/

I'm tempted to say that they could have chosen a better judge to preside over the Banks v Cadwalladr case, but then I suspect many judges would have such conflicts of interest.

Judge supports her husband's views. Wow. Guido writes:

Guido has no intention of impugning the integrity of the judge in this case...

Yeh, right, of course he doesn't. So why publish this tittle tattle?

MoonRabbit

🐎 You’ve been done by a nose Stodge. 1 win, 2 seconds. And least we now know the Australians have fastest sprinter in the world 😌

I’m still not a fan of this summer sprint stuff. My Nan used to do it everyday, but I was out playing this time of year. It’s all a bit like the Olympic sprint races. Exciting to watch, but, would you really bet on Olympic sprint races?

StuartDickson

World Cup winner

Brazil 5/1
France 13/2
England 13/2
Castile & satellite states 8/1
Argentina 9/1
Germany 11/1
Portugal 14/1
Netherlands 14/1
Flanders & Wallonia 16/1
Denmark 33/1
60 bar

BartholomewRoberts

Bairstow needs a single off his next delivery to beat GL Jessop's 120 year old record.

DavidL

The last 10 overs England have scored 100 runs. In a test match. Quite, quite incredible.

Mexicanpete

Sandpit said:

Here come the runs!

Here, have some Dioralyte.

MoonRabbit

DavidL said:

MoonRabbit said:

Morgan?

I thought it was another member of this undistinguished cabinet I had never heard of but I think its a typo for Mordaunt. Predictive text will get us all in the end.

Predictive text at its best. It knows all about her “organ” speech.

StuartDickson

Farooq said:

StuartDickson said:

World Cup winner

Brazil 5/1
France 13/2
England 13/2
Castile & satellite states 8/1
Argentina 9/1
Germany 11/1
Portugal 14/1
Netherlands 14/1
Flanders & Wallonia 16/1
Denmark 33/1
60 bar

France and England too short. Argentina and Denmark too long.

England are *always* too short, in all big international competitions.

Applicant

BartholomewRoberts said:

Bairstow needs a single off his next delivery to beat GL Jessop's 120 year old record.

Dot. Zaltzman: "Gilbert Jessop fans are punching the air right now".

Sandpit

Arise, Sir Jonny Bairstow!

BartholomewRoberts

Took one delivery more than the England record in the end, but what an innings. 102* in 77 deliveries on day 5 of a Test.

wooliedyed

Gilbert jessop 'got em in singles' and his record is intact

Cookie

Without wanting to rain on Jonny Bairstow's parade, it turns out many of Gilbert Jessop's fours in his 100 in 77 balls would have been sixes now:

Many of the fours had well cleared the boundary, but the laws of cricket in 1902 meant that to obtain six runs the ball had to be hit out of the ground. One of these "fours" was caught on the players' balcony. A newspaper managed to keep a detailed record of his innings, which shows that Jessop reached his hundred off 76 balls – one of the fastest Test centuries of all time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_Jessop

Nigelb

The Croucher still stands.

Applicant

Applicant said:

Tea. 160 needed off 38 (4.21 per over). These two surely need to get at least half, maybe even two-thirds of them.

That's half of them, in under 40 minutes.

TheScreamingEagles

Never doubt the brilliance of a Yorkshireman.

Nigelb

Cookie said:

Without wanting to rain on Jonny Bairstow's parade, it turns out many of Gilbert Jessop's fours in his 100 in 77 balls would have been sixes now:

Many of the fours had well cleared the boundary, but the laws of cricket in 1902 meant that to obtain six runs the ball had to be hit out of the ground. One of these "fours" was caught on the players' balcony. A newspaper managed to keep a detailed record of his innings, which shows that Jessop reached his hundred off 76 balls – one of the fastest Test centuries of all time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_Jessop

Does anyone have a record of ultra fast double centuries to compare ?

286 out of 335 in 175 minutes for Gloucestershire against Sussex at Brighton, 1903 (he and J. H. Board adding 320 for the sixth wicket);
240 out of 337 in 200 minutes for Gloucestershire v. Sussex at Bristol, 1907;
234 out of 346 in 155 minutes for Gloucestershire v. Somerset at Bristol, 1905;
233 out of 318 in 150 minutes for An England XI v. Yorkshire at Lord's, 1901;
206 out of 317 in 150 minutes for Gloucestershire v. Nottinghamshire at Trent Bridge, 1904.

Mexicanpete

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Mexicanpete said:

tlg86 said:

https://order-order.com/2022/06/14/revealed-brexit-hating-libdem-husband-of-controversial-cadwalladr-decision-judge/

I'm tempted to say that they could have chosen a better judge to preside over the Banks v Cadwalladr case, but then I suspect many judges would have such conflicts of interest.

Justice can never be fair, if it adjudicates against patriots like Banks.

Should we send these Remainer liberal leftie judges to Rwanda where they belong?

There will be plenty of empty seats for the judges if only eight (if that) refugees are on the plane.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61799914

Whatever the exorbitant cost, if it saves BigDog it's worth every last cent. It's not like we're in an economic crisis and need to watch the pennies.

Sandpit

Why are they wearing whites to play 20/20 cricket?

DavidL

See the brakes are coming off now that YJB has got is 100.

BartholomewRoberts

Wow wow wow 🏏🏏🏏

58 needed from 29, required run rate down to 2.0 per over.

Jim_Miller

Some Democratic organizations are backing Trumpistas -- in Republican primaries:
"All three have something else in common: They’re benefiting, either directly or indirectly, from a cluster of Democratic-associated groups spending millions of dollars in contested Republican primaries this month. In some cases these groups are attacking more mainstream Republicans and in others they are amplifying messages from the election-denying candidates.

The apparent bet these organizations are placing is that such far-right candidates, who hold polarizing views on various issues, would be easier to defeat in the November midterms when a broader slice of the electorate will be casting ballots."
source($): https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/13/democrats-interference-primaries/

The organizations are probably correct that, in most general elections, Trumpistas will be easier to defeat than more rational Republicans -- but there is the obvious risk of backfire with such tactics.

MattW

rcs1000 said:

Keystone said:

Leon said:

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

TOPPING said:

Cyclefree said:

Leon said:

Cyclefree said:

Leon said:

Cyclefree said:

Leon said:

FF43 said:

I know we're unlikely to get any joined up thinking from this deeply unserious government, but what actually is their claim for Rwanda?

Is that Rwanda is so horrible, would-be users of people smugglers - almost 'entirely genuine asylum seekers escaping persecution - will choose torture or death instead?

Or is that Rwanda is kind, like Britain but with more sunshine? The asylum seekers will be well looked after - the people smugglers are doing a useful job?

It’s because it is safe, but fairly grim

If you’re an asylum seeker (which most of them are not, they are economic migrants) then you would be happy with safety alone. If they are not happy, then it was something else that attracted them all the way to the UK, it wasn’t “asylum” per se

Do it, Priti, do it

One of the people scheduled to be deported is a 19-year old Iranian who has 2 brothers, 4 uncles and their families, all of them British citizens, living here. That is why he is here.

Now, tell me why it is a good thing to deport him to Rwanda.

To discourage others

Every case will have a bleeding heart story attached. There is no happy or easy solution to this. But the best solution - for everyone - is the Australian solution. We cannot just let them all in, that’s giving up all control of our borders and will encourage yet more to come, 100,000s a year

Oz shows that you have to be tough for a few months, then they stop. I profoundly doubt the UKG has the bollocks to do an Oz. so we will yield, and the problem will get worse, and the next time around the dilemma will be even more acute

You do not discourage anyone by deporting one individual. Even the government has admitted that only a few hundred at most will be deported.

This is just performative cruelty to an individual who has close family here.

And before you ask what would I do, I put my ideas down a few months back. They were rather more intelligent than this sort of ineffective nonsense.

I think i remember your ideas, despite them being forgettable kittens-n-roses nonsense. But do tell us again

The current Refugee Convention is no longer fit for purpose. The distinction between an asylum seeker and economic migrant is nonsensical. We want to have a sensible level of immigration, which attracts the people we want and gives us some level of control.

So opt out of the Conventions, agree an annual number of migrants with a points based system: skills, family connections etc, after proper open debate in Parliament, followed by necessary planning for infrastructure / services etc. Merely being a refugee and persecuted is insufficient to get you a place - save in very exceptional circumstances. Applications made from outside the U.K. only - thus disincentivising travel here. If you get accepted,you get flown here safely.

Plus @rcs1000's measures to discourage the black economy.

Something along these lines would be better than what we have now.

Not that any party will propose this.

But if I do set up "The Kittens'n'Roses" party (and frankly I feel it is mighty churlish of the country not to put me in charge) then something like this will be in my manifesto.

That and making people have nice front gardens and banning plastic grass.

What about the channel crossings.

Deal with the French.
We agree to take 2000 refugees from France each month - but from a centre inland, not from Calais.
For every migrant who arrive in the UK by boat, we reduce that total by 2.

Totals to be reset each year.

And.,.. how do you stop the Channel crossings?

There is a hundred miles of coastline, or more. A near infinity of beaches and coves. It is impossible to police all that 24/7/365. I believe the French when they say they literally cannot do it. Tho they could certainly do MORE

The only way is to deter, make it not worth the crossing. Rwanda

Next

You seem to forget that - before Covid - Channel Crossing barely existed at all.

You’re delusional. This is nothing to do with covid, or, if it is associated it is mostly accidental

True story: I remember watching a programme about Channel crossing BY LORRY several years ago (long before Covid). Back then I suddenly thought, Fuck, why don’t they just come by boat? What’s stopping them? It will be much easer and we can’t turn them back because they might drown

It was an epiphany, and it turned out I was right. Once you realise a boat is the best way, there is no going back. As it were. Think of it as like the Wheeled Luggage of Illicit Migration to Britain. Once we all realised wheeled luggage made way more sense, that is what we did, about 30 years after it was invented

BTW we need to put a time frame around our bet

You said “a year” and a 50% drop so I suggest this, as we are near the solstice:

@rcs1000 bets @leon that migrations to the UK by boat, in toto, will be at least 50% down in the period 21 June 2022 to 21 June 2023, from where they were in the period 21 June 2021 to 21 June 2022

@leon disagrees!

The loser will pay £50 to a refugee charity chosen by the winner

@edmundintokyo, as per, can be the traditional arbiter of disputes

Agreed?

Perhaps a better question might be - how to stop cross-Mediterranean immigration? "Illegal immigration" into the UK is likely to be a function of flows into Spain, Italy, Greece and Turkey. And those numbers are already in the hundreds of thousands per year - and are rising.

Patel's measures might successfully lower the proportion of illegal immigrants into Europe who continue on to the UK.

But the rising tide is likely to mean overall numbers continue to rise...

Fortunately, the United Nations has a portal with data on Mediterranean crossings: https://data.unhcr.org/en/situations/mediterranean

"And those numbers are already in the hundreds of thousands per year - and are rising"

This is the chart on the boat crossings of the Med:

As we know, Brussels has employed a Militia to intercept migrants and put them in prison camps in Libya. Documented by the New Yorker some months ago.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/12/06/the-secretive-libyan-prisons-that-keep-migrants-out-of-europe

Tired of migrants arriving from Africa, the E.U. has created a shadow immigration system that captures them before they reach its shores, and sends them to brutal Libyan detention centers run by militias.

Expenditure is tens to hundreds of millions.

The camps have recently closed, so the numbers this year can be expected to readjust:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/a-migrant-prison-officially-closes-but-how-much-has-changed

Do I have an easy answer - probably not. Does anyone else?

wooliedyed

wooliedyed said:

Gilbert jessop 'got em in singles' and his record is intact

Im an idiot, it was Hirst that got em in singles after Jessops assault.

StuartDickson

Next Con Leader

Mordaunt 7
Hunt 7.4
Truss 8.8
Wallace 11
Sunak 12
Tugendhat 13
Zahawi 13
Javid 23
Gove 29
Raab 38
Patel 44
Harper 46
51 bar

Nigelb

.

Nigelb said:

Cookie said:

Without wanting to rain on Jonny Bairstow's parade, it turns out many of Gilbert Jessop's fours in his 100 in 77 balls would have been sixes now:

Many of the fours had well cleared the boundary, but the laws of cricket in 1902 meant that to obtain six runs the ball had to be hit out of the ground. One of these "fours" was caught on the players' balcony. A newspaper managed to keep a detailed record of his innings, which shows that Jessop reached his hundred off 76 balls – one of the fastest Test centuries of all time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_Jessop

Does anyone have a record of ultra fast double centuries to compare ?

286 out of 335 in 175 minutes for Gloucestershire against Sussex at Brighton, 1903 (he and J. H. Board adding 320 for the sixth wicket);
240 out of 337 in 200 minutes for Gloucestershire v. Sussex at Bristol, 1907;
234 out of 346 in 155 minutes for Gloucestershire v. Somerset at Bristol, 1905;
233 out of 318 in 150 minutes for An England XI v. Yorkshire at Lord's, 1901;
206 out of 317 in 150 minutes for Gloucestershire v. Nottinghamshire at Trent Bridge, 1904.

Also on cricinfo's list of fastest first class innings, he's the only player to feature twice for both hundreds and double centuries.
https://stats.espncricinfo.com/i/content/records/283002.html

BartholomewRoberts

StuartDickson said:

Next Con Leader

Mordaunt 7
Hunt 7.4
Truss 8.8
Wallace 11
Sunak 12
Tugendhat 13
Zahawi 13
Javid 23
Gove 29
Raab 38
Patel 44
Harper 46
51 bar

Bairstow 122

Stuartinromford

How long before Penelope is in peril from the not-very hooded claw of Big Dog?

Big_G_NorthWales

BartholomewRoberts said:

Wow wow wow 🏏🏏🏏

58 needed from 29, required run rate down to 2.0 per over.

And all free

Sandpit

If you’re not up to running too fast, just score them six at a time!

StuartDickson

Next Lab Leader

Streeting 7
Burnham 7
Nandy 8.5
Reeves 9
Rayner 11
Cooper 15
Phillipson 26
Allin-Khan 29
Phillips 34
Khan 36
Jarvis 41
Haigh 41
51 bar

noneoftheabove

Jim_Miller said:

Some Democratic organizations are backing Trumpistas -- in Republican primaries:
"All three have something else in common: They’re benefiting, either directly or indirectly, from a cluster of Democratic-associated groups spending millions of dollars in contested Republican primaries this month. In some cases these groups are attacking more mainstream Republicans and in others they are amplifying messages from the election-denying candidates.

The apparent bet these organizations are placing is that such far-right candidates, who hold polarizing views on various issues, would be easier to defeat in the November midterms when a broader slice of the electorate will be casting ballots."
source($): https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/13/democrats-interference-primaries/

The organizations are probably correct that, in most general elections, Trumpistas will be easier to defeat than more rational Republicans -- but there is the obvious risk of backfire with such tactics.

Typical party before country shit. Dangerous not just for America but the rest of the world as well. Anyone who cares for democracy and rule of law should be helping the centre right to marginalise the Trumpites and their authoritarian kleptocratic mates around the world.

rcs1000

MattW said:

rcs1000 said:

Keystone said:

Leon said:

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

TOPPING said:

Cyclefree said:

Leon said:

Cyclefree said:

Leon said:

Cyclefree said:

Leon said:

FF43 said:

I know we're unlikely to get any joined up thinking from this deeply unserious government, but what actually is their claim for Rwanda?

Is that Rwanda is so horrible, would-be users of people smugglers - almost 'entirely genuine asylum seekers escaping persecution - will choose torture or death instead?

Or is that Rwanda is kind, like Britain but with more sunshine? The asylum seekers will be well looked after - the people smugglers are doing a useful job?

It’s because it is safe, but fairly grim

If you’re an asylum seeker (which most of them are not, they are economic migrants) then you would be happy with safety alone. If they are not happy, then it was something else that attracted them all the way to the UK, it wasn’t “asylum” per se

Do it, Priti, do it

One of the people scheduled to be deported is a 19-year old Iranian who has 2 brothers, 4 uncles and their families, all of them British citizens, living here. That is why he is here.

Now, tell me why it is a good thing to deport him to Rwanda.

To discourage others

Every case will have a bleeding heart story attached. There is no happy or easy solution to this. But the best solution - for everyone - is the Australian solution. We cannot just let them all in, that’s giving up all control of our borders and will encourage yet more to come, 100,000s a year

Oz shows that you have to be tough for a few months, then they stop. I profoundly doubt the UKG has the bollocks to do an Oz. so we will yield, and the problem will get worse, and the next time around the dilemma will be even more acute

You do not discourage anyone by deporting one individual. Even the government has admitted that only a few hundred at most will be deported.

This is just performative cruelty to an individual who has close family here.

And before you ask what would I do, I put my ideas down a few months back. They were rather more intelligent than this sort of ineffective nonsense.

I think i remember your ideas, despite them being forgettable kittens-n-roses nonsense. But do tell us again

The current Refugee Convention is no longer fit for purpose. The distinction between an asylum seeker and economic migrant is nonsensical. We want to have a sensible level of immigration, which attracts the people we want and gives us some level of control.

So opt out of the Conventions, agree an annual number of migrants with a points based system: skills, family connections etc, after proper open debate in Parliament, followed by necessary planning for infrastructure / services etc. Merely being a refugee and persecuted is insufficient to get you a place - save in very exceptional circumstances. Applications made from outside the U.K. only - thus disincentivising travel here. If you get accepted,you get flown here safely.

Plus @rcs1000's measures to discourage the black economy.

Something along these lines would be better than what we have now.

Not that any party will propose this.

But if I do set up "The Kittens'n'Roses" party (and frankly I feel it is mighty churlish of the country not to put me in charge) then something like this will be in my manifesto.

That and making people have nice front gardens and banning plastic grass.

What about the channel crossings.

Deal with the French.
We agree to take 2000 refugees from France each month - but from a centre inland, not from Calais.
For every migrant who arrive in the UK by boat, we reduce that total by 2.

Totals to be reset each year.

And.,.. how do you stop the Channel crossings?

There is a hundred miles of coastline, or more. A near infinity of beaches and coves. It is impossible to police all that 24/7/365. I believe the French when they say they literally cannot do it. Tho they could certainly do MORE

The only way is to deter, make it not worth the crossing. Rwanda

Next

You seem to forget that - before Covid - Channel Crossing barely existed at all.

You’re delusional. This is nothing to do with covid, or, if it is associated it is mostly accidental

True story: I remember watching a programme about Channel crossing BY LORRY several years ago (long before Covid). Back then I suddenly thought, Fuck, why don’t they just come by boat? What’s stopping them? It will be much easer and we can’t turn them back because they might drown

It was an epiphany, and it turned out I was right. Once you realise a boat is the best way, there is no going back. As it were. Think of it as like the Wheeled Luggage of Illicit Migration to Britain. Once we all realised wheeled luggage made way more sense, that is what we did, about 30 years after it was invented

BTW we need to put a time frame around our bet

You said “a year” and a 50% drop so I suggest this, as we are near the solstice:

@rcs1000 bets @leon that migrations to the UK by boat, in toto, will be at least 50% down in the period 21 June 2022 to 21 June 2023, from where they were in the period 21 June 2021 to 21 June 2022

@leon disagrees!

The loser will pay £50 to a refugee charity chosen by the winner

@edmundintokyo, as per, can be the traditional arbiter of disputes

Agreed?

Perhaps a better question might be - how to stop cross-Mediterranean immigration? "Illegal immigration" into the UK is likely to be a function of flows into Spain, Italy, Greece and Turkey. And those numbers are already in the hundreds of thousands per year - and are rising.

Patel's measures might successfully lower the proportion of illegal immigrants into Europe who continue on to the UK.

But the rising tide is likely to mean overall numbers continue to rise...

Fortunately, the United Nations has a portal with data on Mediterranean crossings: https://data.unhcr.org/en/situations/mediterranean

"And those numbers are already in the hundreds of thousands per year - and are rising"

This is the chart on the boat crossings of the Med:

As we know, Brussels has employed a Militia to intercept migrants and put them in prison camps in Libya. Documented by the New Yorker some months ago.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/12/06/the-secretive-libyan-prisons-that-keep-migrants-out-of-europe

Tired of migrants arriving from Africa, the E.U. has created a shadow immigration system that captures them before they reach its shores, and sends them to brutal Libyan detention centers run by militias.

Expenditure is tens to hundreds of millions.

The camps have recently closed, so the numbers this year can be expected to readjust:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/a-migrant-prison-officially-closes-but-how-much-has-changed

Do I have an easy answer - probably not. Does anyone else?

I was just pointing out that Penfold's statement was incorrect.

FWIW, the weekly numbers are currently tracking down year-over-year, so if the end of this deal with the militias is having a negative effective on migrants we've not seen it yet.

StuartDickson

BartholomewRoberts said:

StuartDickson said:

Next Con Leader

Mordaunt 7
Hunt 7.4
Truss 8.8
Wallace 11
Sunak 12
Tugendhat 13
Zahawi 13
Javid 23
Gove 29
Raab 38
Patel 44
Harper 46
51 bar

Bairstow 122

It’s your fiver…

DavidL

BartholomewRoberts said:

StuartDickson said:

Next Con Leader

Mordaunt 7
Hunt 7.4
Truss 8.8
Wallace 11
Sunak 12
Tugendhat 13
Zahawi 13
Javid 23
Gove 29
Raab 38
Patel 44
Harper 46
51 bar

Bairstow 122

For Tory leader? I think that's a lay, even after this.

MattW

rcs1000 said:

MattW said:

rcs1000 said:

Keystone said:

Leon said:

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

TOPPING said:

Cyclefree said:

Leon said:

Cyclefree said:

Leon said:

Cyclefree said:

Leon said:

FF43 said:

I know we're unlikely to get any joined up thinking from this deeply unserious government, but what actually is their claim for Rwanda?

Is that Rwanda is so horrible, would-be users of people smugglers - almost 'entirely genuine asylum seekers escaping persecution - will choose torture or death instead?

Or is that Rwanda is kind, like Britain but with more sunshine? The asylum seekers will be well looked after - the people smugglers are doing a useful job?

It’s because it is safe, but fairly grim

If you’re an asylum seeker (which most of them are not, they are economic migrants) then you would be happy with safety alone. If they are not happy, then it was something else that attracted them all the way to the UK, it wasn’t “asylum” per se

Do it, Priti, do it

One of the people scheduled to be deported is a 19-year old Iranian who has 2 brothers, 4 uncles and their families, all of them British citizens, living here. That is why he is here.

Now, tell me why it is a good thing to deport him to Rwanda.

To discourage others

Every case will have a bleeding heart story attached. There is no happy or easy solution to this. But the best solution - for everyone - is the Australian solution. We cannot just let them all in, that’s giving up all control of our borders and will encourage yet more to come, 100,000s a year

Oz shows that you have to be tough for a few months, then they stop. I profoundly doubt the UKG has the bollocks to do an Oz. so we will yield, and the problem will get worse, and the next time around the dilemma will be even more acute

You do not discourage anyone by deporting one individual. Even the government has admitted that only a few hundred at most will be deported.

This is just performative cruelty to an individual who has close family here.

And before you ask what would I do, I put my ideas down a few months back. They were rather more intelligent than this sort of ineffective nonsense.

I think i remember your ideas, despite them being forgettable kittens-n-roses nonsense. But do tell us again

The current Refugee Convention is no longer fit for purpose. The distinction between an asylum seeker and economic migrant is nonsensical. We want to have a sensible level of immigration, which attracts the people we want and gives us some level of control.

So opt out of the Conventions, agree an annual number of migrants with a points based system: skills, family connections etc, after proper open debate in Parliament, followed by necessary planning for infrastructure / services etc. Merely being a refugee and persecuted is insufficient to get you a place - save in very exceptional circumstances. Applications made from outside the U.K. only - thus disincentivising travel here. If you get accepted,you get flown here safely.

Plus @rcs1000's measures to discourage the black economy.

Something along these lines would be better than what we have now.

Not that any party will propose this.

But if I do set up "The Kittens'n'Roses" party (and frankly I feel it is mighty churlish of the country not to put me in charge) then something like this will be in my manifesto.

That and making people have nice front gardens and banning plastic grass.

What about the channel crossings.

Deal with the French.
We agree to take 2000 refugees from France each month - but from a centre inland, not from Calais.
For every migrant who arrive in the UK by boat, we reduce that total by 2.

Totals to be reset each year.

And.,.. how do you stop the Channel crossings?

There is a hundred miles of coastline, or more. A near infinity of beaches and coves. It is impossible to police all that 24/7/365. I believe the French when they say they literally cannot do it. Tho they could certainly do MORE

The only way is to deter, make it not worth the crossing. Rwanda

Next

You seem to forget that - before Covid - Channel Crossing barely existed at all.

You’re delusional. This is nothing to do with covid, or, if it is associated it is mostly accidental

True story: I remember watching a programme about Channel crossing BY LORRY several years ago (long before Covid). Back then I suddenly thought, Fuck, why don’t they just come by boat? What’s stopping them? It will be much easer and we can’t turn them back because they might drown

It was an epiphany, and it turned out I was right. Once you realise a boat is the best way, there is no going back. As it were. Think of it as like the Wheeled Luggage of Illicit Migration to Britain. Once we all realised wheeled luggage made way more sense, that is what we did, about 30 years after it was invented

BTW we need to put a time frame around our bet

You said “a year” and a 50% drop so I suggest this, as we are near the solstice:

@rcs1000 bets @leon that migrations to the UK by boat, in toto, will be at least 50% down in the period 21 June 2022 to 21 June 2023, from where they were in the period 21 June 2021 to 21 June 2022

@leon disagrees!

The loser will pay £50 to a refugee charity chosen by the winner

@edmundintokyo, as per, can be the traditional arbiter of disputes

Agreed?

Perhaps a better question might be - how to stop cross-Mediterranean immigration? "Illegal immigration" into the UK is likely to be a function of flows into Spain, Italy, Greece and Turkey. And those numbers are already in the hundreds of thousands per year - and are rising.

Patel's measures might successfully lower the proportion of illegal immigrants into Europe who continue on to the UK.

But the rising tide is likely to mean overall numbers continue to rise...

Fortunately, the United Nations has a portal with data on Mediterranean crossings: https://data.unhcr.org/en/situations/mediterranean

"And those numbers are already in the hundreds of thousands per year - and are rising"

This is the chart on the boat crossings of the Med:

As we know, Brussels has employed a Militia to intercept migrants and put them in prison camps in Libya. Documented by the New Yorker some months ago.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/12/06/the-secretive-libyan-prisons-that-keep-migrants-out-of-europe

Tired of migrants arriving from Africa, the E.U. has created a shadow immigration system that captures them before they reach its shores, and sends them to brutal Libyan detention centers run by militias.

Expenditure is tens to hundreds of millions.

The camps have recently closed, so the numbers this year can be expected to readjust:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/a-migrant-prison-officially-closes-but-how-much-has-changed

Do I have an easy answer - probably not. Does anyone else?

I was just pointing out that Penfold's statement was incorrect.

FWIW, the weekly numbers are currently tracking down year-over-year, so if the end of this deal with the militias is having a negative effective on migrants we've not seen it yet.

Not aimed at you - just pointing out the reasons why they may have fallen.

If I need a *headdesk* moment, I'll start speculating as to why the Scottish Government paper uses GDP data from 2020 - when the UK economy had fallen faster than elsewhere - rather than 2021, when it had recovered more rapidly than elesewhere, in their so-called 'analysis'.

Or look at the selection of countries they have chosen to compare Scotland with this time round, and the ones they have left out, and wonder why there is not actually very much data about Scotland itself .

Sandpit

Well this is a day that, over the next 30 years, half a million people will tell Jonny Bairstow that they were there.

rcs1000

MattW said:

rcs1000 said:

MattW said:

rcs1000 said:

Keystone said:

Leon said:

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

TOPPING said:

Cyclefree said:

Leon said:

Cyclefree said:

Leon said:

Cyclefree said:

Leon said:

FF43 said:

I know we're unlikely to get any joined up thinking from this deeply unserious government, but what actually is their claim for Rwanda?

Is that Rwanda is so horrible, would-be users of people smugglers - almost 'entirely genuine asylum seekers escaping persecution - will choose torture or death instead?

Or is that Rwanda is kind, like Britain but with more sunshine? The asylum seekers will be well looked after - the people smugglers are doing a useful job?

It’s because it is safe, but fairly grim

If you’re an asylum seeker (which most of them are not, they are economic migrants) then you would be happy with safety alone. If they are not happy, then it was something else that attracted them all the way to the UK, it wasn’t “asylum” per se

Do it, Priti, do it

One of the people scheduled to be deported is a 19-year old Iranian who has 2 brothers, 4 uncles and their families, all of them British citizens, living here. That is why he is here.

Now, tell me why it is a good thing to deport him to Rwanda.

To discourage others

Every case will have a bleeding heart story attached. There is no happy or easy solution to this. But the best solution - for everyone - is the Australian solution. We cannot just let them all in, that’s giving up all control of our borders and will encourage yet more to come, 100,000s a year

Oz shows that you have to be tough for a few months, then they stop. I profoundly doubt the UKG has the bollocks to do an Oz. so we will yield, and the problem will get worse, and the next time around the dilemma will be even more acute

You do not discourage anyone by deporting one individual. Even the government has admitted that only a few hundred at most will be deported.

This is just performative cruelty to an individual who has close family here.

And before you ask what would I do, I put my ideas down a few months back. They were rather more intelligent than this sort of ineffective nonsense.

I think i remember your ideas, despite them being forgettable kittens-n-roses nonsense. But do tell us again

The current Refugee Convention is no longer fit for purpose. The distinction between an asylum seeker and economic migrant is nonsensical. We want to have a sensible level of immigration, which attracts the people we want and gives us some level of control.

So opt out of the Conventions, agree an annual number of migrants with a points based system: skills, family connections etc, after proper open debate in Parliament, followed by necessary planning for infrastructure / services etc. Merely being a refugee and persecuted is insufficient to get you a place - save in very exceptional circumstances. Applications made from outside the U.K. only - thus disincentivising travel here. If you get accepted,you get flown here safely.

Plus @rcs1000's measures to discourage the black economy.

Something along these lines would be better than what we have now.

Not that any party will propose this.

But if I do set up "The Kittens'n'Roses" party (and frankly I feel it is mighty churlish of the country not to put me in charge) then something like this will be in my manifesto.

That and making people have nice front gardens and banning plastic grass.

What about the channel crossings.

Deal with the French.
We agree to take 2000 refugees from France each month - but from a centre inland, not from Calais.
For every migrant who arrive in the UK by boat, we reduce that total by 2.

Totals to be reset each year.

And.,.. how do you stop the Channel crossings?

There is a hundred miles of coastline, or more. A near infinity of beaches and coves. It is impossible to police all that 24/7/365. I believe the French when they say they literally cannot do it. Tho they could certainly do MORE

The only way is to deter, make it not worth the crossing. Rwanda

Next

You seem to forget that - before Covid - Channel Crossing barely existed at all.

You’re delusional. This is nothing to do with covid, or, if it is associated it is mostly accidental

True story: I remember watching a programme about Channel crossing BY LORRY several years ago (long before Covid). Back then I suddenly thought, Fuck, why don’t they just come by boat? What’s stopping them? It will be much easer and we can’t turn them back because they might drown

It was an epiphany, and it turned out I was right. Once you realise a boat is the best way, there is no going back. As it were. Think of it as like the Wheeled Luggage of Illicit Migration to Britain. Once we all realised wheeled luggage made way more sense, that is what we did, about 30 years after it was invented

BTW we need to put a time frame around our bet

You said “a year” and a 50% drop so I suggest this, as we are near the solstice:

@rcs1000 bets @leon that migrations to the UK by boat, in toto, will be at least 50% down in the period 21 June 2022 to 21 June 2023, from where they were in the period 21 June 2021 to 21 June 2022

@leon disagrees!

The loser will pay £50 to a refugee charity chosen by the winner

@edmundintokyo, as per, can be the traditional arbiter of disputes

Agreed?

Perhaps a better question might be - how to stop cross-Mediterranean immigration? "Illegal immigration" into the UK is likely to be a function of flows into Spain, Italy, Greece and Turkey. And those numbers are already in the hundreds of thousands per year - and are rising.

Patel's measures might successfully lower the proportion of illegal immigrants into Europe who continue on to the UK.

But the rising tide is likely to mean overall numbers continue to rise...

Fortunately, the United Nations has a portal with data on Mediterranean crossings: https://data.unhcr.org/en/situations/mediterranean

"And those numbers are already in the hundreds of thousands per year - and are rising"

This is the chart on the boat crossings of the Med:

As we know, Brussels has employed a Militia to intercept migrants and put them in prison camps in Libya. Documented by the New Yorker some months ago.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/12/06/the-secretive-libyan-prisons-that-keep-migrants-out-of-europe

Tired of migrants arriving from Africa, the E.U. has created a shadow immigration system that captures them before they reach its shores, and sends them to brutal Libyan detention centers run by militias.

Expenditure is tens to hundreds of millions.

The camps have recently closed, so the numbers this year can be expected to readjust:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/a-migrant-prison-officially-closes-but-how-much-has-changed

Do I have an easy answer - probably not. Does anyone else?

I was just pointing out that Penfold's statement was incorrect.

FWIW, the weekly numbers are currently tracking down year-over-year, so if the end of this deal with the militias is having a negative effective on migrants we've not seen it yet.

Not aimed at you - just pointing out the reasons why they may have fallen.

Also... the numbers are very volatile, which probably reflects weather conditions. And also one quiet month usually presages a very busy subsequent month as presumably people were waiting for the right conditions to cross. *And* the period from July to September accounts for about 45% of all Med sea crossings, so one shouldn't read too much into these numbers.

My guess, fwiw, is that 2022 will see a very similar outcome to the previous four-five years:

Previous years Arrivals * Dead and missing
2021 123,318 3,231
2020 95,774 1,881
2019 123,663 1,510
2018 141,472 2,277
2017 185,139 3,139
2016 373,652 5,096
2015 1,032,408 3,771
2014 225,455 3,538

BartholomewRoberts

Sandpit said:

Why are they wearing whites to play 20/20 cricket?

Stokes is injured, and this partnership is now 179 off 120 balls. 😲🏏

Its Test Cricket, but not as we know it.

Nigelb

DavidL said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

StuartDickson said:

Next Con Leader

Mordaunt 7
Hunt 7.4
Truss 8.8
Wallace 11
Sunak 12
Tugendhat 13
Zahawi 13
Javid 23
Gove 29
Raab 38
Patel 44
Harper 46
51 bar

Bairstow 122

For Tory leader? I think that's a lay, even after this.

Possible recruit for the Yorkshire Party ?

Sandpit

DavidL said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

StuartDickson said:

Next Con Leader

Mordaunt 7
Hunt 7.4
Truss 8.8
Wallace 11
Sunak 12
Tugendhat 13
Zahawi 13
Javid 23
Gove 29
Raab 38
Patel 44
Harper 46
51 bar

Bairstow 122

For Tory leader? I think that's a lay, even after this.

He’s more popular than all the other candidates!

kinabalu

tlg86 said:

https://order-order.com/2022/06/14/revealed-brexit-hating-libdem-husband-of-controversial-cadwalladr-decision-judge/

I'm tempted to say that they could have chosen a better judge to preside over the Banks v Cadwalladr case, but then I suspect many judges would have such conflicts of interest.

I wonder if a jury of ordinary decent leave voters would have seen through Carol and found for Aaron?

MoonRabbit

TheScreamingEagles said:

Black Caps will win this.

Next wicket and the Black Caps are in to the tail.

That post aged well.

Nigelb

Stokes has McCullum's record in his sights fairly soon, possibly this series.
https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/records/283122.html

OldKingCole

Bairstow out! Still 27 to get!

BartholomewRoberts

Bairstow out but what an innings.

5 wickets left to get 27 runs at the rate of approximately 1 per over required.

Hope people here aren't on the draw.

Cookie

Bairstow doing his bit to keep it exciting...

DavidL

Bairstow finally perishes but one of the greatest ever test match innings for England.

Flatlander

BartholomewRoberts said:

Bairstow out but what an innings.

5 wickets left to get 27 runs at the rate of approximately 1 per over required.

Hope people here aren't on the draw.

England could still lose it from here...

Nigelb

England collapse to 292 all out, now on the cards...

williamglenn

rcs1000 said:

My guess, fwiw, is that 2022 will see a very similar outcome to the previous four-five years

You don't think the knock on effects of the war in Ukraine will have any impact?

wooliedyed

Labour lead by 10% in the Red Wall.

Red Wall Voting Intention (12-13 June):

Labour 46% (+8)
Conservative 36% (-11)
Reform UK 6% (-1)
Liberal Democrat 5% (+1)
Green 4% (+3)
Plaid Cymru 2% (+1)
Other 2% (–)

Changes +/- 2019 General Election

https://t.co/QH9VBsMRjq https://t.co/81i1fv6YHh

BartholomewRoberts

Flatlander said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Bairstow out but what an innings.

5 wickets left to get 27 runs at the rate of approximately 1 per over required.

Hope people here aren't on the draw.

England could still lose it from here...

Certainly could, more likely than the draw was my point.

Its win or lose territory now.

ohnotnow

Rather off-topic, but if anyone is after a well-above-average bit of Scandi-politics TV drama, then 'The Minister' is well worth a try.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Minister_(TV_series)

Nigelb

Still, getting out for a rapid 130 is a slight improvement on the rapid twenties and thirties of late.

kinabalu

Farooq said:

Jim_Miller said:

Some Democratic organizations are backing Trumpistas -- in Republican primaries:
"All three have something else in common: They’re benefiting, either directly or indirectly, from a cluster of Democratic-associated groups spending millions of dollars in contested Republican primaries this month. In some cases these groups are attacking more mainstream Republicans and in others they are amplifying messages from the election-denying candidates.

The apparent bet these organizations are placing is that such far-right candidates, who hold polarizing views on various issues, would be easier to defeat in the November midterms when a broader slice of the electorate will be casting ballots."
source($): https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/13/democrats-interference-primaries/

The organizations are probably correct that, in most general elections, Trumpistas will be easier to defeat than more rational Republicans -- but there is the obvious risk of backfire with such tactics.

That's fucking crazy if that's happening. Like Tories joining Labour to vote for Corbyn. Utter madness.

Playing with fire. This MAGA manifestation of the GOP needs to be treated like the mortal threat to democracy in the world's most powerful nation that it is.

DavidL

Considering the absolute carnage since tea Boult's figures of 77/3 are very respectable. He has been by far the premier bowler in this match.

northern_monkey

A very dispiriting day today, news-wise. Poor buggers shovelled off to Rwanda. NI shenanigans. A renewed push for Scottish independence (not that I blame them).

I genuinely grieve for the country we were before that bloody referendum.

Flatlander

BartholomewRoberts said:

Flatlander said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Bairstow out but what an innings.

5 wickets left to get 27 runs at the rate of approximately 1 per over required.

Hope people here aren't on the draw.

England could still lose it from here...

Certainly could, more likely than the draw was my point.

Its win or lose territory now.

Might have been / be better for Stokes to retire hurt to allow the option of a quick single or two.

He could always return to hit a few sixes if necessary.

Foakes isn't normally one to smash it out of the ground but might feel he has to.

kinabalu

Stuartinromford said:

How long before Penelope is in peril from the not-very hooded claw of Big Dog?

He'll be sniffing around for sure. If the closet has any skeletons they will soon be revealed.

HYUFD

I would suggest Wallace is more likely than Mordaunt being a serving Defence Secretary but note Mordaunt and Wallace, both former and current Defence Secretaries make up 50% of the top 4 for next Tory leader with Ukraine in the spotlight

MoonRabbit

Leon said:

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

TOPPING said:

Cyclefree said:

Leon said:

Cyclefree said:

Leon said:

Cyclefree said:

Leon said:

FF43 said:

I know we're unlikely to get any joined up thinking from this deeply unserious government, but what actually is their claim for Rwanda?

Is that Rwanda is so horrible, would-be users of people smugglers - almost 'entirely genuine asylum seekers escaping persecution - will choose torture or death instead?

Or is that Rwanda is kind, like Britain but with more sunshine? The asylum seekers will be well looked after - the people smugglers are doing a useful job?

It’s because it is safe, but fairly grim

If you’re an asylum seeker (which most of them are not, they are economic migrants) then you would be happy with safety alone. If they are not happy, then it was something else that attracted them all the way to the UK, it wasn’t “asylum” per se

Do it, Priti, do it

One of the people scheduled to be deported is a 19-year old Iranian who has 2 brothers, 4 uncles and their families, all of them British citizens, living here. That is why he is here.

Now, tell me why it is a good thing to deport him to Rwanda.

cute

You do not discourage anyone by deporting one individual. Even the government has admitted that only a few hundred at most will be deported.

This is just performative cruelty to an individual who has close family here.

And before you ask what would I do, I put my ideas down a few months back. They were rather more intelligent than this sort of ineffective nonsense.

I think i remember your ideas, despite them being forgettable kittens-n-roses nonsense. But do tell us again

Applications made from outside the U.K. only - thus disincentivising travel here. If you get accepted,you get flown here safely.

Plus @rcs1000's measures to discourage the black economy.

Something along these lines would be better than what we have now.

Not that any party will propose this.

But if I do set up "The Kittens'n'Roses" party (and frankly I feel it is mighty churlish of the country not to put me in charge) then something like this will be in my manifesto.

That and making people have nice front gardens and banning plastic grass.

What about the channel crossings.

Deal with the French.
We agree to take 2000 refugees from France each month - but from a centre inland, not from Calais.
For every migrant who arrive in the UK by boat, we reduce that total by 2.

Totals to be reset each year.

And.,.. how do you stop the Channel crossings?

There is a hundred miles of coastline, or more. A near infinity of beaches and coves. It is impossible to police all that 24/7/365. I believe the French when they say they literally cannot do it. Tho they could certainly do MORE

The only way is to deter, make it not worth the crossing. Rwanda

Next

You seem to forget that - before Covid - Channel Crossing barely existed at all.

You’re delusional. This is nothing to do with covid, or, if it is associated it is mostly accidental

True story: I remember watching a programme about Channel crossing BY LORRY several years ago (long before Covid). Back then I suddenly thought, Fuck, why don’t they just come by boat? What’s stopping them? It will be much easer and we can’t turn them back because they might drown

It was an epiphany, and it turned out I was right. Once you realise a boat is the best way, there is no going back. As it were. Think of it as like the Wheeled Luggage of Illicit Migration to Britain. Once we all realised wheeled luggage made way more sense, that is what we did, about 30 years after it was invented

BTW we need to put a time frame around our bet

You said “a year” and a 50% drop so I suggest this, as we are near the solstice:

@rcs1000 bets @leon that migrations to the UK by boat, in toto, will be at least 50% down in the period 21 June 2022 to 21 June 2023, from where they were in the period 21 June 2021 to 21 June 2022

@leon disagrees!

The loser will pay £50 to a refugee charity chosen by the winner

@edmundintokyo, as per, can be the traditional arbiter of disputes

Agreed?

It’s 100% not going to work Leon - and the onus is DEFINITELY on current government to come up with a working policy to replace this chaff, this smokescreen rubbish, not the other way round.

To work, it needs those who want to come here to believe the posters going up in Calais “you could be sent to Rwanda” and take fright and think up another option or end goal? Do you think that will happen? Really?

I don’t, because what I know will be in their heads is airplanes to Rwanda with about 5 people on them. If a government spokesperson says the numbers will increase but can’t say how, just shake your head at the pitiful creatures. This policy is expensive drain on UK tax payers and households at time of difficulties, it rips up Britains long standing reputation for decency, it makes it impossible for Daily Mail to complain about Hollywood luvvie air miles with the most unnecessary and ungreen flights ever, and end of the day it doesn’t even work, it’s just to disguise this government has no working policy on this issue the last few years, and still doesn’t - just their desperation to cover up they havn’t.

More effectual, the migrants will glance at the posters and see “you could be be sent Rwanda” but they will instead know full employment, employers gagging for staff, huge black market economy, here’s the kicker, a job and life in one of the most liberal, free and fair society’s in the world. Are gay people coming here as economic migrants, or the fact they have never met another gay person in their life in own country? Why does anyone think there is a solution when we are so bloody brilliant place for migrants to want to be, so so desperately want to be here. I don’t want to come over all Schopenhauer about how powerful wanting to have something is, but Patel’s posters in Calais are laughable example of a deterrent policy that has snowflake in hells chance of deterring. UK are like the best shit of all to the hungriest flies - you reckon this policy competes with that?

BartholomewRoberts

Flatlander said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Flatlander said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Bairstow out but what an innings.

5 wickets left to get 27 runs at the rate of approximately 1 per over required.

Hope people here aren't on the draw.

England could still lose it from here...

Certainly could, more likely than the draw was my point.

Its win or lose territory now.

Might have been / be better for Stokes to retire hurt to allow the option of a quick single or two.

He could always return to hit a few sixes if necessary.

Foakes isn't normally one to smash it out of the ground but might feel he has to.

Sub 1 per over needed now, I don't think Stokes retiring to bring on tailenders would be an improvement.

There's no run rate pressure anymore.

HYUFD

GB News to offer live coverage of the 12th July Orange Order Parade with commentary from Dame Arlene Foster

https://twitter.com/SuzyJourno/status/1536727299248340995?s=20&t=8syepJ2Q8dHdzHGduJTY7g

kinabalu

BartholomewRoberts said:

Wow wow wow 🏏🏏🏏

58 needed from 29, required run rate down to 2.0 per over.

I know it's PB tradition to always downplay England's chances in the cricket but I did think they were a good bet earlier.

Carnyx

HYUFD said:

I would suggest Wallace is more likely than Mordaunt being a serving Defence Secretary but note Mordaunt and Wallace, both former and current Defence Secretaries make up 50% of the top 4 for next Tory leader with Ukraine in the spotlight

Bit of a double-edged sword, so to speak. Both - Wallace certainly - executing Tory defence cuts and presiding over massive procurement failures such as Ajax (even if that started long before their time in office).

wooliedyed

wooliedyed said:

Labour lead by 10% in the Red Wall.

Red Wall Voting Intention (12-13 June):

Labour 46% (+8)
Conservative 36% (-11)
Reform UK 6% (-1)
Liberal Democrat 5% (+1)
Green 4% (+3)
Plaid Cymru 2% (+1)
Other 2% (–)

Changes +/- 2019 General Election

https://t.co/QH9VBsMRjq https://t.co/81i1fv6YHh

UNS would see 3 holds xand 37 losses. VI in line with Redfields national swing too, a shade better for both Lab and Con if anything (40 to 33 on same swing nationally) but only a shade

rottenborough

kinabalu said:

Farooq said:

Jim_Miller said:

Some Democratic organizations are backing Trumpistas -- in Republican primaries:
"All three have something else in common: They’re benefiting, either directly or indirectly, from a cluster of Democratic-associated groups spending millions of dollars in contested Republican primaries this month. In some cases these groups are attacking more mainstream Republicans and in others they are amplifying messages from the election-denying candidates.

The apparent bet these organizations are placing is that such far-right candidates, who hold polarizing views on various issues, would be easier to defeat in the November midterms when a broader slice of the electorate will be casting ballots."
source($): https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/13/democrats-interference-primaries/

The organizations are probably correct that, in most general elections, Trumpistas will be easier to defeat than more rational Republicans -- but there is the obvious risk of backfire with such tactics.

That's fucking crazy if that's happening. Like Tories joining Labour to vote for Corbyn. Utter madness.

Playing with fire. This MAGA manifestation of the GOP needs to be treated like the mortal threat to democracy in the world's most powerful nation that it is.

This. 1000x this.

It is madness beyond belief.

StuartDickson

HYUFD said:

GB News to offer live coverage of the 12th July Orange Order Parade with commentary from Dame Arlene Foster

https://twitter.com/SuzyJourno/status/1536727299248340995?s=20&t=8syepJ2Q8dHdzHGduJTY7g

Repulsive.

Flatlander

BartholomewRoberts said:

Flatlander said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Flatlander said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Bairstow out but what an innings.

5 wickets left to get 27 runs at the rate of approximately 1 per over required.

Hope people here aren't on the draw.

England could still lose it from here...

Certainly could, more likely than the draw was my point.

Its win or lose territory now.

Might have been / be better for Stokes to retire hurt to allow the option of a quick single or two.

He could always return to hit a few sixes if necessary.

Foakes isn't normally one to smash it out of the ground but might feel he has to.

Sub 1 per over needed now, I don't think Stokes retiring to bring on tailenders would be an improvement.

There's no run rate pressure anymore.

Yeah, still seems he can jog through, which is enough. It was more of an idea when Bairstow was still in.

Going to be over soon.

MoonRabbit

Cricket sounds so sedate on sky, but RAUCOUS on TMS.

turbotubbs

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

GB News to offer live coverage of the 12th July Orange Order Parade with commentary from Dame Arlene Foster

https://twitter.com/SuzyJourno/status/1536727299248340995?s=20&t=8syepJ2Q8dHdzHGduJTY7g

Repulsive.

Why?