🔺 Update: Boris Johnson has opened the door to leaving the European Convention on Human Rights to make it easier to remove illegal migrants from the UK
I find it difficult to describe the PM as anything other than wicked, and the UK as fucked.
Which western countries do you think are going in the right direction?
Few to none.
The liberal order which I took for granted growing up is under concerted attack.
It's very depressing. It is under attack from the worst kinds of illiberalism from both the left and the right. But this is bad. Johnson will happily ditch the entire basis of the post war system of universal human rights, to stay in Downing Street for a few more months. As others have said, once the ECHR goes, then it is few steps to restoring capital punishment. A popular policy in the red wall. All the work done over the last 80 years to end the death penalty in the developing world .... trashed.
In the end, Boris Johnson exemplifies the ancient wisdom that it is easier to tear things down than it is to build them up. He's achieved nothing and just trashed everything. The EU. Ideas of economic competence. Human rights. Northern Ireland. The standing of politicians and civil servants. The truth and the value of it. There is absolutely nothing he has done as PM that he can point to that amounts to success. His regime is like a parasite destroying the host.
Hyperventilating twat
You can't even make your travelogue a fraction as interesting Blanche Livermore manages. Even your insults are somehow drippy and wet.
"I know, I'm going to make a comment about Rwanda, because that will make me sound caring and aware, but because I am a pompous old cock with a tiny brain, who actually doesn't give a fuck about stupid Africans and their squitty little countries, I'm going to make a special effort and get the spelling wrong, like no one else on earth has ever done. I am going to call it RUANDA."
I know you are looking outdo yourself on the twatometer, breaking your previous records, but have a read of this, before you show yourself as so thick, light refracts around you.
I'm going to take a wild leap in the dark and say that, given Roger's IQ is probably sub 85, he didn't spend hours researching the Deep Etymology of the term "Rwanda", he just had no fucking clue how to spell it, and, more piquantly, couldn't be arsed to check
I know. Radical!
I know Roger's professional accomplishments, he's got an IQ higher than that.
Commenting on other posters IQ is something @leon does regularly. I don't know why he does it on clearly bright people. It comes over very badly, although I can be criticized for doing so regularly for HYUFD so maybe I'm no better.
I don't think anything Leon says can really be taken 100% seriously.
His preoccupations remind me of the protagonist of Kundera's The Unbearable Lightness of Being. Rootless in a way - even before he went into Parisian exile.
I find myself more in favour of the Rwanda policy the more I see the forces ranged against it.
There's a supremely well organised campaign to undermine it.
I’m shocked, shocked.
What I don’t think many on the Left/centre-Left realise is that they’re playing into Boris’s hands by doing this; they are so utterly sanctimonious and insufferable that their petty pedantry will succeed in generating the cultural dividing line he seeks, and thus shore up his support. I don’t think they realise just how much this sort of legal chicanery stuff pisses people off.
It would have been far better to give the policy a fair shot and let it die and fail on its own merits.
The glacé cherry on the Remoaner cake is the ECHR sticking it’s oar in at the last minute
Like they still run the country. Elite europhile lawyers. Fuck them
Leave the ECHR. Vote for Boris again
The added bonus being that @HYUFD can complain endlessly about how Communists seize private property until even he realises that it will have been a Tory government which will make this very much easier for a future lefty government because property owners will no longer be able to rely on the right to peaceful enjoyment of your possessions contained in Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the ECHR. Or any of the other rights - like the right to an effective remedy or a fair trial.
And who owns property in this country? Oh yes, Tory voters.
God knows how the English managed to come up with Magna Carta fully 700 years before the ECHR. Perhaps some Brussels lawyers time traveled backwards to help the stupid Saxons write their farcical “charter”
It would have been far better to give the policy a fair shot and let it die and fail on its own merits.
It is dying on its own merits.
It's not legal...
It’s perfectly legal. There dozens of lawyers trying to find spurious grounds to get their clients off at the last minute - appealing to all and sundry to delay/obstruct and obfuscate - often changing the grounds for appeal as and when it suits them. And even if it wasn’t - which it isn’t - the government are entitled to change the law to legislate so it is, which would no doubt be obstructed in turn.
Don’t be too clever. If no solution is found to this then at some point you risk a demagogue authoritarian leader being elected who upon taking office who rips up the rule book and drives a cart & horses through all laws and all lawyers with all sorts of knock on consequences.
(You’re utterly predictable, so you’ll probably respond with something like “we’ve already got one: Boris. Brexit etc.” but that’s your hyperbolic neurotic obsession talking and totally at odds with the reality of what could come next)
If you think such a reaction (from leftists) both predictable and liable to lead to “a demagogue authoritarian leader”, why on earth would you support the government’s policy.
Because they really piss me off and this really pisses them off. And I want them to feel it.
It gets that visceral. That’s what Boris has correctly assessed.
If I was calm I’d say Starmer should come up with better and more effective solutions, along the lines of what cyclefree and rcs1000 outlined earlier, but he needs to rein in the broader mobs of his movement first and go high when Boris goes low.
Have you considered asking yourself why you are so pissed off? Seriously.
You yourself describe Boris as “going low”; so why does that seem not to annoy you as much as the “predictable response”?
Because I know the opponents aren’t interested in solutions - let’s not be naive: they believe in open borders and maximising migration and are using their resources and the full force of the law to advocate and organise for it.
They have no better answers than Rwanda so it makes me want to support it on principle.
I've just realised (and, honestly, the revelation should have come much earlier) that I've got better things to do than to read Leon's tragic, drunken, and occasionally racist bile.
As I said a few days ago, this site is losing some of its best posters because they can’t be arsed putting up with various comments.
It’s no so much, in my opinion, that Leon is tragic, drunken, and occasionally racist - although that’s brutally accurate - but simply that he is repeating himself.
We all are.
Why don't we do a year zero. A ctr alt del. A spring clean. A mucking out of the stables. A new broom. A new start. A new way of delivering internet punditry. All adding value. All holding forth on areas of expertise and soaking up the expertise of others. We can do it, I think. The ingredients are there.
What, all start posting under new identities? The idea has a certain appeal if only for the mental exercise of working out who was whom.
I'd like to poo-pooh (sp?) however, the idea that the site is going to the dogs, is just a lot of abuse, is just partisan slanging, etc. This is a constant complaint. Yet this remains one of the most civilised places on the internet despite us discussing highly contentious subjects. OK, skyscrapercity might be slightly more friendly, but everyone there is essentially on the same side. Here, we manage to approach subjects from across the divide and still we learn and occasionally convince each other. Just this morning, for example, Malc and I moved from a position of disagreement to one of friendly agreement. I'd also say the levels of abuse are no worse than they've ever been and considerably better than they have sometimes been.
I find myself more in favour of the Rwanda policy the more I see the forces ranged against it.
There's a supremely well organised campaign to undermine it.
I’m shocked, shocked.
What I don’t think many on the Left/centre-Left realise is that they’re playing into Boris’s hands by doing this; they are so utterly sanctimonious and insufferable that their petty pedantry will succeed in generating the cultural dividing line he seeks, and thus shore up his support. I don’t think they realise just how much this sort of legal chicanery stuff pisses people off.
It would have been far better to give the policy a fair shot and let it die and fail on its own merits.
The glacé cherry on the Remoaner cake is the ECHR sticking it’s oar in at the last minute
Like they still run the country. Elite europhile lawyers. Fuck them
Leave the ECHR. Vote for Boris again
I think they must have climaxed when they saw the ECHR got involved.
For most, they will see how this policy annoys All The Right People and, thus, it will secure their support.
For that to change their tactics will have to change but they just can’t help themselves and secretly love culture war fights just as much as Boris.
OK. You're probably right that one of the effects (maybe the main, or only effect) of the Rwanda policy is to give a group of voters something to defend against all the wrong people (lawyers, bishops, lefties and so on).
But at the same time, this plan is going to make life worse for actual people who have actually suffered a lot. So to try to prevent that is an honourable thing, isn't it?
If you think a great wrong is being done, you don't wait until 2023/4/5 in the hope of being able to undo it then. Democracy has never been about giving the winners a political blank cheque until the next election.
I find myself more in favour of the Rwanda policy the more I see the forces ranged against it.
There's a supremely well organised campaign to undermine it.
Spot on. What is happening now is a perfect reply to those on the left who claim that the right exaggerates what the left is doing
Eh?
The attempt to classify everyone that has concerns about the Government's Rwanda policy as enemies of people is absurd.
I strongly believe the UK should build and properly staff off-shore processing facilities. I also believe that we should aim to match the Netherlands 98% processed in 10 weeks record. I also believe that we should work to massively reduce the demand pull of the UK by properly clamping down on illegal working.
Rwanda, though, is none of those things. It's not an offshore processing facility. It's a few tens of people, maybe a few hundred in a year, out of maybe 20,000 people arriving. It's a publicity stunt designed to garner a few headlines.
The fact that we're spending so much time on it demonstrates how deeply unserious you are about tackling the problem, and how keen you are to just make into a part of the culture war fight.
If the Dutch can resolve cases in 10 weeks, why do we take years?
Lawyers are involved.
Do the Dutch not have laws and lawyers?
I'm interested to know how they do it.
I suspect they have less of an industry of activist lawyers seeking to spin everything out until doomsday.
Where do PBers stand on the question of ordering a whole bottle of wine when eating alone in a restaurant? My default is I will have a half bottle when it's on offer, but if not it's expensive and inconvenient to buy by the glass. But the waitress gave me a very disapproving, are you expecting someone else sort of look.
A dilemma I have often faced, and I have learned that the best way to do it is with a swagger
"Si, a WHOLE bottle, grazie". Confident smile, stare hard at the waitress - and what are you going to do about it?
Absolute insouciance. Works a treat
I used to feel self conscious, dining alone, but I had to do it so often in my job I developed a carapace. Now I do not give a tiny little F, and when YOU clearly don't care, no one else does either
I positively relish it, a lot of the time, these days. Whip out my iPad, relax, have an argument on PB or Whatsapp, chill, wine, sleep. Lush
A waiter in a restaurant once gave me a very disapproving look when I ordered a bottle of wine while dining alone.
"Would that be one glass, sir?" he asked, with a disapproving arch of his eyebrow.
"Oh god no," I replied. "I'll just have it with a straw."
There are two negatives to NOT ordering a bottle of wine (apart from the obvious).
Firstly, the wines by the glasses are usually not the best choice. You also don’t know how long they have been open.
The second, with half bottles, is that the rule is that the larger the bottle, the better it is for the wine. So, with a half bottle, the wine is somewhat inferior to a full bottle
If she gives you more grief, ask her to confirm that the service charge is optimal. That should get her attention.
The third is the relative price of wine in bottles, and glasses, in restaurants.
I have no problem at all ordering a whole bottle - I just make sure I get the cork and take half of it away with me.
It's the perfect demonstration as to why we need modern pints of champagne. Plus the latter would offend some of the right people.
If they did pints of champagne, I'd damn well want it served in a pint glass.
With a crown on it.
I said modern pint - which is 500ml.
Wine keeps for a day or two. Champagne does not.
Objection. It loses its fizz but it will still get you pissed
And if you stick a teaspoon in it you might even get some fizz left
Urban myth with no plausible explanation. Favourite of my sister in law.
Yet again, a topic covered by Paul Weller:
"Saturdays kids play one arm bandits, They never win but that's not the point is it, Dip in silver paper when their pints go flat, How about that, far out!"
I find myself more in favour of the Rwanda policy the more I see the forces ranged against it.
There's a supremely well organised campaign to undermine it.
Spot on. What is happening now is a perfect reply to those on the left who claim that the right exaggerates what the left is doing
Eh?
The attempt to classify everyone that has concerns about the Government's Rwanda policy as enemies of people is absurd.
I strongly believe the UK should build and properly staff off-shore processing facilities. I also believe that we should aim to match the Netherlands 98% processed in 10 weeks record. I also believe that we should work to massively reduce the demand pull of the UK by properly clamping down on illegal working.
Rwanda, though, is none of those things. It's not an offshore processing facility. It's a few tens of people, maybe a few hundred in a year, out of maybe 20,000 people arriving. It's a publicity stunt designed to garner a few headlines.
The fact that we're spending so much time on it demonstrates how deeply unserious you are about tackling the problem, and how keen you are to just make into a part of the culture war fight.
Wrong @rcs1000 and you are letting your temper get the better of you.
As I said earlier, I think what both you and @Cyclefree were saying before makes perfect sense. The problem is that, while the likes of myself and (I suspect) @Casino_Royale would accept it, those who essentially want open immigration but realise they can't say that publicly will come out with a 1,001 excuses why your proposals are racist, harmful etc.
You're picking the wrong target. The reason why a lot of people are willing to go with the demagogues is because they have seen how those on the left take the p1ss by blocking any reasonable solution on the grounds it's 'racist' / 'horrific' / 'nazist'. In their world, the only good policy is one that lets everyone in.
Nah, that is total bollocks. I have long advocated internment camps with quick assessment of claims (if the Dutch can do it, why can't we?)
It would have been far better to give the policy a fair shot and let it die and fail on its own merits.
It is dying on its own merits.
It's not legal...
It’s perfectly legal. There dozens of lawyers trying to find spurious grounds to get their clients off at the last minute - appealing to all and sundry to delay/obstruct and obfuscate - often changing the grounds for appeal as and when it suits them. And even if it wasn’t - which it isn’t - the government are entitled to change the law to legislate so it is, which would no doubt be obstructed in turn.
Don’t be too clever. If no solution is found to this then at some point you risk a demagogue authoritarian leader being elected who upon taking office who rips up the rule book and drives a cart & horses through all laws and all lawyers with all sorts of knock on consequences.
(You’re utterly predictable, so you’ll probably respond with something like “we’ve already got one: Boris. Brexit etc.” but that’s your hyperbolic neurotic obsession talking and totally at odds with the reality of what could come next)
If you think such a reaction (from leftists) both predictable and liable to lead to “a demagogue authoritarian leader”, why on earth would you support the government’s policy.
Because they really piss me off and this really pisses them off. And I want them to feel it.
It gets that visceral. That’s what Boris has correctly assessed.
If I was calm I’d say Starmer should come up with better and more effective solutions, along the lines of what cyclefree and rcs1000 outlined earlier, but he needs to rein in the broader mobs of his movement first and go high when Boris goes low.
So you are happy to have some people's lives ruined by deporting them to a 3rd world country just so you can "piss off" people you do not like?
It would have been far better to give the policy a fair shot and let it die and fail on its own merits.
It is dying on its own merits.
It's not legal...
It’s perfectly legal. There dozens of lawyers trying to find spurious grounds to get their clients off at the last minute - appealing to all and sundry to delay/obstruct and obfuscate - often changing the grounds for appeal as and when it suits them. And even if it wasn’t - which it isn’t - the government are entitled to change the law to legislate so it is, which would no doubt be obstructed in turn.
Don’t be too clever. If no solution is found to this then at some point you risk a demagogue authoritarian leader being elected who upon taking office who rips up the rule book and drives a cart & horses through all laws and all lawyers with all sorts of knock on consequences.
(You’re utterly predictable, so you’ll probably respond with something like “we’ve already got one: Boris. Brexit etc.” but that’s your hyperbolic neurotic obsession talking and totally at odds with the reality of what could come next)
If you think such a reaction (from leftists) both predictable and liable to lead to “a demagogue authoritarian leader”, why on earth would you support the government’s policy.
Because they really piss me off and this really pisses them off. And I want them to feel it.
It gets that visceral. That’s what Boris has correctly assessed.
If I was calm I’d say Starmer should come up with better and more effective solutions, along the lines of what cyclefree and rcs1000 outlined earlier, but he needs to rein in the broader mobs of his movement first and go high when Boris goes low.
Have you considered asking yourself why you are so pissed off? Seriously.
You yourself describe Boris as “going low”; so why does that seem not to annoy you as much as the “predictable response”?
Because I know the opponents aren’t interested in solutions - let’s not be naive: they believe in open borders and maximising migration and are using their resources and the full force of the law to advocate and organise for it.
They have no better answers than Rwanda so it makes me want to support it on principle.
As for the opponents, I don’t think various Archbishops and the Prince of Wales and, according to some polling, at least a third of the country, believe in “open borders and maximising migration”, although I concede that some might.
At least in my case, I don’t have a specific objection to Rwanda outright. However I object on the grounds that this does not seem to be a coherent policy unto itself but more a cruel PR stunt.
I object to people’s lives - especially that of the most desperate - being used this way.
Results up til now have been pretty good. But the one thing that always baffles me is how slow he is to respond when things aren't working.
I am no fan of Southgate. But I will say this in his defence; he is mildly more responsive to outside stimuli than Sven was. Every single match the same team, bar some titting about with left wing; every single match take off an attacking midfield player and bring Phil Neville on to hold things firm at the back regardless of the match situation.
He isn't the worst we've had in my lifetime.
Southgate is the second most successful England manager ever.
Joint second with all the others who won zero trophies.
Rwanda, though, is none of those things. It's a publicity stunt designed to garner a few headlines.
And the gullible idiots that voted for Brexit are lapping it up.
17 million people voting for Brexit are gullible idiots ?
That attitude is why Brexit happened
Don't be so pompous. More and more of the 17 million are realising they were gullible to fall for it. It's no coincidence that so many people are "talked" into online fraud as well. We are all gullible now and again, sadly enough were gullible then to force us into a BIGGGG error, with ramifications for years to come.
Even if the activists win, it’s a classic case of “win the battle, lose the war” from them. All this does is energise the Tory base and the papers. It’s got everything - asylum seekers, lefty lawyers, middle class activists and now the ECHR stopping at least one deportation. All it will lead to is the Govt stepping up things and saying to its supporters “they are still trying to stop us”.
I wonder what the Human Rights QC SKS thinks about it…
Yeah its definitely been set up to work out this way. They've not even tried to hide what they are doing.
The flaw in the plan is that the idea at the heart of it is abhorrent and indefensible. If its offshore processing, then fine. But when people realise that they are actually forcing people to apply to Rwanda for asylum instead of the UK, then people think again about the wisdom of the policy. They've also misread cultural change. They are making up policies for 10 years ago for people who are dying. Immigration is less salient as an issue than it was pre Brexit. There is a lot of sensitivity about racism that didn't exist previously.
Prices for food items have doubled in about the last 6 months. Filling up the car with petrol has also doubled in price. I've never seen that happen in the 20 years. People are getting very angry about this. The interest in this Rwanda stuff will wane, it is just a policy for a different world... but those who are annoyed by it, will remember.
Illegal immigration is a massive problem and I agree that those who criticise it have no alternative. But that doesn't excuse a dumb solution that just exists to provoke political opponents rather than fixing the problem.
Don't you think there's something racist about treating being given asylum in Rwanda as a fate worse than death?
In one breath, the UK is portrayed as being one step away from Nazi Germany, and in the next, it's the only country in the world fit for human habitation.
Its got nothing to do with racism. People came to seek asylum for whatever reason in the UK, not Rwanda. That is the fundamental problem here. There is something very wrong with shipping them to Rwanda (or any other country) instead because we are incapable of administering a decision on their claim. Well it seems that way to me, anyway.
Effectively your position means that there should be a universal right to free movement for anyone with an asylum claim.
It would have been far better to give the policy a fair shot and let it die and fail on its own merits.
It is dying on its own merits.
It's not legal...
It’s perfectly legal. There dozens of lawyers trying to find spurious grounds to get their clients off at the last minute - appealing to all and sundry to delay/obstruct and obfuscate - often changing the grounds for appeal as and when it suits them. And even if it wasn’t - which it isn’t - the government are entitled to change the law to legislate so it is, which would no doubt be obstructed in turn.
Don’t be too clever. If no solution is found to this then at some point you risk a demagogue authoritarian leader being elected who upon taking office who rips up the rule book and drives a cart & horses through all laws and all lawyers with all sorts of knock on consequences.
(You’re utterly predictable, so you’ll probably respond with something like “we’ve already got one: Boris. Brexit etc.” but that’s your hyperbolic neurotic obsession talking and totally at odds with the reality of what could come next)
If you think such a reaction (from leftists) both predictable and liable to lead to “a demagogue authoritarian leader”, why on earth would you support the government’s policy.
Because they really piss me off and this really pisses them off. And I want them to feel it.
It gets that visceral. That’s what Boris has correctly assessed.
If I was calm I’d say Starmer should come up with better and more effective solutions, along the lines of what cyclefree and rcs1000 outlined earlier, but he needs to rein in the broader mobs of his movement first and go high when Boris goes low.
Of course your enemies should go high while you go low. It's also called fighting with one hand tied behind their backs.
As I said a few days ago, this site is losing some of its best posters because they can’t be arsed putting up with various comments.
It’s no so much, in my opinion, that Leon is tragic, drunken, and occasionally racist - although that’s brutally accurate - but simply that he is repeating himself.
We all are.
There's a general sourness in the air at the moment. The Platinum Jubilee euphoria is wearing off and the realisation of 12-18 months (if not longer) of real economic hardship is growing.
Politically, the Right and centre-right see nemesis approaching - all the hopes of a new wave of Thatcherism after the last election are gone smashed by a virus and Vladimir Putin and the future looks cold, uncertain and bleak out of office.
As for the other side, they now face inheriting this mess and having to take some very difficult decisions in the mid-2020s and having to get people to accept years more of stagnant if not declining living standards.
I'll be honest - we haven't really moved forward from 2008. The lack of imagination in economic thinking (partly a result of political reality) means both left and right have nothing serious to offer for growth in the late 2020s and beyond while the environmental degradation and the impacts thereof continue.
Yes, this is essentially also my view, although never so well articulated.
Not unique to Britain, although perhaps more acute for various reasons.
Where do PBers stand on the question of ordering a whole bottle of wine when eating alone in a restaurant? My default is I will have a half bottle when it's on offer, but if not it's expensive and inconvenient to buy by the glass. But the waitress gave me a very disapproving, are you expecting someone else sort of look.
A dilemma I have often faced, and I have learned that the best way to do it is with a swagger
"Si, a WHOLE bottle, grazie". Confident smile, stare hard at the waitress - and what are you going to do about it?
Absolute insouciance. Works a treat
I used to feel self conscious, dining alone, but I had to do it so often in my job I developed a carapace. Now I do not give a tiny little F, and when YOU clearly don't care, no one else does either
I positively relish it, a lot of the time, these days. Whip out my iPad, relax, have an argument on PB or Whatsapp, chill, wine, sleep. Lush
A waiter in a restaurant once gave me a very disapproving look when I ordered a bottle of wine while dining alone.
"Would that be one glass, sir?" he asked, with a disapproving arch of his eyebrow.
"Oh god no," I replied. "I'll just have it with a straw."
There are two negatives to NOT ordering a bottle of wine (apart from the obvious).
Firstly, the wines by the glasses are usually not the best choice. You also don’t know how long they have been open.
The second, with half bottles, is that the rule is that the larger the bottle, the better it is for the wine. So, with a half bottle, the wine is somewhat inferior to a full bottle
If she gives you more grief, ask her to confirm that the service charge is optimal. That should get her attention.
The third is the relative price of wine in bottles, and glasses, in restaurants.
I have no problem at all ordering a whole bottle - I just make sure I get the cork and take half of it away with me.
It's the perfect demonstration as to why we need modern pints of champagne. Plus the latter would offend some of the right people.
On the overnight sleeper from Madrid to Paris, twenty years ago, in the dining car, I asked for a second half bottle of wine as, for various reasons to do with life, I needed a couple more drinks.
I have never received such a stare of utter contempt in my life.
I felt like some half blind bum lying in a Paris gutter begging for just one more absinthe.
Clearly the waiting staff were not paid by sales is all I can say.
I plucked a low ball number, so nobody could argue with it.
Given the applications for residency we've seen from EU citizens which far outstripped expecations, and for some nationalities the numbers were huge, I could easily believe that there are millions of uncounted people in the UK working illegally. We simply don't do a good job of tracking this sort of thing.
There's shitloads of Albanians, and they are *not* covered by FOM. But look at the frequency of Wizz flights between Luton and Tirana. I don't necessarily have a problem with that - there's a huge Albanian diaspora - but I am sure we don't know who's here.
The government expected 3.5 to 4.0 million people to apply, we've now granted nearly 6 million people the right to stay, and they or their immediate family must have been resident in the UK for a significant part of the time before the deadline. Government data about who is resident in the UK most be utter garbage, we really have very little idea.
Results up til now have been pretty good. But the one thing that always baffles me is how slow he is to respond when things aren't working.
I am no fan of Southgate. But I will say this in his defence; he is mildly more responsive to outside stimuli than Sven was. Every single match the same team, bar some titting about with left wing; every single match take off an attacking midfield player and bring Phil Neville on to hold things firm at the back regardless of the match situation.
He isn't the worst we've had in my lifetime.
Southgate is the second most successful England manager ever.
And then we're back to a couple of very English, very unhelpful thought patterns.
First- that we're entitled to be Top Nation, and that anything below that is failure.
Second- that as soon as anything goes wrong, find someone high profile to blame and photoshop their face onto a turnip of something. Then find a guru who is going to lead us to the promised land we have promised ourselves...
I find myself more in favour of the Rwanda policy the more I see the forces ranged against it.
There's a supremely well organised campaign to undermine it.
Spot on. What is happening now is a perfect reply to those on the left who claim that the right exaggerates what the left is doing
Eh?
The attempt to classify everyone that has concerns about the Government's Rwanda policy as enemies of people is absurd.
I strongly believe the UK should build and properly staff off-shore processing facilities. I also believe that we should aim to match the Netherlands 98% processed in 10 weeks record. I also believe that we should work to massively reduce the demand pull of the UK by properly clamping down on illegal working.
Rwanda, though, is none of those things. It's not an offshore processing facility. It's a few tens of people, maybe a few hundred in a year, out of maybe 20,000 people arriving. It's a publicity stunt designed to garner a few headlines.
The fact that we're spending so much time on it demonstrates how deeply unserious you are about tackling the problem, and how keen you are to just make into a part of the culture war fight.
Wrong @rcs1000 and you are letting your temper get the better of you.
As I said earlier, I think what both you and @Cyclefree were saying before makes perfect sense. The problem is that, while the likes of myself and (I suspect) @Casino_Royale would accept it, those who essentially want open immigration but realise they can't say that publicly will come out with a 1,001 excuses why your proposals are racist, harmful etc.
You're picking the wrong target. The reason why a lot of people are willing to go with the demagogues is because they have seen how those on the left take the p1ss by blocking any reasonable solution on the grounds it's 'racist' / 'horrific' / 'nazist'. In their world, the only good policy is one that lets everyone in.
Nah, that is total bollocks. I have long advocated internment camps with quick assessment of claims (if the Dutch can do it, why can't we?)
You are one of a few then on the left @Foxy (I'm assuming you are telling the truth). @Casino_Royale is right - what many on the left want is effectively open immigration and everyone let in, that is their asylum policy. No questioning of why France is not a safe country, no questions asked about what the applicants ask - if someone turns up and says "yes, I fear for my life" you are in.
Interestingly, Tom Peck reports that he sat next to Truss during a dinner during the brexit campaign and she was adamant that Remain would win - probably by 60/40.
It would have been far better to give the policy a fair shot and let it die and fail on its own merits.
It is dying on its own merits.
It's not legal...
It’s perfectly legal. There dozens of lawyers trying to find spurious grounds to get their clients off at the last minute - appealing to all and sundry to delay/obstruct and obfuscate - often changing the grounds for appeal as and when it suits them. And even if it wasn’t - which it isn’t - the government are entitled to change the law to legislate so it is, which would no doubt be obstructed in turn.
Don’t be too clever. If no solution is found to this then at some point you risk a demagogue authoritarian leader being elected who upon taking office who rips up the rule book and drives a cart & horses through all laws and all lawyers with all sorts of knock on consequences.
(You’re utterly predictable, so you’ll probably respond with something like “we’ve already got one: Boris. Brexit etc.” but that’s your hyperbolic neurotic obsession talking and totally at odds with the reality of what could come next)
If you think such a reaction (from leftists) both predictable and liable to lead to “a demagogue authoritarian leader”, why on earth would you support the government’s policy.
Because they really piss me off and this really pisses them off. And I want them to feel it.
It gets that visceral. That’s what Boris has correctly assessed.
If I was calm I’d say Starmer should come up with better and more effective solutions, along the lines of what cyclefree and rcs1000 outlined earlier, but he needs to rein in the broader mobs of his movement first and go high when Boris goes low.
Have you considered asking yourself why you are so pissed off? Seriously.
You yourself describe Boris as “going low”; so why does that seem not to annoy you as much as the “predictable response”?
Because I know the opponents aren’t interested in solutions - let’s not be naive: they believe in open borders and maximising migration and are using their resources and the full force of the law to advocate and organise for it.
They have no better answers than Rwanda so it makes me want to support it on principle.
Traditional vacuum and stopper is better. But not satisfactory.
A vacuum stopper (e.g. Vacuvin https://www.vacuvin.com) is utterly useless for champagne and should never be used; the act of creating the vacuum unsurprisingly sucks all the bubbles out.
What does work is this:
Yes, Mrs Foxy has one and it works. Personally I am not a fan of fizzy wine
Rwanda, though, is none of those things. It's a publicity stunt designed to garner a few headlines.
And the gullible idiots that voted for Brexit are lapping it up.
17 million people voting for Brexit are gullible idiots ?
That attitude is why Brexit happened
Don't be so pompous. More and more of the 17 million are realising they were gullible to fall for it. It's no coincidence that so many people are "talked" into online fraud as well. We are all gullible now and again, sadly enough were gullible then to force us into a BIGGGG error, with ramifications for years to come.
So let’s get this straight. Britain is a quasi-despotic, crypto-sadistic state, teetering on the very edge of Fascism, and this is proved by the fact the government… cannot send one single failed asylum seeker on a plane to a safe foreign hotel
The Remoaner Left should be ashamed of itself. What a degraded spectacle of fraudulent and confected emotions
I've just realised (and, honestly, the revelation should have come much earlier) that I've got better things to do than to read Leon's tragic, drunken, and occasionally racist bile.
As I said a few days ago, this site is losing some of its best posters because they can’t be arsed putting up with various comments.
It’s no so much, in my opinion, that Leon is tragic, drunken, and occasionally racist - although that’s brutally accurate - but simply that he is repeating himself.
We all are.
Why don't we do a year zero. A ctr alt del. A spring clean. A mucking out of the stables. A new broom. A new start. A new way of delivering internet punditry. All adding value. All holding forth on areas of expertise and soaking up the expertise of others. We can do it, I think. The ingredients are there.
What, all start posting under new identities? The idea has a certain appeal if only for the mental exercise of working out who was whom.
I'd like to poo-pooh (sp?) however, the idea that the site is going to the dogs, is just a lot of abuse, is just partisan slanging, etc. This is a constant complaint. Yet this remains one of the most civilised places on the internet despite us discussing highly contentious subjects. OK, skyscrapercity might be slightly more friendly, but everyone there is essentially on the same side. Here, we manage to approach subjects from across the divide and still we learn and occasionally convince each other. Just this morning, for example, Malc and I moved from a position of disagreement to one of friendly agreement. I'd also say the levels of abuse are no worse than they've ever been and considerably better than they have sometimes been.
I find myself more in favour of the Rwanda policy the more I see the forces ranged against it.
There's a supremely well organised campaign to undermine it.
Spot on. What is happening now is a perfect reply to those on the left who claim that the right exaggerates what the left is doing
Eh?
The attempt to classify everyone that has concerns about the Government's Rwanda policy as enemies of people is absurd.
I strongly believe the UK should build and properly staff off-shore processing facilities. I also believe that we should aim to match the Netherlands 98% processed in 10 weeks record. I also believe that we should work to massively reduce the demand pull of the UK by properly clamping down on illegal working.
Rwanda, though, is none of those things. It's not an offshore processing facility. It's a few tens of people, maybe a few hundred in a year, out of maybe 20,000 people arriving. It's a publicity stunt designed to garner a few headlines.
The fact that we're spending so much time on it demonstrates how deeply unserious you are about tackling the problem, and how keen you are to just make into a part of the culture war fight.
Wrong @rcs1000 and you are letting your temper get the better of you.
As I said earlier, I think what both you and @Cyclefree were saying before makes perfect sense. The problem is that, while the likes of myself and (I suspect) @Casino_Royale would accept it, those who essentially want open immigration but realise they can't say that publicly will come out with a 1,001 excuses why your proposals are racist, harmful etc.
You're picking the wrong target. The reason why a lot of people are willing to go with the demagogues is because they have seen how those on the left take the p1ss by blocking any reasonable solution on the grounds it's 'racist' / 'horrific' / 'nazist'. In their world, the only good policy is one that lets everyone in.
Nah, that is total bollocks. I have long advocated internment camps with quick assessment of claims (if the Dutch can do it, why can't we?)
You are one of a few then on the left @Foxy (I'm assuming you are telling the truth). @Casino_Royale is right - what many on the left want is effectively open immigration and everyone let in, that is their asylum policy. No questioning of why France is not a safe country, no questions asked about what the applicants ask - if someone turns up and says "yes, I fear for my life" you are in.
This is nonsense. Virtually nobody on the left wants an open door. Certainly not me or the majority of Labour members.
I find myself more in favour of the Rwanda policy the more I see the forces ranged against it.
There's a supremely well organised campaign to undermine it.
I’m shocked, shocked.
What I don’t think many on the Left/centre-Left realise is that they’re playing into Boris’s hands by doing this; they are so utterly sanctimonious and insufferable that their petty pedantry will succeed in generating the cultural dividing line he seeks, and thus shore up his support. I don’t think they realise just how much this sort of legal chicanery stuff pisses people off.
It would have been far better to give the policy a fair shot and let it die and fail on its own merits.
The glacé cherry on the Remoaner cake is the ECHR sticking it’s oar in at the last minute
Like they still run the country. Elite europhile lawyers. Fuck them
Leave the ECHR. Vote for Boris again
The added bonus being that @HYUFD can complain endlessly about how Communists seize private property until even he realises that it will have been a Tory government which will make this very much easier for a future lefty government because property owners will no longer be able to rely on the right to peaceful enjoyment of your possessions contained in Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the ECHR. Or any of the other rights - like the right to an effective remedy or a fair trial.
And who owns property in this country? Oh yes, Tory voters.
God knows how the English managed to come up with Magna Carta fully 700 years before the ECHR. Perhaps some Brussels lawyers time traveled backwards to help the stupid Saxons write their farcical “charter”
It was Normans who wrote the Magna Carta, not the Saxons.
I find myself more in favour of the Rwanda policy the more I see the forces ranged against it.
There's a supremely well organised campaign to undermine it.
Spot on. What is happening now is a perfect reply to those on the left who claim that the right exaggerates what the left is doing
Eh?
The attempt to classify everyone that has concerns about the Government's Rwanda policy as enemies of people is absurd.
I strongly believe the UK should build and properly staff off-shore processing facilities. I also believe that we should aim to match the Netherlands 98% processed in 10 weeks record. I also believe that we should work to massively reduce the demand pull of the UK by properly clamping down on illegal working.
Rwanda, though, is none of those things. It's not an offshore processing facility. It's a few tens of people, maybe a few hundred in a year, out of maybe 20,000 people arriving. It's a publicity stunt designed to garner a few headlines.
The fact that we're spending so much time on it demonstrates how deeply unserious you are about tackling the problem, and how keen you are to just make into a part of the culture war fight.
Wrong @rcs1000 and you are letting your temper get the better of you.
As I said earlier, I think what both you and @Cyclefree were saying before makes perfect sense. The problem is that, while the likes of myself and (I suspect) @Casino_Royale would accept it, those who essentially want open immigration but realise they can't say that publicly will come out with a 1,001 excuses why your proposals are racist, harmful etc.
You're picking the wrong target. The reason why a lot of people are willing to go with the demagogues is because they have seen how those on the left take the p1ss by blocking any reasonable solution on the grounds it's 'racist' / 'horrific' / 'nazist'. In their world, the only good policy is one that lets everyone in.
Nah, that is total bollocks. I have long advocated internment camps with quick assessment of claims (if the Dutch can do it, why can't we?)
You are one of a few then on the left @Foxy (I'm assuming you are telling the truth). @Casino_Royale is right - what many on the left want is effectively open immigration and everyone let in, that is their asylum policy. No questioning of why France is not a safe country, no questions asked about what the applicants ask - if someone turns up and says "yes, I fear for my life" you are in.
This is nonsense. Virtually nobody on the left wants an open door. Certainly not me or the majority of Labour members.
It would have been far better to give the policy a fair shot and let it die and fail on its own merits.
It is dying on its own merits.
It's not legal...
It’s perfectly legal. There dozens of lawyers trying to find spurious grounds to get their clients off at the last minute - appealing to all and sundry to delay/obstruct and obfuscate - often changing the grounds for appeal as and when it suits them. And even if it wasn’t - which it isn’t - the government are entitled to change the law to legislate so it is, which would no doubt be obstructed in turn.
Don’t be too clever. If no solution is found to this then at some point you risk a demagogue authoritarian leader being elected who upon taking office who rips up the rule book and drives a cart & horses through all laws and all lawyers with all sorts of knock on consequences.
(You’re utterly predictable, so you’ll probably respond with something like “we’ve already got one: Boris. Brexit etc.” but that’s your hyperbolic neurotic obsession talking and totally at odds with the reality of what could come next)
If you think such a reaction (from leftists) both predictable and liable to lead to “a demagogue authoritarian leader”, why on earth would you support the government’s policy.
Because they really piss me off and this really pisses them off. And I want them to feel it.
It gets that visceral. That’s what Boris has correctly assessed.
If I was calm I’d say Starmer should come up with better and more effective solutions, along the lines of what cyclefree and rcs1000 outlined earlier, but he needs to rein in the broader mobs of his movement first and go high when Boris goes low.
Have you considered asking yourself why you are so pissed off? Seriously.
You yourself describe Boris as “going low”; so why does that seem not to annoy you as much as the “predictable response”?
Because I know the opponents aren’t interested in solutions - let’s not be naive: they believe in open borders and maximising migration and are using their resources and the full force of the law to advocate and organise for it.
They have no better answers than Rwanda so it makes me want to support it on principle.
As for the opponents, I don’t think various Archbishops and the Prince of Wales and, according to some polling, at least a third of the country, believe in “open borders and maximising migration”, although I concede that some might.
At least in my case, I don’t have a specific objection to Rwanda outright. However I object on the grounds that this does not seem to be a coherent policy unto itself but more a cruel PR stunt.
I object to people’s lives - especially that of the most desperate - being used this way.
I would just ask genuinely how you would resolve these channel crossings because they do have to be resolved as we cannot continue to see these drownings?
I find myself more in favour of the Rwanda policy the more I see the forces ranged against it.
There's a supremely well organised campaign to undermine it.
I’m shocked, shocked.
What I don’t think many on the Left/centre-Left realise is that they’re playing into Boris’s hands by doing this; they are so utterly sanctimonious and insufferable that their petty pedantry will succeed in generating the cultural dividing line he seeks, and thus shore up his support. I don’t think they realise just how much this sort of legal chicanery stuff pisses people off.
It would have been far better to give the policy a fair shot and let it die and fail on its own merits.
The glacé cherry on the Remoaner cake is the ECHR sticking it’s oar in at the last minute
Like they still run the country. Elite europhile lawyers. Fuck them
Leave the ECHR. Vote for Boris again
The added bonus being that @HYUFD can complain endlessly about how Communists seize private property until even he realises that it will have been a Tory government which will make this very much easier for a future lefty government because property owners will no longer be able to rely on the right to peaceful enjoyment of your possessions contained in Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the ECHR. Or any of the other rights - like the right to an effective remedy or a fair trial.
And who owns property in this country? Oh yes, Tory voters.
God knows how the English managed to come up with Magna Carta fully 700 years before the ECHR. Perhaps some Brussels lawyers time traveled backwards to help the stupid Saxons write their farcical “charter”
It was Normans who wrote the Magna Carta, not the Saxons.
And us English have been living under their oppression for nearly 1000 years!
I find myself more in favour of the Rwanda policy the more I see the forces ranged against it.
There's a supremely well organised campaign to undermine it.
I’m shocked, shocked.
What I don’t think many on the Left/centre-Left realise is that they’re playing into Boris’s hands by doing this; they are so utterly sanctimonious and insufferable that their petty pedantry will succeed in generating the cultural dividing line he seeks, and thus shore up his support. I don’t think they realise just how much this sort of legal chicanery stuff pisses people off.
It would have been far better to give the policy a fair shot and let it die and fail on its own merits.
The glacé cherry on the Remoaner cake is the ECHR sticking it’s oar in at the last minute
Like they still run the country. Elite europhile lawyers. Fuck them
Leave the ECHR. Vote for Boris again
I think they must have climaxed when they saw the ECHR got involved.
For most, they will see how this policy annoys All The Right People and, thus, it will secure their support.
For that to change their tactics will have to change but they just can’t help themselves and secretly love culture war fights just as much as Boris.
OK. You're probably right that one of the effects (maybe the main, or only effect) of the Rwanda policy is to give a group of voters something to defend against all the wrong people (lawyers, bishops, lefties and so on).
But at the same time, this plan is going to make life worse for actual people who have actually suffered a lot. So to try to prevent that is an honourable thing, isn't it?
If you think a great wrong is being done, you don't wait until 2023/4/5 in the hope of being able to undo it then. Democracy has never been about giving the winners a political blank cheque until the next election.
So (roughy) what tactics would you advise?
Here’s the thing though Stuart: I don’t think they have suffered a lot. I think the vast majority have made an investment to travel here through people smuggling networks and are now looking to game the (very broadly written) asylum system.
We all know this.
More positively, and to my surprise, I’ve seen good policy suggestions here today from @Foxy@kinabalu and @Cyclefree , not all of whom I always agree with, particularly the first two, so it should be possible for us to work cross-party on this to come up with a solution rather than dig trenches.
I plucked a low ball number, so nobody could argue with it.
Given the applications for residency we've seen from EU citizens which far outstripped expecations, and for some nationalities the numbers were huge, I could easily believe that there are millions of uncounted people in the UK working illegally. We simply don't do a good job of tracking this sort of thing.
There's shitloads of Albanians, and they are *not* covered by FOM. But look at the frequency of Wizz flights between Luton and Tirana. I don't necessarily have a problem with that - there's a huge Albanian diaspora - but I am sure we don't know who's here.
The government expected 3.5 to 4.0 million people to apply, we've now granted nearly 6 million people the right to stay, and they or their immediate family must have been resident in the UK for a significant part of the time before the deadline. Government data about who is resident in the UK most be utter garbage, we really have very little idea.
I find myself more in favour of the Rwanda policy the more I see the forces ranged against it.
There's a supremely well organised campaign to undermine it.
Spot on. What is happening now is a perfect reply to those on the left who claim that the right exaggerates what the left is doing
Eh?
The attempt to classify everyone that has concerns about the Government's Rwanda policy as enemies of people is absurd.
I strongly believe the UK should build and properly staff off-shore processing facilities. I also believe that we should aim to match the Netherlands 98% processed in 10 weeks record. I also believe that we should work to massively reduce the demand pull of the UK by properly clamping down on illegal working.
Rwanda, though, is none of those things. It's not an offshore processing facility. It's a few tens of people, maybe a few hundred in a year, out of maybe 20,000 people arriving. It's a publicity stunt designed to garner a few headlines.
The fact that we're spending so much time on it demonstrates how deeply unserious you are about tackling the problem, and how keen you are to just make into a part of the culture war fight.
Wrong @rcs1000 and you are letting your temper get the better of you.
As I said earlier, I think what both you and @Cyclefree were saying before makes perfect sense. The problem is that, while the likes of myself and (I suspect) @Casino_Royale would accept it, those who essentially want open immigration but realise they can't say that publicly will come out with a 1,001 excuses why your proposals are racist, harmful etc.
You're picking the wrong target. The reason why a lot of people are willing to go with the demagogues is because they have seen how those on the left take the p1ss by blocking any reasonable solution on the grounds it's 'racist' / 'horrific' / 'nazist'. In their world, the only good policy is one that lets everyone in.
Nah, that is total bollocks. I have long advocated internment camps with quick assessment of claims (if the Dutch can do it, why can't we?)
You are one of a few then on the left @Foxy (I'm assuming you are telling the truth). @Casino_Royale is right - what many on the left want is effectively open immigration and everyone let in, that is their asylum policy. No questioning of why France is not a safe country, no questions asked about what the applicants ask - if someone turns up and says "yes, I fear for my life" you are in.
This is nonsense. Virtually nobody on the left wants an open door. Certainly not me or the majority of Labour members.
Sorry @CorrectHorseBattery you only have to go on the Guardian comments page to see how that is not the case. @Gardenwalker mentioned some polls saying a third wanted open immigration - if there are polls like that (and I haven't seen then), then there are going to be a lot of Labour people represented in those numbers.
I find myself more in favour of the Rwanda policy the more I see the forces ranged against it.
There's a supremely well organised campaign to undermine it.
Spot on. What is happening now is a perfect reply to those on the left who claim that the right exaggerates what the left is doing
Eh?
The attempt to classify everyone that has concerns about the Government's Rwanda policy as enemies of people is absurd.
I strongly believe the UK should build and properly staff off-shore processing facilities. I also believe that we should aim to match the Netherlands 98% processed in 10 weeks record. I also believe that we should work to massively reduce the demand pull of the UK by properly clamping down on illegal working.
Rwanda, though, is none of those things. It's not an offshore processing facility. It's a few tens of people, maybe a few hundred in a year, out of maybe 20,000 people arriving. It's a publicity stunt designed to garner a few headlines.
The fact that we're spending so much time on it demonstrates how deeply unserious you are about tackling the problem, and how keen you are to just make into a part of the culture war fight.
If the Dutch can resolve cases in 10 weeks, why do we take years?
Lawyers are involved.
Do the Dutch not have laws and lawyers?
I'm interested to know how they do it.
I suspect they have less of an industry of activist lawyers seeking to spin everything out until doomsday.
Maybe they properly fund their Home Office equivalent and have a competent government that isn't merely interested in headlines...?
I find myself more in favour of the Rwanda policy the more I see the forces ranged against it.
There's a supremely well organised campaign to undermine it.
I’m shocked, shocked.
What I don’t think many on the Left/centre-Left realise is that they’re playing into Boris’s hands by doing this; they are so utterly sanctimonious and insufferable that their petty pedantry will succeed in generating the cultural dividing line he seeks, and thus shore up his support. I don’t think they realise just how much this sort of legal chicanery stuff pisses people off.
It would have been far better to give the policy a fair shot and let it die and fail on its own merits.
The glacé cherry on the Remoaner cake is the ECHR sticking it’s oar in at the last minute
Like they still run the country. Elite europhile lawyers. Fuck them
Leave the ECHR. Vote for Boris again
The added bonus being that @HYUFD can complain endlessly about how Communists seize private property until even he realises that it will have been a Tory government which will make this very much easier for a future lefty government because property owners will no longer be able to rely on the right to peaceful enjoyment of your possessions contained in Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the ECHR. Or any of the other rights - like the right to an effective remedy or a fair trial.
And who owns property in this country? Oh yes, Tory voters.
God knows how the English managed to come up with Magna Carta fully 700 years before the ECHR. Perhaps some Brussels lawyers time traveled backwards to help the stupid Saxons write their farcical “charter”
I plucked a low ball number, so nobody could argue with it.
Given the applications for residency we've seen from EU citizens which far outstripped expecations, and for some nationalities the numbers were huge, I could easily believe that there are millions of uncounted people in the UK working illegally. We simply don't do a good job of tracking this sort of thing.
There's shitloads of Albanians, and they are *not* covered by FOM. But look at the frequency of Wizz flights between Luton and Tirana. I don't necessarily have a problem with that - there's a huge Albanian diaspora - but I am sure we don't know who's here.
The government expected 3.5 to 4.0 million people to apply, we've now granted nearly 6 million people the right to stay, and they or their immediate family must have been resident in the UK for a significant part of the time before the deadline. Government data about who is resident in the UK most be utter garbage, we really have very little idea.
Yes but many are not living here, just wishing to retain the possibility to do so. I personally know several who applied, then left once they had their right to stay. ONS figures back this up.
I find myself more in favour of the Rwanda policy the more I see the forces ranged against it.
There's a supremely well organised campaign to undermine it.
I’m shocked, shocked.
What I don’t think many on the Left/centre-Left realise is that they’re playing into Boris’s hands by doing this; they are so utterly sanctimonious and insufferable that their petty pedantry will succeed in generating the cultural dividing line he seeks, and thus shore up his support. I don’t think they realise just how much this sort of legal chicanery stuff pisses people off.
It would have been far better to give the policy a fair shot and let it die and fail on its own merits.
The glacé cherry on the Remoaner cake is the ECHR sticking it’s oar in at the last minute
Like they still run the country. Elite europhile lawyers. Fuck them
Leave the ECHR. Vote for Boris again
The added bonus being that @HYUFD can complain endlessly about how Communists seize private property until even he realises that it will have been a Tory government which will make this very much easier for a future lefty government because property owners will no longer be able to rely on the right to peaceful enjoyment of your possessions contained in Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the ECHR. Or any of the other rights - like the right to an effective remedy or a fair trial.
And who owns property in this country? Oh yes, Tory voters.
God knows how the English managed to come up with Magna Carta fully 700 years before the ECHR. Perhaps some Brussels lawyers time traveled backwards to help the stupid Saxons write their farcical “charter”
It was Normans who wrote the Magna Carta, not the Saxons.
As far as I am aware, no country on earth, in 2022, relies solely on the Magna Carta to safeguard human rights.
Fundamental as it is, the world has moved on a tad since 1215.
I find myself more in favour of the Rwanda policy the more I see the forces ranged against it.
There's a supremely well organised campaign to undermine it.
Spot on. What is happening now is a perfect reply to those on the left who claim that the right exaggerates what the left is doing
Eh?
The attempt to classify everyone that has concerns about the Government's Rwanda policy as enemies of people is absurd.
I strongly believe the UK should build and properly staff off-shore processing facilities. I also believe that we should aim to match the Netherlands 98% processed in 10 weeks record. I also believe that we should work to massively reduce the demand pull of the UK by properly clamping down on illegal working.
Rwanda, though, is none of those things. It's not an offshore processing facility. It's a few tens of people, maybe a few hundred in a year, out of maybe 20,000 people arriving. It's a publicity stunt designed to garner a few headlines.
The fact that we're spending so much time on it demonstrates how deeply unserious you are about tackling the problem, and how keen you are to just make into a part of the culture war fight.
Wrong @rcs1000 and you are letting your temper get the better of you.
As I said earlier, I think what both you and @Cyclefree were saying before makes perfect sense. The problem is that, while the likes of myself and (I suspect) @Casino_Royale would accept it, those who essentially want open immigration but realise they can't say that publicly will come out with a 1,001 excuses why your proposals are racist, harmful etc.
You're picking the wrong target. The reason why a lot of people are willing to go with the demagogues is because they have seen how those on the left take the p1ss by blocking any reasonable solution on the grounds it's 'racist' / 'horrific' / 'nazist'. In their world, the only good policy is one that lets everyone in.
Nah, that is total bollocks. I have long advocated internment camps with quick assessment of claims (if the Dutch can do it, why can't we?)
You are one of a few then on the left @Foxy (I'm assuming you are telling the truth). @Casino_Royale is right - what many on the left want is effectively open immigration and everyone let in, that is their asylum policy. No questioning of why France is not a safe country, no questions asked about what the applicants ask - if someone turns up and says "yes, I fear for my life" you are in.
This is nonsense. Virtually nobody on the left wants an open door. Certainly not me or the majority of Labour members.
If you don't want an open door, but you also don't want to take responsibility for closing the door, then it's just the politics of virtue signalling opposition.
So let’s get this straight. Britain is a quasi-despotic, crypto-sadistic state, teetering on the very edge of Fascism, and this is proved by the fact the government… cannot send one single failed asylum seeker on a plane to a safe foreign hotel
The Remoaner Left should be ashamed of itself. What a degraded spectacle of fraudulent and confected emotions
Hahaha!
The shambolic right has proved once again today that it cannot organise a piss up in a brewery.
I find myself more in favour of the Rwanda policy the more I see the forces ranged against it.
There's a supremely well organised campaign to undermine it.
Spot on. What is happening now is a perfect reply to those on the left who claim that the right exaggerates what the left is doing
Eh?
The attempt to classify everyone that has concerns about the Government's Rwanda policy as enemies of people is absurd.
I strongly believe the UK should build and properly staff off-shore processing facilities. I also believe that we should aim to match the Netherlands 98% processed in 10 weeks record. I also believe that we should work to massively reduce the demand pull of the UK by properly clamping down on illegal working.
Rwanda, though, is none of those things. It's not an offshore processing facility. It's a few tens of people, maybe a few hundred in a year, out of maybe 20,000 people arriving. It's a publicity stunt designed to garner a few headlines.
The fact that we're spending so much time on it demonstrates how deeply unserious you are about tackling the problem, and how keen you are to just make into a part of the culture war fight.
Wrong @rcs1000 and you are letting your temper get the better of you.
As I said earlier, I think what both you and @Cyclefree were saying before makes perfect sense. The problem is that, while the likes of myself and (I suspect) @Casino_Royale would accept it, those who essentially want open immigration but realise they can't say that publicly will come out with a 1,001 excuses why your proposals are racist, harmful etc.
You're picking the wrong target. The reason why a lot of people are willing to go with the demagogues is because they have seen how those on the left take the p1ss by blocking any reasonable solution on the grounds it's 'racist' / 'horrific' / 'nazist'. In their world, the only good policy is one that lets everyone in.
Nah, that is total bollocks. I have long advocated internment camps with quick assessment of claims (if the Dutch can do it, why can't we?)
You are one of a few then on the left @Foxy (I'm assuming you are telling the truth). @Casino_Royale is right - what many on the left want is effectively open immigration and everyone let in, that is their asylum policy. No questioning of why France is not a safe country, no questions asked about what the applicants ask - if someone turns up and says "yes, I fear for my life" you are in.
This is nonsense. Virtually nobody on the left wants an open door. Certainly not me or the majority of Labour members.
Sorry @CorrectHorseBattery you only have to go on the Guardian comments page to see how that is not the case. @Gardenwalker mentioned some polls saying a third wanted open immigration - if there are polls like that (and I haven't seen then), then there are going to be a lot of Labour people represented in those numbers.
No, I said (or tried to say) that around 1/3 are largely looking at the Rwanda issue with compassionate concern. That’s not the same as wanting “open immigration”,
I find myself more in favour of the Rwanda policy the more I see the forces ranged against it.
There's a supremely well organised campaign to undermine it.
Spot on. What is happening now is a perfect reply to those on the left who claim that the right exaggerates what the left is doing
Eh?
The attempt to classify everyone that has concerns about the Government's Rwanda policy as enemies of people is absurd.
I strongly believe the UK should build and properly staff off-shore processing facilities. I also believe that we should aim to match the Netherlands 98% processed in 10 weeks record. I also believe that we should work to massively reduce the demand pull of the UK by properly clamping down on illegal working.
Rwanda, though, is none of those things. It's not an offshore processing facility. It's a few tens of people, maybe a few hundred in a year, out of maybe 20,000 people arriving. It's a publicity stunt designed to garner a few headlines.
The fact that we're spending so much time on it demonstrates how deeply unserious you are about tackling the problem, and how keen you are to just make into a part of the culture war fight.
Wrong @rcs1000 and you are letting your temper get the better of you.
As I said earlier, I think what both you and @Cyclefree were saying before makes perfect sense. The problem is that, while the likes of myself and (I suspect) @Casino_Royale would accept it, those who essentially want open immigration but realise they can't say that publicly will come out with a 1,001 excuses why your proposals are racist, harmful etc.
You're picking the wrong target. The reason why a lot of people are willing to go with the demagogues is because they have seen how those on the left take the p1ss by blocking any reasonable solution on the grounds it's 'racist' / 'horrific' / 'nazist'. In their world, the only good policy is one that lets everyone in.
Nah, that is total bollocks. I have long advocated internment camps with quick assessment of claims (if the Dutch can do it, why can't we?)
You are one of a few then on the left @Foxy (I'm assuming you are telling the truth). @Casino_Royale is right - what many on the left want is effectively open immigration and everyone let in, that is their asylum policy. No questioning of why France is not a safe country, no questions asked about what the applicants ask - if someone turns up and says "yes, I fear for my life" you are in.
This is nonsense. Virtually nobody on the left wants an open door. Certainly not me or the majority of Labour members.
Sorry @CorrectHorseBattery you only have to go on the Guardian comments page to see how that is not the case. @Gardenwalker mentioned some polls saying a third wanted open immigration - if there are polls like that (and I haven't seen then), then there are going to be a lot of Labour people represented in those numbers.
Are you a member of the Labour Party?
Do you think the Daily Mail comments represent the Tory Party. This is the level of stupidity you’re operating at here mate. You’re better than this
I find myself more in favour of the Rwanda policy the more I see the forces ranged against it.
There's a supremely well organised campaign to undermine it.
I’m shocked, shocked.
What I don’t think many on the Left/centre-Left realise is that they’re playing into Boris’s hands by doing this; they are so utterly sanctimonious and insufferable that their petty pedantry will succeed in generating the cultural dividing line he seeks, and thus shore up his support. I don’t think they realise just how much this sort of legal chicanery stuff pisses people off.
It would have been far better to give the policy a fair shot and let it die and fail on its own merits.
The glacé cherry on the Remoaner cake is the ECHR sticking it’s oar in at the last minute
Like they still run the country. Elite europhile lawyers. Fuck them
Leave the ECHR. Vote for Boris again
The added bonus being that @HYUFD can complain endlessly about how Communists seize private property until even he realises that it will have been a Tory government which will make this very much easier for a future lefty government because property owners will no longer be able to rely on the right to peaceful enjoyment of your possessions contained in Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the ECHR. Or any of the other rights - like the right to an effective remedy or a fair trial.
And who owns property in this country? Oh yes, Tory voters.
God knows how the English managed to come up with Magna Carta fully 700 years before the ECHR. Perhaps some Brussels lawyers time traveled backwards to help the stupid Saxons write their farcical “charter”
It was Normans who wrote the Magna Carta, not the Saxons.
By 1216 the English/Norman distinction was dead. The Great Charter is English.
So let’s get this straight. Britain is a quasi-despotic, crypto-sadistic state, teetering on the very edge of Fascism, and this is proved by the fact the government… cannot send one single failed asylum seeker on a plane to a safe foreign hotel
The Remoaner Left should be ashamed of itself. What a degraded spectacle of fraudulent and confected emotions
Like I say, it's *incompetent* ghastliness that we're getting. No contradiction. The Trolley is not a bad nickname from Cummings.
I find myself more in favour of the Rwanda policy the more I see the forces ranged against it.
There's a supremely well organised campaign to undermine it.
Spot on. What is happening now is a perfect reply to those on the left who claim that the right exaggerates what the left is doing
Eh?
The attempt to classify everyone that has concerns about the Government's Rwanda policy as enemies of people is absurd.
I strongly believe the UK should build and properly staff off-shore processing facilities. I also believe that we should aim to match the Netherlands 98% processed in 10 weeks record. I also believe that we should work to massively reduce the demand pull of the UK by properly clamping down on illegal working.
Rwanda, though, is none of those things. It's not an offshore processing facility. It's a few tens of people, maybe a few hundred in a year, out of maybe 20,000 people arriving. It's a publicity stunt designed to garner a few headlines.
The fact that we're spending so much time on it demonstrates how deeply unserious you are about tackling the problem, and how keen you are to just make into a part of the culture war fight.
Wrong @rcs1000 and you are letting your temper get the better of you.
As I said earlier, I think what both you and @Cyclefree were saying before makes perfect sense. The problem is that, while the likes of myself and (I suspect) @Casino_Royale would accept it, those who essentially want open immigration but realise they can't say that publicly will come out with a 1,001 excuses why your proposals are racist, harmful etc.
You're picking the wrong target. The reason why a lot of people are willing to go with the demagogues is because they have seen how those on the left take the p1ss by blocking any reasonable solution on the grounds it's 'racist' / 'horrific' / 'nazist'. In their world, the only good policy is one that lets everyone in.
Nah, that is total bollocks. I have long advocated internment camps with quick assessment of claims (if the Dutch can do it, why can't we?)
You are one of a few then on the left @Foxy (I'm assuming you are telling the truth). @Casino_Royale is right - what many on the left want is effectively open immigration and everyone let in, that is their asylum policy. No questioning of why France is not a safe country, no questions asked about what the applicants ask - if someone turns up and says "yes, I fear for my life" you are in.
This is nonsense. Virtually nobody on the left wants an open door. Certainly not me or the majority of Labour members.
Sorry @CorrectHorseBattery you only have to go on the Guardian comments page to see how that is not the case. @Gardenwalker mentioned some polls saying a third wanted open immigration - if there are polls like that (and I haven't seen then), then there are going to be a lot of Labour people represented in those numbers.
No, I said (or tried to say) that around 1/3 are largely looking at the Rwanda issue with compassionate concern. That’s not the same as wanting “open immigration”,
Bad faith arguing as usual from people on this issue.
I find myself more in favour of the Rwanda policy the more I see the forces ranged against it.
There's a supremely well organised campaign to undermine it.
Spot on. What is happening now is a perfect reply to those on the left who claim that the right exaggerates what the left is doing
Eh?
The attempt to classify everyone that has concerns about the Government's Rwanda policy as enemies of people is absurd.
I strongly believe the UK should build and properly staff off-shore processing facilities. I also believe that we should aim to match the Netherlands 98% processed in 10 weeks record. I also believe that we should work to massively reduce the demand pull of the UK by properly clamping down on illegal working.
Rwanda, though, is none of those things. It's not an offshore processing facility. It's a few tens of people, maybe a few hundred in a year, out of maybe 20,000 people arriving. It's a publicity stunt designed to garner a few headlines.
The fact that we're spending so much time on it demonstrates how deeply unserious you are about tackling the problem, and how keen you are to just make into a part of the culture war fight.
Wrong @rcs1000 and you are letting your temper get the better of you.
As I said earlier, I think what both you and @Cyclefree were saying before makes perfect sense. The problem is that, while the likes of myself and (I suspect) @Casino_Royale would accept it, those who essentially want open immigration but realise they can't say that publicly will come out with a 1,001 excuses why your proposals are racist, harmful etc.
You're picking the wrong target. The reason why a lot of people are willing to go with the demagogues is because they have seen how those on the left take the p1ss by blocking any reasonable solution on the grounds it's 'racist' / 'horrific' / 'nazist'. In their world, the only good policy is one that lets everyone in.
Nah, that is total bollocks. I have long advocated internment camps with quick assessment of claims (if the Dutch can do it, why can't we?)
You are one of a few then on the left @Foxy (I'm assuming you are telling the truth). @Casino_Royale is right - what many on the left want is effectively open immigration and everyone let in, that is their asylum policy. No questioning of why France is not a safe country, no questions asked about what the applicants ask - if someone turns up and says "yes, I fear for my life" you are in.
This is nonsense. Virtually nobody on the left wants an open door. Certainly not me or the majority of Labour members.
If you don't want an open door, but you also don't want to take responsibility for closing the door, then it's just the politics of virtue signalling opposition.
How should opponents of the government’s policy “take responsibility”?
It would have been far better to give the policy a fair shot and let it die and fail on its own merits.
It is dying on its own merits.
It's not legal...
It’s perfectly legal. There dozens of lawyers trying to find spurious grounds to get their clients off at the last minute - appealing to all and sundry to delay/obstruct and obfuscate - often changing the grounds for appeal as and when it suits them. And even if it wasn’t - which it isn’t - the government are entitled to change the law to legislate so it is, which would no doubt be obstructed in turn.
Don’t be too clever. If no solution is found to this then at some point you risk a demagogue authoritarian leader being elected who upon taking office who rips up the rule book and drives a cart & horses through all laws and all lawyers with all sorts of knock on consequences.
(You’re utterly predictable, so you’ll probably respond with something like “we’ve already got one: Boris. Brexit etc.” but that’s your hyperbolic neurotic obsession talking and totally at odds with the reality of what could come next)
If you think such a reaction (from leftists) both predictable and liable to lead to “a demagogue authoritarian leader”, why on earth would you support the government’s policy.
Because they really piss me off and this really pisses them off. And I want them to feel it.
It gets that visceral. That’s what Boris has correctly assessed.
If I was calm I’d say Starmer should come up with better and more effective solutions, along the lines of what cyclefree and rcs1000 outlined earlier, but he needs to rein in the broader mobs of his movement first and go high when Boris goes low.
Have you considered asking yourself why you are so pissed off? Seriously.
You yourself describe Boris as “going low”; so why does that seem not to annoy you as much as the “predictable response”?
Because I know the opponents aren’t interested in solutions - let’s not be naive: they believe in open borders and maximising migration and are using their resources and the full force of the law to advocate and organise for it.
They have no better answers than Rwanda so it makes me want to support it on principle.
As for the opponents, I don’t think various Archbishops and the Prince of Wales and, according to some polling, at least a third of the country, believe in “open borders and maximising migration”, although I concede that some might.
At least in my case, I don’t have a specific objection to Rwanda outright. However I object on the grounds that this does not seem to be a coherent policy unto itself but more a cruel PR stunt.
I object to people’s lives - especially that of the most desperate - being used this way.
I would just ask genuinely how you would resolve these channel crossings because they do have to be resolved as we cannot continue to see these drownings?
Stop supplying weapons to fuel civil wars in their home country would be a good start. You might notice that many (most?) come from conflict areas.
I find myself more in favour of the Rwanda policy the more I see the forces ranged against it.
There's a supremely well organised campaign to undermine it.
Spot on. What is happening now is a perfect reply to those on the left who claim that the right exaggerates what the left is doing
Eh?
The attempt to classify everyone that has concerns about the Government's Rwanda policy as enemies of people is absurd.
I strongly believe the UK should build and properly staff off-shore processing facilities. I also believe that we should aim to match the Netherlands 98% processed in 10 weeks record. I also believe that we should work to massively reduce the demand pull of the UK by properly clamping down on illegal working.
Rwanda, though, is none of those things. It's not an offshore processing facility. It's a few tens of people, maybe a few hundred in a year, out of maybe 20,000 people arriving. It's a publicity stunt designed to garner a few headlines.
The fact that we're spending so much time on it demonstrates how deeply unserious you are about tackling the problem, and how keen you are to just make into a part of the culture war fight.
Wrong @rcs1000 and you are letting your temper get the better of you.
As I said earlier, I think what both you and @Cyclefree were saying before makes perfect sense. The problem is that, while the likes of myself and (I suspect) @Casino_Royale would accept it, those who essentially want open immigration but realise they can't say that publicly will come out with a 1,001 excuses why your proposals are racist, harmful etc.
You're picking the wrong target. The reason why a lot of people are willing to go with the demagogues is because they have seen how those on the left take the p1ss by blocking any reasonable solution on the grounds it's 'racist' / 'horrific' / 'nazist'. In their world, the only good policy is one that lets everyone in.
Nah, that is total bollocks. I have long advocated internment camps with quick assessment of claims (if the Dutch can do it, why can't we?)
You are one of a few then on the left @Foxy (I'm assuming you are telling the truth). @Casino_Royale is right - what many on the left want is effectively open immigration and everyone let in, that is their asylum policy. No questioning of why France is not a safe country, no questions asked about what the applicants ask - if someone turns up and says "yes, I fear for my life" you are in.
This is nonsense. Virtually nobody on the left wants an open door. Certainly not me or the majority of Labour members.
Sorry @CorrectHorseBattery you only have to go on the Guardian comments page to see how that is not the case. @Gardenwalker mentioned some polls saying a third wanted open immigration - if there are polls like that (and I haven't seen then), then there are going to be a lot of Labour people represented in those numbers.
I would point out that some on the right - like @Richard_Tyndall - also want an open door immigration policy.
But that's missing the point.
Don't be defined by your opponents. Be defined by what it moral, right and fair. Don't make policy for headlines, make it to solve underlying problems.
The moment you define anything by who is opposed to it, you are giving up the moral high ground.
Not only that, but 90% of people want us to be compassionate, but controlled. The fact we're arguing over a policy that involves - at best - a few hundred people being sent to Rwanda demonstrates how much we've completely lost the fucking plot.
I find myself more in favour of the Rwanda policy the more I see the forces ranged against it.
There's a supremely well organised campaign to undermine it.
I’m shocked, shocked.
What I don’t think many on the Left/centre-Left realise is that they’re playing into Boris’s hands by doing this; they are so utterly sanctimonious and insufferable that their petty pedantry will succeed in generating the cultural dividing line he seeks, and thus shore up his support. I don’t think they realise just how much this sort of legal chicanery stuff pisses people off.
It would have been far better to give the policy a fair shot and let it die and fail on its own merits.
The glacé cherry on the Remoaner cake is the ECHR sticking it’s oar in at the last minute
Like they still run the country. Elite europhile lawyers. Fuck them
Leave the ECHR. Vote for Boris again
The added bonus being that @HYUFD can complain endlessly about how Communists seize private property until even he realises that it will have been a Tory government which will make this very much easier for a future lefty government because property owners will no longer be able to rely on the right to peaceful enjoyment of your possessions contained in Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the ECHR. Or any of the other rights - like the right to an effective remedy or a fair trial.
And who owns property in this country? Oh yes, Tory voters.
God knows how the English managed to come up with Magna Carta fully 700 years before the ECHR. Perhaps some Brussels lawyers time traveled backwards to help the stupid Saxons write their farcical “charter”
It was Normans who wrote the Magna Carta, not the Saxons.
As far as I am aware, no country on earth, in 2022, relies solely on the Magna Carta to safeguard human rights.
Fundamental as it is, the world has moved on a tad since 1215.
Only three of 63 clauses are still law in England and Wales.
I find myself more in favour of the Rwanda policy the more I see the forces ranged against it.
There's a supremely well organised campaign to undermine it.
Spot on. What is happening now is a perfect reply to those on the left who claim that the right exaggerates what the left is doing
Eh?
The attempt to classify everyone that has concerns about the Government's Rwanda policy as enemies of people is absurd.
I strongly believe the UK should build and properly staff off-shore processing facilities. I also believe that we should aim to match the Netherlands 98% processed in 10 weeks record. I also believe that we should work to massively reduce the demand pull of the UK by properly clamping down on illegal working.
Rwanda, though, is none of those things. It's not an offshore processing facility. It's a few tens of people, maybe a few hundred in a year, out of maybe 20,000 people arriving. It's a publicity stunt designed to garner a few headlines.
The fact that we're spending so much time on it demonstrates how deeply unserious you are about tackling the problem, and how keen you are to just make into a part of the culture war fight.
Wrong @rcs1000 and you are letting your temper get the better of you.
As I said earlier, I think what both you and @Cyclefree were saying before makes perfect sense. The problem is that, while the likes of myself and (I suspect) @Casino_Royale would accept it, those who essentially want open immigration but realise they can't say that publicly will come out with a 1,001 excuses why your proposals are racist, harmful etc.
You're picking the wrong target. The reason why a lot of people are willing to go with the demagogues is because they have seen how those on the left take the p1ss by blocking any reasonable solution on the grounds it's 'racist' / 'horrific' / 'nazist'. In their world, the only good policy is one that lets everyone in.
Nah, that is total bollocks. I have long advocated internment camps with quick assessment of claims (if the Dutch can do it, why can't we?)
You are one of a few then on the left @Foxy (I'm assuming you are telling the truth). @Casino_Royale is right - what many on the left want is effectively open immigration and everyone let in, that is their asylum policy. No questioning of why France is not a safe country, no questions asked about what the applicants ask - if someone turns up and says "yes, I fear for my life" you are in.
This is nonsense. Virtually nobody on the left wants an open door. Certainly not me or the majority of Labour members.
No-one on the left will explain how they will fairly limit immigration, though.
It would have been far better to give the policy a fair shot and let it die and fail on its own merits.
It is dying on its own merits.
It's not legal...
It’s perfectly legal. There dozens of lawyers trying to find spurious grounds to get their clients off at the last minute - appealing to all and sundry to delay/obstruct and obfuscate - often changing the grounds for appeal as and when it suits them. And even if it wasn’t - which it isn’t - the government are entitled to change the law to legislate so it is, which would no doubt be obstructed in turn.
Don’t be too clever. If no solution is found to this then at some point you risk a demagogue authoritarian leader being elected who upon taking office who rips up the rule book and drives a cart & horses through all laws and all lawyers with all sorts of knock on consequences.
(You’re utterly predictable, so you’ll probably respond with something like “we’ve already got one: Boris. Brexit etc.” but that’s your hyperbolic neurotic obsession talking and totally at odds with the reality of what could come next)
If you think such a reaction (from leftists) both predictable and liable to lead to “a demagogue authoritarian leader”, why on earth would you support the government’s policy.
Because they really piss me off and this really pisses them off. And I want them to feel it.
It gets that visceral. That’s what Boris has correctly assessed.
If I was calm I’d say Starmer should come up with better and more effective solutions, along the lines of what cyclefree and rcs1000 outlined earlier, but he needs to rein in the broader mobs of his movement first and go high when Boris goes low.
Have you considered asking yourself why you are so pissed off? Seriously.
You yourself describe Boris as “going low”; so why does that seem not to annoy you as much as the “predictable response”?
Because I know the opponents aren’t interested in solutions - let’s not be naive: they believe in open borders and maximising migration and are using their resources and the full force of the law to advocate and organise for it.
They have no better answers than Rwanda so it makes me want to support it on principle.
As for the opponents, I don’t think various Archbishops and the Prince of Wales and, according to some polling, at least a third of the country, believe in “open borders and maximising migration”, although I concede that some might.
At least in my case, I don’t have a specific objection to Rwanda outright. However I object on the grounds that this does not seem to be a coherent policy unto itself but more a cruel PR stunt.
I object to people’s lives - especially that of the most desperate - being used this way.
I would just ask genuinely how you would resolve these channel crossings because they do have to be resolved as we cannot continue to see these drownings?
1) intern arrivals in assessment camps 2) provide medical and legal support to accelerate assessment 3) resolve applications swiftly and fairly 4) keep failed applicants in internment camps in the UK until they are deported or voluntarily leave.
I find myself more in favour of the Rwanda policy the more I see the forces ranged against it.
There's a supremely well organised campaign to undermine it.
Spot on. What is happening now is a perfect reply to those on the left who claim that the right exaggerates what the left is doing
Eh?
The attempt to classify everyone that has concerns about the Government's Rwanda policy as enemies of people is absurd.
I strongly believe the UK should build and properly staff off-shore processing facilities. I also believe that we should aim to match the Netherlands 98% processed in 10 weeks record. I also believe that we should work to massively reduce the demand pull of the UK by properly clamping down on illegal working.
Rwanda, though, is none of those things. It's not an offshore processing facility. It's a few tens of people, maybe a few hundred in a year, out of maybe 20,000 people arriving. It's a publicity stunt designed to garner a few headlines.
The fact that we're spending so much time on it demonstrates how deeply unserious you are about tackling the problem, and how keen you are to just make into a part of the culture war fight.
Wrong @rcs1000 and you are letting your temper get the better of you.
As I said earlier, I think what both you and @Cyclefree were saying before makes perfect sense. The problem is that, while the likes of myself and (I suspect) @Casino_Royale would accept it, those who essentially want open immigration but realise they can't say that publicly will come out with a 1,001 excuses why your proposals are racist, harmful etc.
You're picking the wrong target. The reason why a lot of people are willing to go with the demagogues is because they have seen how those on the left take the p1ss by blocking any reasonable solution on the grounds it's 'racist' / 'horrific' / 'nazist'. In their world, the only good policy is one that lets everyone in.
Nah, that is total bollocks. I have long advocated internment camps with quick assessment of claims (if the Dutch can do it, why can't we?)
You are one of a few then on the left @Foxy (I'm assuming you are telling the truth). @Casino_Royale is right - what many on the left want is effectively open immigration and everyone let in, that is their asylum policy. No questioning of why France is not a safe country, no questions asked about what the applicants ask - if someone turns up and says "yes, I fear for my life" you are in.
This is nonsense. Virtually nobody on the left wants an open door. Certainly not me or the majority of Labour members.
If you don't want an open door, but you also don't want to take responsibility for closing the door, then it's just the politics of virtue signalling opposition.
You may, however, be in the position of approving of qualified, competent door staff.
It would have been far better to give the policy a fair shot and let it die and fail on its own merits.
It is dying on its own merits.
It's not legal...
It’s perfectly legal. There dozens of lawyers trying to find spurious grounds to get their clients off at the last minute - appealing to all and sundry to delay/obstruct and obfuscate - often changing the grounds for appeal as and when it suits them. And even if it wasn’t - which it isn’t - the government are entitled to change the law to legislate so it is, which would no doubt be obstructed in turn.
Don’t be too clever. If no solution is found to this then at some point you risk a demagogue authoritarian leader being elected who upon taking office who rips up the rule book and drives a cart & horses through all laws and all lawyers with all sorts of knock on consequences.
(You’re utterly predictable, so you’ll probably respond with something like “we’ve already got one: Boris. Brexit etc.” but that’s your hyperbolic neurotic obsession talking and totally at odds with the reality of what could come next)
If you think such a reaction (from leftists) both predictable and liable to lead to “a demagogue authoritarian leader”, why on earth would you support the government’s policy.
Because they really piss me off and this really pisses them off. And I want them to feel it.
It gets that visceral. That’s what Boris has correctly assessed.
If I was calm I’d say Starmer should come up with better and more effective solutions, along the lines of what cyclefree and rcs1000 outlined earlier, but he needs to rein in the broader mobs of his movement first and go high when Boris goes low.
Have you considered asking yourself why you are so pissed off? Seriously.
You yourself describe Boris as “going low”; so why does that seem not to annoy you as much as the “predictable response”?
Because I know the opponents aren’t interested in solutions - let’s not be naive: they believe in open borders and maximising migration and are using their resources and the full force of the law to advocate and organise for it.
They have no better answers than Rwanda so it makes me want to support it on principle.
As for the opponents, I don’t think various Archbishops and the Prince of Wales and, according to some polling, at least a third of the country, believe in “open borders and maximising migration”, although I concede that some might.
At least in my case, I don’t have a specific objection to Rwanda outright. However I object on the grounds that this does not seem to be a coherent policy unto itself but more a cruel PR stunt.
I object to people’s lives - especially that of the most desperate - being used this way.
I would just ask genuinely how you would resolve these channel crossings because they do have to be resolved as we cannot continue to see these drownings?
Stop supplying weapons to fuel civil wars in their home country would be a good start. You might notice that many (most?) come from conflict areas.
With respect that is not an answer to the immediate problem
I find myself more in favour of the Rwanda policy the more I see the forces ranged against it.
There's a supremely well organised campaign to undermine it.
Spot on. What is happening now is a perfect reply to those on the left who claim that the right exaggerates what the left is doing
Eh?
The attempt to classify everyone that has concerns about the Government's Rwanda policy as enemies of people is absurd.
I strongly believe the UK should build and properly staff off-shore processing facilities. I also believe that we should aim to match the Netherlands 98% processed in 10 weeks record. I also believe that we should work to massively reduce the demand pull of the UK by properly clamping down on illegal working.
Rwanda, though, is none of those things. It's not an offshore processing facility. It's a few tens of people, maybe a few hundred in a year, out of maybe 20,000 people arriving. It's a publicity stunt designed to garner a few headlines.
The fact that we're spending so much time on it demonstrates how deeply unserious you are about tackling the problem, and how keen you are to just make into a part of the culture war fight.
Wrong @rcs1000 and you are letting your temper get the better of you.
As I said earlier, I think what both you and @Cyclefree were saying before makes perfect sense. The problem is that, while the likes of myself and (I suspect) @Casino_Royale would accept it, those who essentially want open immigration but realise they can't say that publicly will come out with a 1,001 excuses why your proposals are racist, harmful etc.
You're picking the wrong target. The reason why a lot of people are willing to go with the demagogues is because they have seen how those on the left take the p1ss by blocking any reasonable solution on the grounds it's 'racist' / 'horrific' / 'nazist'. In their world, the only good policy is one that lets everyone in.
Nah, that is total bollocks. I have long advocated internment camps with quick assessment of claims (if the Dutch can do it, why can't we?)
You are one of a few then on the left @Foxy (I'm assuming you are telling the truth). @Casino_Royale is right - what many on the left want is effectively open immigration and everyone let in, that is their asylum policy. No questioning of why France is not a safe country, no questions asked about what the applicants ask - if someone turns up and says "yes, I fear for my life" you are in.
This is nonsense. Virtually nobody on the left wants an open door. Certainly not me or the majority of Labour members.
Sorry @CorrectHorseBattery you only have to go on the Guardian comments page to see how that is not the case. @Gardenwalker mentioned some polls saying a third wanted open immigration - if there are polls like that (and I haven't seen then), then there are going to be a lot of Labour people represented in those numbers.
No, I said (or tried to say) that around 1/3 are largely looking at the Rwanda issue with compassionate concern. That’s not the same as wanting “open immigration”,
Bad faith arguing as usual from people on this issue.
If you think that asylum seekers should have an unhindered right to decided where to apply, that we have an obligation to accept them and that deportation is morally wrong, how is that not an open door in practice?
It would have been far better to give the policy a fair shot and let it die and fail on its own merits.
It is dying on its own merits.
It's not legal...
It’s perfectly legal. There dozens of lawyers trying to find spurious grounds to get their clients off at the last minute - appealing to all and sundry to delay/obstruct and obfuscate - often changing the grounds for appeal as and when it suits them. And even if it wasn’t - which it isn’t - the government are entitled to change the law to legislate so it is, which would no doubt be obstructed in turn.
Don’t be too clever. If no solution is found to this then at some point you risk a demagogue authoritarian leader being elected who upon taking office who rips up the rule book and drives a cart & horses through all laws and all lawyers with all sorts of knock on consequences.
(You’re utterly predictable, so you’ll probably respond with something like “we’ve already got one: Boris. Brexit etc.” but that’s your hyperbolic neurotic obsession talking and totally at odds with the reality of what could come next)
If you think such a reaction (from leftists) both predictable and liable to lead to “a demagogue authoritarian leader”, why on earth would you support the government’s policy.
Because they really piss me off and this really pisses them off. And I want them to feel it.
It gets that visceral. That’s what Boris has correctly assessed.
If I was calm I’d say Starmer should come up with better and more effective solutions, along the lines of what cyclefree and rcs1000 outlined earlier, but he needs to rein in the broader mobs of his movement first and go high when Boris goes low.
Have you considered asking yourself why you are so pissed off? Seriously.
You yourself describe Boris as “going low”; so why does that seem not to annoy you as much as the “predictable response”?
Because I know the opponents aren’t interested in solutions - let’s not be naive: they believe in open borders and maximising migration and are using their resources and the full force of the law to advocate and organise for it.
They have no better answers than Rwanda so it makes me want to support it on principle.
I’m an opponent of the immoral policy, and none of that is true.
It would have been far better to give the policy a fair shot and let it die and fail on its own merits.
It is dying on its own merits.
It's not legal...
It’s perfectly legal. There dozens of lawyers trying to find spurious grounds to get their clients off at the last minute - appealing to all and sundry to delay/obstruct and obfuscate - often changing the grounds for appeal as and when it suits them. And even if it wasn’t - which it isn’t - the government are entitled to change the law to legislate so it is, which would no doubt be obstructed in turn.
Don’t be too clever. If no solution is found to this then at some point you risk a demagogue authoritarian leader being elected who upon taking office who rips up the rule book and drives a cart & horses through all laws and all lawyers with all sorts of knock on consequences.
(You’re utterly predictable, so you’ll probably respond with something like “we’ve already got one: Boris. Brexit etc.” but that’s your hyperbolic neurotic obsession talking and totally at odds with the reality of what could come next)
If you think such a reaction (from leftists) both predictable and liable to lead to “a demagogue authoritarian leader”, why on earth would you support the government’s policy.
Because they really piss me off and this really pisses them off. And I want them to feel it.
It gets that visceral. That’s what Boris has correctly assessed.
If I was calm I’d say Starmer should come up with better and more effective solutions, along the lines of what cyclefree and rcs1000 outlined earlier, but he needs to rein in the broader mobs of his movement first and go high when Boris goes low.
Have you considered asking yourself why you are so pissed off? Seriously.
You yourself describe Boris as “going low”; so why does that seem not to annoy you as much as the “predictable response”?
Because I know the opponents aren’t interested in solutions - let’s not be naive: they believe in open borders and maximising migration and are using their resources and the full force of the law to advocate and organise for it.
They have no better answers than Rwanda so it makes me want to support it on principle.
Do YOU have any answers better than Rwanda?
Me personally? Yes, I’d focus on a bilateral agreement with France to turn around every boat. We’d help them solve that problem in turn all the way back to source. Kill the people smuggler business model.
I’d be willing to take in a higher proportion of genuine vulnerable refugees, particularly women and children who don’t have the same resources, directly from refugee camps around the world up to an annual limit set through democratic politics, and those political dissidents fleeing genuinely murderous and vindictive regimes.
So let’s get this straight. Britain is a quasi-despotic, crypto-sadistic state, teetering on the very edge of Fascism, and this is proved by the fact the government… cannot send one single failed asylum seeker on a plane to a safe foreign hotel
The Remoaner Left should be ashamed of itself. What a degraded spectacle of fraudulent and confected emotions
Like I say, it's *incompetent* ghastliness that we're getting. No contradiction. The Trolley is not a bad nickname from Cummings.
Nothing matters other than focus groups are talking about Rwanda and not parties during lockdown.
That is all this policy is about.
As I have ranted before on here.
Johnson must be wetting himself over the coverage. He doesn't care if the end result is that half of Rwanda actually moves to the UK.
So let’s get this straight. Britain is a quasi-despotic, crypto-sadistic state, teetering on the very edge of Fascism, and this is proved by the fact the government… cannot send one single failed asylum seeker on a plane to a safe foreign hotel
The Remoaner Left should be ashamed of itself. What a degraded spectacle of fraudulent and confected emotions
Hahaha!
The shambolic right has proved once again today that it cannot organise a piss up in a brewery.
Yes. Having ramped up this flight for weeks, and presumably spent quite a bit of money on it, the end result is: no flight. Gross incompetence, they can't even get their ducks in a row to accomplish this. The Home Office is a) useless, and b) presumably getting poor advice, It's a farce.
And if people say: the government will be happy because it can blame lefty lawyers/ECHR etc. - don't believe it. They really wanted this flight to go ahead.
It would have been far better to give the policy a fair shot and let it die and fail on its own merits.
It is dying on its own merits.
It's not legal...
It’s perfectly legal. There dozens of lawyers trying to find spurious grounds to get their clients off at the last minute - appealing to all and sundry to delay/obstruct and obfuscate - often changing the grounds for appeal as and when it suits them. And even if it wasn’t - which it isn’t - the government are entitled to change the law to legislate so it is, which would no doubt be obstructed in turn.
Don’t be too clever. If no solution is found to this then at some point you risk a demagogue authoritarian leader being elected who upon taking office who rips up the rule book and drives a cart & horses through all laws and all lawyers with all sorts of knock on consequences.
(You’re utterly predictable, so you’ll probably respond with something like “we’ve already got one: Boris. Brexit etc.” but that’s your hyperbolic neurotic obsession talking and totally at odds with the reality of what could come next)
If you think such a reaction (from leftists) both predictable and liable to lead to “a demagogue authoritarian leader”, why on earth would you support the government’s policy.
Because they really piss me off and this really pisses them off. And I want them to feel it.
It gets that visceral. That’s what Boris has correctly assessed.
If I was calm I’d say Starmer should come up with better and more effective solutions, along the lines of what cyclefree and rcs1000 outlined earlier, but he needs to rein in the broader mobs of his movement first and go high when Boris goes low.
Have you considered asking yourself why you are so pissed off? Seriously.
You yourself describe Boris as “going low”; so why does that seem not to annoy you as much as the “predictable response”?
Because I know the opponents aren’t interested in solutions - let’s not be naive: they believe in open borders and maximising migration and are using their resources and the full force of the law to advocate and organise for it.
They have no better answers than Rwanda so it makes me want to support it on principle.
As for the opponents, I don’t think various Archbishops and the Prince of Wales and, according to some polling, at least a third of the country, believe in “open borders and maximising migration”, although I concede that some might.
At least in my case, I don’t have a specific objection to Rwanda outright. However I object on the grounds that this does not seem to be a coherent policy unto itself but more a cruel PR stunt.
I object to people’s lives - especially that of the most desperate - being used this way.
I would just ask genuinely how you would resolve these channel crossings because they do have to be resolved as we cannot continue to see these drownings?
And I would genuinely reply (again) that @rcs1000, @Cyclefree, and @Foxy are proposing various solutions that do not involve operating a PR stunt on the backs of a few benighted asylum seekers.
I find myself more in favour of the Rwanda policy the more I see the forces ranged against it.
There's a supremely well organised campaign to undermine it.
I’m shocked, shocked.
What I don’t think many on the Left/centre-Left realise is that they’re playing into Boris’s hands by doing this; they are so utterly sanctimonious and insufferable that their petty pedantry will succeed in generating the cultural dividing line he seeks, and thus shore up his support. I don’t think they realise just how much this sort of legal chicanery stuff pisses people off.
It would have been far better to give the policy a fair shot and let it die and fail on its own merits.
The glacé cherry on the Remoaner cake is the ECHR sticking it’s oar in at the last minute
Like they still run the country. Elite europhile lawyers. Fuck them
Leave the ECHR. Vote for Boris again
The added bonus being that @HYUFD can complain endlessly about how Communists seize private property until even he realises that it will have been a Tory government which will make this very much easier for a future lefty government because property owners will no longer be able to rely on the right to peaceful enjoyment of your possessions contained in Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the ECHR. Or any of the other rights - like the right to an effective remedy or a fair trial.
And who owns property in this country? Oh yes, Tory voters.
God knows how the English managed to come up with Magna Carta fully 700 years before the ECHR. Perhaps some Brussels lawyers time traveled backwards to help the stupid Saxons write their farcical “charter”
It was Normans who wrote the Magna Carta, not the Saxons.
By 1216 the English/Norman distinction was dead. The Great Charter is English.
It took until 1918 for all blokes aged 21 or older to get the vote (1928 for the ladies).
So let’s get this straight. Britain is a quasi-despotic, crypto-sadistic state, teetering on the very edge of Fascism, and this is proved by the fact the government… cannot send one single failed asylum seeker on a plane to a safe foreign hotel
The Remoaner Left should be ashamed of itself. What a degraded spectacle of fraudulent and confected emotions
Hahaha!
The shambolic right has proved once again today that it cannot organise a piss up in a brewery.
Indeed it has. My objection to the Rwanda plan was never the principle - ultimately an Aussie solution is the only one that has ever worked - but more the practice. HMG would never apply it rigorously enough, they’d never beat the endless lefty lawyers, they’d never have the spine to make it work. Because, for it to work, you have to be disciplined and hard hearted, at first
Well now Boris has his new front on the culture war. We need to withdraw from the ECHR and reapply British law in Britain
But they won’t do that either, I bet. So the whole problem will get worse and we’ll cycle around to the same dilemma. But more acute, next time
I find myself more in favour of the Rwanda policy the more I see the forces ranged against it.
There's a supremely well organised campaign to undermine it.
Spot on. What is happening now is a perfect reply to those on the left who claim that the right exaggerates what the left is doing
Eh?
The attempt to classify everyone that has concerns about the Government's Rwanda policy as enemies of people is absurd.
I strongly believe the UK should build and properly staff off-shore processing facilities. I also believe that we should aim to match the Netherlands 98% processed in 10 weeks record. I also believe that we should work to massively reduce the demand pull of the UK by properly clamping down on illegal working.
Rwanda, though, is none of those things. It's not an offshore processing facility. It's a few tens of people, maybe a few hundred in a year, out of maybe 20,000 people arriving. It's a publicity stunt designed to garner a few headlines.
The fact that we're spending so much time on it demonstrates how deeply unserious you are about tackling the problem, and how keen you are to just make into a part of the culture war fight.
Wrong @rcs1000 and you are letting your temper get the better of you.
As I said earlier, I think what both you and @Cyclefree were saying before makes perfect sense. The problem is that, while the likes of myself and (I suspect) @Casino_Royale would accept it, those who essentially want open immigration but realise they can't say that publicly will come out with a 1,001 excuses why your proposals are racist, harmful etc.
You're picking the wrong target. The reason why a lot of people are willing to go with the demagogues is because they have seen how those on the left take the p1ss by blocking any reasonable solution on the grounds it's 'racist' / 'horrific' / 'nazist'. In their world, the only good policy is one that lets everyone in.
Nah, that is total bollocks. I have long advocated internment camps with quick assessment of claims (if the Dutch can do it, why can't we?)
You are one of a few then on the left @Foxy (I'm assuming you are telling the truth). @Casino_Royale is right - what many on the left want is effectively open immigration and everyone let in, that is their asylum policy. No questioning of why France is not a safe country, no questions asked about what the applicants ask - if someone turns up and says "yes, I fear for my life" you are in.
This is nonsense. Virtually nobody on the left wants an open door. Certainly not me or the majority of Labour members.
No-one on the left will explain how they will fairly limit immigration, though.
I’m very happy to.
We continue the policy we have now but we don’t do stupid things like Rwanda. Instead we figure out and stop people making the journey across the Channel. We put an immigration centre in France which was offered and we declined.
We stop cutting Border Force people which the Tories have been doing since 2010. We stop cutting public services.
Cricket sounds so sedate on sky, but RAUCOUS on TMS.
Sky don't really appear to much care about sport.
I know this is a ridiculous statement. I know sport is their raison d'etre. But - unless its football - they just don't seem that excited about it. I remember the first time Sky had the Ryder Cup coverage, and what, on the BBC, had always seemed one of the most fun-packed and eventful sporting events of the year was presented with all the enthusiasm of a traffic count.
Sky's coverage of sport is becoming very stale and outdated, including football.
One thing that is good on Sky's coverage of T20, they actually get current T20 elite players in the commentary box, rather than bloody Vaughan, Tuffers, etc who are absolutely f##king clueless about T20. Sadiq Mahmood the other night was really interesting basically putting the established commentators right about things like no you don't run a single there.
The Test Match Special coverage on the BBC has been absolutely spot on. Great to listen to.
Depends...do you want informed analysis or "entertainment". Its not informed analysis, its morons, totally clueless about modern cricket.
Sky to their credit have realised they had too many who were clueless about modern cricket and shuffled them off (Botham, Holding, Bumble), replacing them generally with much more informed individuals.
Hahaha. What a load of absolute tripe. The BBC commentators have probably forgotten more than the Sky team ever knew. Nothing comes close to TMS coverage. Period.
They probably have, but the problem is the modern game is very different to when players like Botham or Tuffers were playing.
Not really. At least not as far as the 5 day game is concerned. For every Trent Bridge 22 there are still huge numbers of traditional, tactical Test matches where the sorts of heroics we saw today will land you back in the pavilion in short order. I agree they are no good at commentating on the white ball game but they are still perfect for the 5 day variety.
I find myself more in favour of the Rwanda policy the more I see the forces ranged against it.
There's a supremely well organised campaign to undermine it.
I’m shocked, shocked.
What I don’t think many on the Left/centre-Left realise is that they’re playing into Boris’s hands by doing this; they are so utterly sanctimonious and insufferable that their petty pedantry will succeed in generating the cultural dividing line he seeks, and thus shore up his support. I don’t think they realise just how much this sort of legal chicanery stuff pisses people off.
It would have been far better to give the policy a fair shot and let it die and fail on its own merits.
The glacé cherry on the Remoaner cake is the ECHR sticking it’s oar in at the last minute
Like they still run the country. Elite europhile lawyers. Fuck them
Leave the ECHR. Vote for Boris again
The added bonus being that @HYUFD can complain endlessly about how Communists seize private property until even he realises that it will have been a Tory government which will make this very much easier for a future lefty government because property owners will no longer be able to rely on the right to peaceful enjoyment of your possessions contained in Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the ECHR. Or any of the other rights - like the right to an effective remedy or a fair trial.
And who owns property in this country? Oh yes, Tory voters.
God knows how the English managed to come up with Magna Carta fully 700 years before the ECHR. Perhaps some Brussels lawyers time traveled backwards to help the stupid Saxons write their farcical “charter”
It was Normans who wrote the Magna Carta, not the Saxons.
It was also the Normans who banned slavery after 1066, which had been a common practice among the Anglo-Saxons.
I find myself more in favour of the Rwanda policy the more I see the forces ranged against it.
There's a supremely well organised campaign to undermine it.
Spot on. What is happening now is a perfect reply to those on the left who claim that the right exaggerates what the left is doing
Eh?
The attempt to classify everyone that has concerns about the Government's Rwanda policy as enemies of people is absurd.
I strongly believe the UK should build and properly staff off-shore processing facilities. I also believe that we should aim to match the Netherlands 98% processed in 10 weeks record. I also believe that we should work to massively reduce the demand pull of the UK by properly clamping down on illegal working.
Rwanda, though, is none of those things. It's not an offshore processing facility. It's a few tens of people, maybe a few hundred in a year, out of maybe 20,000 people arriving. It's a publicity stunt designed to garner a few headlines.
The fact that we're spending so much time on it demonstrates how deeply unserious you are about tackling the problem, and how keen you are to just make into a part of the culture war fight.
Wrong @rcs1000 and you are letting your temper get the better of you.
As I said earlier, I think what both you and @Cyclefree were saying before makes perfect sense. The problem is that, while the likes of myself and (I suspect) @Casino_Royale would accept it, those who essentially want open immigration but realise they can't say that publicly will come out with a 1,001 excuses why your proposals are racist, harmful etc.
You're picking the wrong target. The reason why a lot of people are willing to go with the demagogues is because they have seen how those on the left take the p1ss by blocking any reasonable solution on the grounds it's 'racist' / 'horrific' / 'nazist'. In their world, the only good policy is one that lets everyone in.
Nah, that is total bollocks. I have long advocated internment camps with quick assessment of claims (if the Dutch can do it, why can't we?)
You are one of a few then on the left @Foxy (I'm assuming you are telling the truth). @Casino_Royale is right - what many on the left want is effectively open immigration and everyone let in, that is their asylum policy. No questioning of why France is not a safe country, no questions asked about what the applicants ask - if someone turns up and says "yes, I fear for my life" you are in.
This is nonsense. Virtually nobody on the left wants an open door. Certainly not me or the majority of Labour members.
Sorry @CorrectHorseBattery you only have to go on the Guardian comments page to see how that is not the case. @Gardenwalker mentioned some polls saying a third wanted open immigration - if there are polls like that (and I haven't seen then), then there are going to be a lot of Labour people represented in those numbers.
No, I said (or tried to say) that around 1/3 are largely looking at the Rwanda issue with compassionate concern. That’s not the same as wanting “open immigration”,
No @Gardenwalker what you typed was "As for the opponents, I don’t think various Archbishops and the Prince of Wales and, according to some polling, at least a third of the country, believe in “open borders and maximising migration”, "
The other reading of course is that you equate compassionate concern with "open borders and maximising migration"
Cricket sounds so sedate on sky, but RAUCOUS on TMS.
Sky don't really appear to much care about sport.
I know this is a ridiculous statement. I know sport is their raison d'etre. But - unless its football - they just don't seem that excited about it. I remember the first time Sky had the Ryder Cup coverage, and what, on the BBC, had always seemed one of the most fun-packed and eventful sporting events of the year was presented with all the enthusiasm of a traffic count.
Sky's coverage of sport is becoming very stale and outdated, including football.
One thing that is good on Sky's coverage of T20, they actually get current T20 elite players in the commentary box, rather than bloody Vaughan, Tuffers, etc who are absolutely f##king clueless about T20. Sadiq Mahmood the other night was really interesting basically putting the established commentators right about things like no you don't run a single there.
The Test Match Special coverage on the BBC has been absolutely spot on. Great to listen to.
Depends...do you want informed analysis or "entertainment". Its not informed analysis, its morons, totally clueless about modern cricket.
Sky to their credit have realised they had too many who were clueless about modern cricket and shuffled them off (Botham, Holding, Bumble), replacing them generally with much more informed individuals.
Hahaha. What a load of absolute tripe. The BBC commentators have probably forgotten more than the Sky team ever knew. Nothing comes close to TMS coverage. Period.
They probably have, but the problem is the modern game is very different to when players like Botham or Tuffers were playing.
Test cricket hasn’t changed that much. I think @FrancisUrquhart is right about T20 coverage, and that won’t change until they get more recent, or active players much more involved in coverage.
Test cricket hasn't?
That hour after tea would have happened in Boycott's day would it?
Test cricket absolutely has evolved thanks to the developments in the very short game.
Nah. Today was very much the exception rather than the rule.
It would have been far better to give the policy a fair shot and let it die and fail on its own merits.
It is dying on its own merits.
It's not legal...
It’s perfectly legal. There dozens of lawyers trying to find spurious grounds to get their clients off at the last minute - appealing to all and sundry to delay/obstruct and obfuscate - often changing the grounds for appeal as and when it suits them. And even if it wasn’t - which it isn’t - the government are entitled to change the law to legislate so it is, which would no doubt be obstructed in turn.
Don’t be too clever. If no solution is found to this then at some point you risk a demagogue authoritarian leader being elected who upon taking office who rips up the rule book and drives a cart & horses through all laws and all lawyers with all sorts of knock on consequences.
(You’re utterly predictable, so you’ll probably respond with something like “we’ve already got one: Boris. Brexit etc.” but that’s your hyperbolic neurotic obsession talking and totally at odds with the reality of what could come next)
If you think such a reaction (from leftists) both predictable and liable to lead to “a demagogue authoritarian leader”, why on earth would you support the government’s policy.
Because they really piss me off and this really pisses them off. And I want them to feel it.
It gets that visceral. That’s what Boris has correctly assessed.
If I was calm I’d say Starmer should come up with better and more effective solutions, along the lines of what cyclefree and rcs1000 outlined earlier, but he needs to rein in the broader mobs of his movement first and go high when Boris goes low.
Have you considered asking yourself why you are so pissed off? Seriously.
You yourself describe Boris as “going low”; so why does that seem not to annoy you as much as the “predictable response”?
Because I know the opponents aren’t interested in solutions - let’s not be naive: they believe in open borders and maximising migration and are using their resources and the full force of the law to advocate and organise for it.
They have no better answers than Rwanda so it makes me want to support it on principle.
As for the opponents, I don’t think various Archbishops and the Prince of Wales and, according to some polling, at least a third of the country, believe in “open borders and maximising migration”, although I concede that some might.
At least in my case, I don’t have a specific objection to Rwanda outright. However I object on the grounds that this does not seem to be a coherent policy unto itself but more a cruel PR stunt.
I object to people’s lives - especially that of the most desperate - being used this way.
I would just ask genuinely how you would resolve these channel crossings because they do have to be resolved as we cannot continue to see these drownings?
And I would genuinely reply (again) that @rcs1000, @Cyclefree, and @Foxy are proposing various solutions that do not involve operating a PR stunt on the backs of a few benighted asylum seekers.
I find myself more in favour of the Rwanda policy the more I see the forces ranged against it.
There's a supremely well organised campaign to undermine it.
Spot on. What is happening now is a perfect reply to those on the left who claim that the right exaggerates what the left is doing
Eh?
The attempt to classify everyone that has concerns about the Government's Rwanda policy as enemies of people is absurd.
I strongly believe the UK should build and properly staff off-shore processing facilities. I also believe that we should aim to match the Netherlands 98% processed in 10 weeks record. I also believe that we should work to massively reduce the demand pull of the UK by properly clamping down on illegal working.
Rwanda, though, is none of those things. It's not an offshore processing facility. It's a few tens of people, maybe a few hundred in a year, out of maybe 20,000 people arriving. It's a publicity stunt designed to garner a few headlines.
The fact that we're spending so much time on it demonstrates how deeply unserious you are about tackling the problem, and how keen you are to just make into a part of the culture war fight.
Wrong @rcs1000 and you are letting your temper get the better of you.
As I said earlier, I think what both you and @Cyclefree were saying before makes perfect sense. The problem is that, while the likes of myself and (I suspect) @Casino_Royale would accept it, those who essentially want open immigration but realise they can't say that publicly will come out with a 1,001 excuses why your proposals are racist, harmful etc.
You're picking the wrong target. The reason why a lot of people are willing to go with the demagogues is because they have seen how those on the left take the p1ss by blocking any reasonable solution on the grounds it's 'racist' / 'horrific' / 'nazist'. In their world, the only good policy is one that lets everyone in.
Nah, that is total bollocks. I have long advocated internment camps with quick assessment of claims (if the Dutch can do it, why can't we?)
You are one of a few then on the left @Foxy (I'm assuming you are telling the truth). @Casino_Royale is right - what many on the left want is effectively open immigration and everyone let in, that is their asylum policy. No questioning of why France is not a safe country, no questions asked about what the applicants ask - if someone turns up and says "yes, I fear for my life" you are in.
This is nonsense. Virtually nobody on the left wants an open door. Certainly not me or the majority of Labour members.
Sorry @CorrectHorseBattery you only have to go on the Guardian comments page to see how that is not the case. @Gardenwalker mentioned some polls saying a third wanted open immigration - if there are polls like that (and I haven't seen then), then there are going to be a lot of Labour people represented in those numbers.
No, I said (or tried to say) that around 1/3 are largely looking at the Rwanda issue with compassionate concern. That’s not the same as wanting “open immigration”,
Bad faith arguing as usual from people on this issue.
If you think that asylum seekers should have an unhindered right to decided where to apply, that we have an obligation to accept them and that deportation is morally wrong, how is that not an open door in practice?
No it isn’t an open door. Because if they aren’t legitimate we remove them. But we keep cutting the Border Force staff.
My issue is that the methods we implement are totally useless.
Comments
His preoccupations remind me of the protagonist of Kundera's The Unbearable Lightness of Being. Rootless in a way - even before he went into Parisian exile.
They have no better answers than Rwanda so it makes me want to support it on principle.
I'd like to poo-pooh (sp?) however, the idea that the site is going to the dogs, is just a lot of abuse, is just partisan slanging, etc. This is a constant complaint. Yet this remains one of the most civilised places on the internet despite us discussing highly contentious subjects. OK, skyscrapercity might be slightly more friendly, but everyone there is essentially on the same side. Here, we manage to approach subjects from across the divide and still we learn and occasionally convince each other. Just this morning, for example, Malc and I moved from a position of disagreement to one of friendly agreement. I'd also say the levels of abuse are no worse than they've ever been and considerably better than they have sometimes been.
But at the same time, this plan is going to make life worse for actual people who have actually suffered a lot. So to try to prevent that is an honourable thing, isn't it?
If you think a great wrong is being done, you don't wait until 2023/4/5 in the hope of being able to undo it then. Democracy has never been about giving the winners a political blank cheque until the next election.
So (roughy) what tactics would you advise?
And here you are
I suspect they have less of an industry of activist lawyers seeking to spin everything out until doomsday.
Ignore. Breathe. That means both sides.
George Osborne, LBC
"Saturdays kids play one arm bandits,
They never win but that's not the point is it,
Dip in silver paper when their pints go flat,
How about that, far out!"
This is a specific and dangerous problem and issue, which I have not heard people like yourself provide an alternative
As for the opponents, I don’t think various Archbishops and the Prince of Wales and, according to some polling, at least a third of the country, believe in “open borders and maximising migration”, although I concede that some might.
At least in my case, I don’t have a specific objection to Rwanda outright. However I object on the grounds that this does not seem to be a coherent policy unto itself but more a cruel PR stunt.
I object to people’s lives - especially that of the most desperate - being used this way.
"[He's] good as it can be for Labour"
https://twitter.com/LukeTryl/status/1536787287001931781
Not unique to Britain, although perhaps more acute for various reasons.
As long as he’s less unpopular than Johnson Hung Parliament remains my central forecast.
First- that we're entitled to be Top Nation, and that anything below that is failure.
Second- that as soon as anything goes wrong, find someone high profile to blame and photoshop their face onto a turnip of something. Then find a guru who is going to lead us to the promised land we have promised ourselves...
Interestingly, Tom Peck reports that he sat next to Truss during a dinner during the brexit campaign and she was adamant that Remain would win - probably by 60/40.
Hmmmm.
The Remoaner Left should be ashamed of itself. What a degraded spectacle of fraudulent and confected emotions
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jun/14/jacob-rees-mogg-plan-to-axe-eu-laws-sparks-cabinet-row
We all know this.
More positively, and to my surprise, I’ve seen good policy suggestions here today from @Foxy @kinabalu and @Cyclefree , not all of whom I always agree with, particularly the first two, so it should be possible for us to work cross-party on this to come up with a solution rather than dig trenches.
But, I suspect many prefer to dig trenches.
Fundamental as it is, the world has moved on a tad since 1215.
The shambolic right has proved once again today that it cannot organise a piss up in a brewery.
Do you think the Daily Mail comments represent the Tory Party. This is the level of stupidity you’re operating at here mate. You’re better than this
Of course, after todays England Football performance, leaving UEFA might get some traction too
But that's missing the point.
Don't be defined by your opponents. Be defined by what it moral, right and fair. Don't make policy for headlines, make it to solve underlying problems.
The moment you define anything by who is opposed to it, you are giving up the moral high ground.
Not only that, but 90% of people want us to be compassionate, but controlled. The fact we're arguing over a policy that involves - at best - a few hundred people being sent to Rwanda demonstrates how much we've completely lost the fucking plot.
A judicious opening technique also helps retain carbonation.
2) provide medical and legal support to accelerate assessment
3) resolve applications swiftly and fairly
4) keep failed applicants in internment camps in the UK until they are deported or voluntarily leave.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/14/uk-at-start-of-new-covid-wave-driven-by-ba4-and-ba5-new-data-suggests
It's a view........
I’d be willing to take in a higher proportion of genuine vulnerable refugees, particularly women and children who don’t have the same resources, directly from refugee camps around the world up to an annual limit set through democratic politics, and those political dissidents fleeing genuinely murderous and vindictive regimes.
You?
That is all this policy is about.
As I have ranted before on here.
Johnson must be wetting himself over the coverage. He doesn't care if the end result is that half of Rwanda actually moves to the UK.
And if people say: the government will be happy because it can blame lefty lawyers/ECHR etc. - don't believe it. They really wanted this flight to go ahead.
Well now Boris has his new front on the culture war. We need to withdraw from the ECHR and reapply British law in Britain
But they won’t do that either, I bet. So the whole problem will get worse and we’ll cycle around to the same dilemma. But more acute, next time
Wait for the next big drownings
We continue the policy we have now but we don’t do stupid things like Rwanda. Instead we figure out and stop people making the journey across the Channel. We put an immigration centre in France which was offered and we declined.
We stop cutting Border Force people which the Tories have been doing since 2010. We stop cutting public services.
That’s an effective response.
The other reading of course is that you equate compassionate concern with "open borders and maximising migration"
Still occasionally see a masker on the trains. Baffling.
My issue is that the methods we implement are totally useless.
We've always been at war after all.