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.
For about the millionth time on this site it is "Magna Carta" not "The Magna Carta".
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.
150 years will not be long enough to end the Brexiteer/Remoaner distinction, so that might be contentious....
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?
ID cards for all, and incentives (including a route to citizenship) for those who shop employers of illegal immigrants and people smugglers.
Illegal immigrants are already excluded from the benefits system, with no route to employment the incentives for people to try to enter illegally would be very much reduced.
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.
There are obvious structural problems with the system of asylum. But the UK are not quitting international conventions/agreements on asylum or even trying to reform them. Instead they are doing bad stunts like this.
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.
Their so-called “solutions” are comical
You seemed to (grudgingly) concede they had a point earlier, but I guess you are now deeper in your cups.
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.
Their so-called “solutions” are comical
Why don’t you propose something. You don’t really propose you just argue pointlessly over a bottle of something
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.
Yes, spotting previous posters with new names is something I like to do and tragically I'm very good at it.
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’s absolutely true I’m afraid.
It’s not representative of you but that’s not the same thing.
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"
Well I was unclear.
What I meant was that the Archbishops and the PoW and a third of the population oppose this policy, but I don’t think that’s the same thing as desiring “open borders”.
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.
Yep. Spot on. Ignore. Does anyone think the government wanted this flight to take off? That's not how the PM works.
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.
Fine, and I would agree with all their suggestions. But it's a fairly safe bet that the same types who are organising today's legal actions would also take action against what all three have suggested and use the same vitriol. To these types, all that matters is open immigration.
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’s absolutely true I’m afraid.
It’s not representative of you but that’s not the same thing.
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.
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
It is the answer to the problem. If it had been done some time ago we would not be having the current problem.
The idea of an open door in Labour was so unpopular the leadership overruled it and tried to change the rules so a minority position could not become party policy again.
And that was under Corbyn.
I am utterly fed up with a few users pretending they know how Labour works. It is evident they are just blagging it.
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?
ID cards for all, and incentives (including a route to citizenship) for those who shop employers of illegal immigrants and people smugglers.
Illegal immigrants are already excluded from the benefits system, with no route to employment the incentives for people to try to enter illegally would be very much reduced.
There is merit in that and I am happy to have an ID card but not sure it is politically possible at present
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.
Has any significant political figure - Labour, Conservative, or other - attempted to put a figure on how much asylum and undocumented immigration the country can reasonably be expected to tolerate each year?
Until someone engages with this topic properly then we can only assume that they're acting according to their stereotypical impulses: the Tories will let pretty much all the migrants in because they want a flood of cheap workers (but will make occasional performative gestures to con their supporters into believing otherwise,) whereas Labour will let them all in because they're universalists and believe that borders = discrimination = bad.
Of course, trust in politicians is, in any event, so badly corroded that most of us wouldn't believe them even if they produced a vaguely workable looking plan and promised to introduce it. Personally I'm entirely cynical and don't trust any political party on any subject at all.
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.
Fine, and I would agree with all their suggestions. But it's a fairly safe bet that the same types who are organising today's legal actions would also take action against what all three have suggested and use the same vitriol. To these types, all that matters is open immigration.
So in summary you don’t know and you’re making it up.
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.
There are obvious structural problems with the system of asylum. But the UK are not quitting international conventions/agreements on asylum or even trying to reform them. Instead they are doing bad stunts like this.
Indeed, withdrawing of the convention on Asylum would be a more honest approach.
"Unless someone wants to actually topple Johnson, [one of all these tory candidates] are going to be leader of the Opposition"
George Osborne, LBC
Is this the same Osborne who thought an EU referendum was a good idea?
Actually he was privately opposed to it and counselled David Cameron against it.
It seems this is a largely unknown fact and yet it might well be the best piece of ignored public policy advice by a key aide or minister in a hundred years.
iirc he told Cameron he was "crazy" to go for a vote.
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.
Their so-called “solutions” are comical
Why don’t you propose something. You don’t really propose you just argue pointlessly over a bottle of something
"Unless someone wants to actually topple Johnson, [one of all these tory candidates] are going to be leader of the Opposition"
George Osborne, LBC
Is this the same Osborne who thought an EU referendum was a good idea?
Actually he was privately opposed to it and counselled David Cameron against it.
It seems this is a largely unknown fact and yet it might well be the best piece of ignored public policy advice by a key aide or minister in a hundred years.
iirc he told Cameron he was "crazy" to go for a vote.
Does anyone seriously think leaving the ECHR is a good idea?
Yes, if any court was going to stop the government it should be the UK High Court, court of appeal or SCOTUK.
I think that for all the comments tonight that is going to be the argument of HMG
Who makes our laws and who has the final say, UK courts or others ?
Tbh the single market is such a boon for trading that you need to take the rough with the smooth in terms of letting higher powers orwhatnot stick their oar into our laws, a price I'd be well willing to pay to be within either the EU or EFTA. Outside it ? Fuck off
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.
No, that's a caricature. Give me one quote from a Labour politician, even on the left, that suggests we should let everyone in.
The point about France is simply that we shouldn't hide behind the fact that we're harder to get at than France is - developed countries should try to take a share that they feel they can manage - I reckon most people would be up for 0.1-0.2% of the population per year, i.e. 100 or so people in an average constituency (=65,000 nationally).
It should however be counted as a point in FAVOUR of the application if it's done at a distance where the applicant is currently living (whether a dangerous place or a refugee camp). Make people feel that the best shot at applying is doing it where they live, rather than risking their life to have a less good chance. At present, it's the other way round - you have a far better chance of asylum if you arrive in a leaky boat, so we have a sort of Hunger Games approach - yes, we'll consider you but only if you risk your life.
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.
Their so-called “solutions” are comical
Why don’t you propose something. You don’t really propose you just argue pointlessly over a bottle of something
Withdraw from the ECHR. Write new law
Send them to Rwanda (or, like the EU, to Libya)
The ECHR has nothing to do with any of that. As usual your ignorance shows through.
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.
All those involved in writing it were descendants of Normans.
Covid as a major concern is over. As I said last year; it is here to stay as a virus. People now prefer the risk to any restrictions.
Still occasionally see a masker on the trains. Baffling.
Wearing a mask is effective at reducing spread of COVID-19 and other respiratory diseases. Wearing a mask is a pretty easy thing to do. What's baffling about someone doing something easy to reduce their risk, or reduce the risk they pose to others?
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.
Covid as a major concern is over. As I said last year; it is here to stay as a virus. People now prefer the risk to any restrictions.
Still occasionally see a masker on the trains. Baffling.
Wearing a mask is effective at reducing spread of COVID-19 and other respiratory diseases. Wearing a mask is a pretty easy thing to do. What's baffling about someone doing something easy to reduce their risk, or reduce the risk they pose to others?
Yeah I don’t mask up anymore but if you want to, so what. That’s up to them.
Or is it personal responsibility but not like that as usual from these people?
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.
And, when it comes down to it, competent evil can get you quite a long way. Obviously competent good is nicer to live with and morally better, but competent evil isn't that bad as long as you keep your head down. It's the classic argument for unpleasant strongmen rulers in unstable semi-democracies. Pinochet, or early Putin.
This government likes picking fights, doing things to shock the old elites. But because of who they are, they are the political equivalent of the chancers you used to see on those America's Dumbest Criminals shows.
To take a topical example, it ought not to have been that hard to find 50 people who unambiguously shouldn't be in the UK, check that the strories and legal stuff were watertight and get them out. That didn't happen, partly because the government are incompetent, partly because this is a rush job, partly becuase the headlines were the point of the policy- who the hell reads the paragraphs?
The trouble the government have is that, irrespective of their media prowess, reality has a habit of winning. Northern towns not feeling levelled up. Backlog Britain. More month than paycheck. That sort of thing.
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 haven't seen @Richard_Tyndall and his views but I would suspect they come from an economically liberal standpoint, namely that open immigration reduces the cost of labour for businesses. Great for businesses - not for those who are most at risk from such an inflation of the labour supply, namely the poor.
However, we digress.
What I want is a fair and just immigration and asylum policy. We do not have that at the moment. As I mentioned before, I agree with many of the suggestions on here (including yours). However, the same lobby that has worked against the Rwanda plans would work against yours, and would use the same language. If you came out publicly with your plans and said this, you would be quickly branded a racist by these groups, even if not by the left-leaning posters on here.
I'm happy to go with yours, and others, plans. We are not losing the plot over that. What the plot is being lost over is that there are very well organised / funded groups out who will do everything they can to ensure that we have open immigration and that becomes the stated policy, even if it goes against the views of most people (who they view as racist bigots whose voice doesn't count anyway).
1. Those of us who oppose the Rwanda plan are sometimes asked what our alternative is. The idea that the only possible response to small boat arrivals is to ship some of them to Rwanda is self evidently absurd. There are plenty of alternatives. 🧵 https://twitter.com/ColinYeo1/status/1536747810661576706
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’s absolutely true I’m afraid.
It’s not representative of you but that’s not the same thing.
You are fighting at phantoms.
It is much easier to argue against made up positions of opponents than their real positions.
The discussion on here tonight from some posters reveals a disturbing attitude towards human suffering. Happy to inflict others with situations that would be a nightmare if it happened to them and their families.
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 haven't seen @Richard_Tyndall and his views but I would suspect they come from an economically liberal standpoint, namely that open immigration reduces the cost of labour for businesses. Great for businesses - not for those who are most at risk from such an inflation of the labour supply, namely the poor.
However, we digress.
What I want is a fair and just immigration and asylum policy. We do not have that at the moment. As I mentioned before, I agree with many of the suggestions on here (including yours). However, the same lobby that has worked against the Rwanda plans would work against yours, and would use the same language. If you came out publicly with your plans and said this, you would be quickly branded a racist by these groups, even if not by the left-leaning posters on here.
I'm happy to go with yours, and others, plans. We are not losing the plot over that. What the plot is being lost over is that there are very well organised / funded groups out who will do everything they can to ensure that we have open immigration and that becomes the stated policy, even if it goes against the views of most people (who they view as racist bigots whose voice doesn't count anyway).
Jesus Christ what drivel. You obviously have never read a single one of Richard’s posts.
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.
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 mean, good for you and all, but I never hear much about these solutions other than “safe and legal routes” so you’d be forgiven if people missed that along the way.
Incidentally, it really says something about how the balance of this site has changed that this post got 6 likes on the views of Labour members in less than 15 minutes after 10pm on a Tuesday night.
I’m old enough to remember when this site was critiqued for having a Tory herd.
The discussion on here tonight from some posters reveals a disturbing attitude towards human suffering. Happy to inflict others with situations that would be a nightmare if it happened to them and their families.
Time for another break from PB methinks
Whereas you prefer to watch people drown in the Channel? Bravo, bravo
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.
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 mean, good for you and all, but I never hear much about these solutions other than “safe and legal routes” so you’d be forgiven if people missed that along the way.
Incidentally, it really says something about how the balance of this site has changed that this post got 6 likes on the views of Labour members in less than 15 minutes after 10pm on a Tuesday night.
I’m old enough to remember when this site was critiqued for having a Tory herd.
I provided a load which you ignored.
And the people that liked my post weren’t even majority Labour members.
Genuinely I mean this kindly but you come across incredibly condescendingly in all of your posts. Perhaps something to think about.
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.
Their so-called “solutions” are comical
I mean, it's like asking a flint-knapper about Artificial Intelligence immigration policy.
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.
No it's mainly down to bad data. The Annual Population Survey misses a whole load of categories of housing, that was one of the main sources for the application estimate. National Insurance data also suggests that migration has been significantly higher than officially recorded. So it's not just "they've gone home" we really do not have a good estimate for the migrant population of the UK because we do a lousy job of collecting data and recording entry and exit.
Hear me out, obviously you know and I know the ECHR has nothing to do with the EU but by using it to whip the gammon into the highest of frothing puce dudgeon isn’t Johnson effectively showing his core that oops he didn’t actually commit brexit as claimed? https://twitter.com/ottocrat/status/1536825273781477376/photo/1
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.
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 mean, good for you and all, but I never hear much about these solutions other than “safe and legal routes” so you’d be forgiven if people missed that along the way.
Incidentally, it really says something about how the balance of this site has changed that this post got 6 likes on the views of Labour members in less than 15 minutes after 10pm on a Tuesday night.
I’m old enough to remember when this site was critiqued for having a Tory herd.
There are still plenty of right-leaning posters on PB; not so many are Tory supporters these days, because the Tories have made themselves very hard to like.
I'd guess the split is 60:40 in favour of the right.
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.
Their so-called “solutions” are comical
Why don’t you propose something. You don’t really propose you just argue pointlessly over a bottle of something
Withdraw from the ECHR. Write new law
Send them to Rwanda (or, like the EU, to Libya)
Johnson and Patel will almost certainly amend or repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 now so this ECHR ruling cannot overrule their Rwanda asylum policy
The discussion on here tonight from some posters reveals a disturbing attitude towards human suffering. Happy to inflict others with situations that would be a nightmare if it happened to them and their families.
Time for another break from PB methinks
Whereas you prefer to watch people drown in the Channel? Bravo, bravo
I want to stop that.
Do you agree that Rwanda has not stopped it at all?
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.
No, that's a caricature. Give me one quote from a Labour politician, even on the left, that suggests we should let everyone in.
The point about France is simply that we shouldn't hide behind the fact that we're harder to get at than France is - developed countries should try to take a share that they feel they can manage - I reckon most people would be up for 0.1-0.2% of the population per year, i.e. 100 or so people in an average constituency (=65,000 nationally).
It should however be counted as a point in FAVOUR of the application if it's done at a distance where the applicant is currently living (whether a dangerous place or a refugee camp). Make people feel that the best shot at applying is doing it where they live, rather than risking their life to have a less good chance. At present, it's the other way round - you have a far better chance of asylum if you arrive in a leaky boat, so we have a sort of Hunger Games approach - yes, we'll consider you but only if you risk your life.
I have said before Nick, even the activist groups won't come out in public and say that - they are too smart to know that it would undermine their plans. It's hidden behind emotive language but the goal is the same: let everyone in who wants to come in on the slimmest of pretexts. Let's flip the question - how many migrant charity groups have come out and said they support ANY deportation, even when it's obvious there is not a case? I can't think of one and I bet you can't either.
As for the 0.1% - 0.2%, ok. Does that include their families? Because you know as well as I do that 'immediate' family members would be let in, so how many extra relatives for each person is that? I reckon 4-6 per applicant would come in claiming to be close relatives, so we are now talking 400-600 people in each constituency. And we all know they are not going into Primrose Hill or Dartmouth Park.
The fact that you don't even see it as a problem shows that many on the left just don't see it as an issue.
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.
Their so-called “solutions” are comical
Why don’t you propose something. You don’t really propose you just argue pointlessly over a bottle of something
Withdraw from the ECHR. Write new law
Send them to Rwanda (or, like the EU, to Libya)
Johnson and Patel will almost certainly amend or repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 now so this ECHR ruling cannot overrule their Rwanda asylum policy
And we all lose out to defend a policy that doesn’t work.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think Boris has any intention of withdrawing from the ECHR.
However he has every intention of stoking up division, hatred and witch-hunts by pretending he might do so.
Sunder Kutwala this morning highlighted that “You should be sent to Rwanda” is now being used as a term of abuse on David Lammy, Sadiq Khan, and even Priti Patel.
Meanwhile one of my friends - who happens to be a “lefty lawyer” involved in the asylum seeker defences - was today emailed that she was a “menacing whore waiting to be raped”.
I don’t really have much time for the idea that this is all fair dos because Boris gets to “own the libs”.
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.
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 mean, good for you and all, but I never hear much about these solutions other than “safe and legal routes” so you’d be forgiven if people missed that along the way.
Incidentally, it really says something about how the balance of this site has changed that this post got 6 likes on the views of Labour members in less than 15 minutes after 10pm on a Tuesday night.
I’m old enough to remember when this site was critiqued for having a Tory herd.
There are still plenty of right-leaning posters on PB; not so many are Tory supporters these days, because the Tories have made themselves very hard to like.
I'd guess the split is 60:40 in favour of the right.
I'd guess the split on here now is at least 60 left 40 right including Labour, LD and SNP supporters as left.
The discussion on here tonight from some posters reveals a disturbing attitude towards human suffering. Happy to inflict others with situations that would be a nightmare if it happened to them and their families.
Time for another break from PB methinks
Please don't go - we need all the sane voices to be heard!
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 haven't seen @Richard_Tyndall and his views but I would suspect they come from an economically liberal standpoint, namely that open immigration reduces the cost of labour for businesses. Great for businesses - not for those who are most at risk from such an inflation of the labour supply, namely the poor.
However, we digress.
What I want is a fair and just immigration and asylum policy. We do not have that at the moment. As I mentioned before, I agree with many of the suggestions on here (including yours). However, the same lobby that has worked against the Rwanda plans would work against yours, and would use the same language. If you came out publicly with your plans and said this, you would be quickly branded a racist by these groups, even if not by the left-leaning posters on here.
I'm happy to go with yours, and others, plans. We are not losing the plot over that. What the plot is being lost over is that there are very well organised / funded groups out who will do everything they can to ensure that we have open immigration and that becomes the stated policy, even if it goes against the views of most people (who they view as racist bigots whose voice doesn't count anyway).
Jesus Christ what drivel. You obviously have never read a single one of Richard’s posts.
I like you Horse but sometimes you need to take up reading. My first sentence says "I haven't seen @Richard_Tyndall and his views "
Hear me out, obviously you know and I know the ECHR has nothing to do with the EU but by using it to whip the gammon into the highest of frothing puce dudgeon isn’t Johnson effectively showing his core that oops he didn’t actually commit brexit as claimed? https://twitter.com/ottocrat/status/1536825273781477376/photo/1
Do you think planting the idea that Brexit won't be complete until we've left the ECHR is helpful to your cause?
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?
ID cards for all, and incentives (including a route to citizenship) for those who shop employers of illegal immigrants and people smugglers.
Illegal immigrants are already excluded from the benefits system, with no route to employment the incentives for people to try to enter illegally would be very much reduced.
There is merit in that and I am happy to have an ID card but not sure it is politically possible at present
It seems a little illogical to me to change the entire British way of life in order to hamper the course of illegal migration. It is surely simpler to (politely and kindly) prevent illegal migration in the first place.
As I have said before, and I believe others here have agreed the idea has merit, all British asylum claims should be processed overseas. The successful applicants would be brought to Britain and assisted in their new lives. Those who arrived in the UK to claim assylum would be taken to the nearest overseas claim centre. Those who arrived hoping to evade any authority at all would be swiftly deported. Thus no more dangerous boats, no more trafficking.
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.
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 mean, good for you and all, but I never hear much about these solutions other than “safe and legal routes” so you’d be forgiven if people missed that along the way.
Incidentally, it really says something about how the balance of this site has changed that this post got 6 likes on the views of Labour members in less than 15 minutes after 10pm on a Tuesday night.
I’m old enough to remember when this site was critiqued for having a Tory herd.
I provided a load which you ignored.
And the people that liked my post weren’t even majority Labour members.
Genuinely I mean this kindly but you come across incredibly condescendingly in all of your posts. Perhaps something to think about.
Condescending ? No. That’s in the eye of the beholder. I wasn’t referring to you personally. I was referring to the Labour leadership and left-wing campaign groups who never explain how they’d do the “control” piece.
Sometimes I get a bit fruity when I’m wound up. Different and not personal.
Hear me out, obviously you know and I know the ECHR has nothing to do with the EU but by using it to whip the gammon into the highest of frothing puce dudgeon isn’t Johnson effectively showing his core that oops he didn’t actually commit brexit as claimed? https://twitter.com/ottocrat/status/1536825273781477376/photo/1
Do you think planting the idea that Brexit won't be complete until we've left the ECHR is helpful to your cause?
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 haven't seen @Richard_Tyndall and his views but I would suspect they come from an economically liberal standpoint, namely that open immigration reduces the cost of labour for businesses. Great for businesses - not for those who are most at risk from such an inflation of the labour supply, namely the poor.
However, we digress.
What I want is a fair and just immigration and asylum policy. We do not have that at the moment. As I mentioned before, I agree with many of the suggestions on here (including yours). However, the same lobby that has worked against the Rwanda plans would work against yours, and would use the same language. If you came out publicly with your plans and said this, you would be quickly branded a racist by these groups, even if not by the left-leaning posters on here.
I'm happy to go with yours, and others, plans. We are not losing the plot over that. What the plot is being lost over is that there are very well organised / funded groups out who will do everything they can to ensure that we have open immigration and that becomes the stated policy, even if it goes against the views of most people (who they view as racist bigots whose voice doesn't count anyway).
Jesus Christ what drivel. You obviously have never read a single one of Richard’s posts.
I like you Horse but sometimes you need to take up reading. My first sentence says "I haven't seen @Richard_Tyndall and his views "
And then you opined on them anyway. Which makes the point worthless.
I like you too a lot and you get a lot of unnecessary abuse but you have written some utter drivel tonight and insulted me and a lot of Labour members. I won’t say how the Tories work because I don’t know. But you evidently don’t have a clue about Labour.
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?
ID cards for all, and incentives (including a route to citizenship) for those who shop employers of illegal immigrants and people smugglers.
Illegal immigrants are already excluded from the benefits system, with no route to employment the incentives for people to try to enter illegally would be very much reduced.
There is merit in that and I am happy to have an ID card but not sure it is politically possible at present
It seems a little illogical to me to change the entire British way of life in order to hamper the course of illegal migration. It is surely simpler to (politely and kindly) prevent illegal migration in the first place.
As I have said before, and I believe others here have agreed the idea has merit, all British asylum claims should be processed overseas. The successful applicants would be brought to Britain and assisted in their new lives. Those who arrived in the UK to claim assylum would be taken to the nearest overseas claim centre. Those who arrived hoping to evade any authority at all would be swiftly deported. Thus no more dangerous boats, no more trafficking.
Gosh, how clever of you
Couple of questions. Deported where? And where is this “nearest overseas claim centre”?
From the political perspective as I said when it was announced, this policy is genius.
Not convinced it is tbh. There's always a temptation to fight the last war. It may work at the margins. But cost of living and poor public services are all I hear about*. Even from those who non-stop used to moan about immigration.
*Outwith this board in real life.
It seems like Boris has fallen back on the Greatest Hits after the difficult second album bombed. It's Second Coming after the Stone Roses stuff.
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...?
If the UK were a member of both the EU and the Schengen area there would be no small boat crossings in the channel, no drownings, no people smuggling cartels making money from the whole thing.
Refugees would take a ferry or the tunnel and then lodge a claim in Britain which could then be processed.
And the vast majority of people living here would see either zero impact of this, or quite possibly a net economic benefit as well as very nice easy trips all around the continent with no passport queues, and no more distressing news reports about small boat crossings.
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 haven't seen @Richard_Tyndall and his views but I would suspect they come from an economically liberal standpoint, namely that open immigration reduces the cost of labour for businesses. Great for businesses - not for those who are most at risk from such an inflation of the labour supply, namely the poor.
However, we digress.
What I want is a fair and just immigration and asylum policy. We do not have that at the moment. As I mentioned before, I agree with many of the suggestions on here (including yours). However, the same lobby that has worked against the Rwanda plans would work against yours, and would use the same language. If you came out publicly with your plans and said this, you would be quickly branded a racist by these groups, even if not by the left-leaning posters on here.
I'm happy to go with yours, and others, plans. We are not losing the plot over that. What the plot is being lost over is that there are very well organised / funded groups out who will do everything they can to ensure that we have open immigration and that becomes the stated policy, even if it goes against the views of most people (who they view as racist bigots whose voice doesn't count anyway).
Jesus Christ what drivel. You obviously have never read a single one of Richard’s posts.
I like you Horse but sometimes you need to take up reading. My first sentence says "I haven't seen @Richard_Tyndall and his views "
And then you opined on them anyway. Which makes the point worthless.
I like you too a lot and you get a lot of unnecessary abuse but you have written some utter drivel tonight and insulted me and a lot of Labour members. I won’t say how the Tories work because I don’t know. But you evidently don’t have a clue about Labour.
I guessed about them and it was a short paragraph which I also said was an aside. The main part of my post was talking about how I agreed with many of the proposals said by people on here for safe asylum.
I'm sorry you think they are drivel and I'm sure a lot of people agree with you. However, I will say I think it is telling that you can post on here that you agree with the proposals others have put forwards and then be ripped for saying that. I will go back to the original post I made on this topic - this issue has fallen right into the hands of BJ because it ticks many of the boxes for those who voted for him in 2019.
I also think with regards to your comment about 'insulting' Labour people by claiming they want open immigration, actually it's not far from the truth. I will ask the same question I asked of Nick P - how many asylum groups do you know who have actually said that deportation is right in some circumstances?
For what it’s worth, I don’t think Boris has any intention of withdrawing from the ECHR.
However he has every intention of stoking up division, hatred and witch-hunts by pretending he might do so.
Sunder Kutwala this morning highlighted that “You should be sent to Rwanda” is now being used as a term of abuse on David Lammy, Sadiq Khan, and even Priti Patel.
Meanwhile one of my friends - who happens to be a “lefty lawyer” involved in the asylum seeker defences - was today emailed that she was a “menacing whore waiting to be raped”.
I don’t really have much time for the idea that this is all fair dos because Boris gets to “own the libs”.
Asylum seekers.
Just one more group thrown under the bus to enable Big Dog to get through another week.
And the bonus is that lawyers go under the wheels as well. And we all know who is lawyer.
When will tory mps end this nightmare?
Burke and Thatcher must be turning in their graves.
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?
ID cards for all, and incentives (including a route to citizenship) for those who shop employers of illegal immigrants and people smugglers.
Illegal immigrants are already excluded from the benefits system, with no route to employment the incentives for people to try to enter illegally would be very much reduced.
There is merit in that and I am happy to have an ID card but not sure it is politically possible at present
It seems a little illogical to me to change the entire British way of life in order to hamper the course of illegal migration. It is surely simpler to (politely and kindly) prevent illegal migration in the first place.
As I have said before, and I believe others here have agreed the idea has merit, all British asylum claims should be processed overseas. The successful applicants would be brought to Britain and assisted in their new lives. Those who arrived in the UK to claim assylum would be taken to the nearest overseas claim centre. Those who arrived hoping to evade any authority at all would be swiftly deported. Thus no more dangerous boats, no more trafficking.
Gosh, how clever of you
Couple of questions. Deported where? And where is this “nearest overseas claim centre”?
I would have one in Sub-Saharan Africa, one on the Indian Subcontinent, one in Eastern/Central Europe and probably one in the Far East. They would need to be easy to get to from the world trouble spots. There would be no assylum processing done in the UK - no facilities for it.
From the political perspective as I said when it was announced, this policy is genius.
Not convinced it is tbh. There's always a temptation to fight the last war. It may work at the margins. But cost of living and poor public services are all I hear about*. Even from those who non-stop used to moan about immigration.
*Outwith this board in real life.
It seems like Boris has fallen back on the Greatest Hits after the difficult second album bombed. It's Second Coming after the Stone Roses stuff.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think Boris has any intention of withdrawing from the ECHR.
However he has every intention of stoking up division, hatred and witch-hunts by pretending he might do so.
Sunder Kutwala this morning highlighted that “You should be sent to Rwanda” is now being used as a term of abuse on David Lammy, Sadiq Khan, and even Priti Patel.
Meanwhile one of my friends - who happens to be a “lefty lawyer” involved in the asylum seeker defences - was today emailed that she was a “menacing whore waiting to be raped”.
I don’t really have much time for the idea that this is all fair dos because Boris gets to “own the libs”.
On Newsnight just now the figures on illegal arrivals have doubled on last year, despite the threat of deportation to Rwanda. Indeed several hundred arrived today, so the policy doesn't seem to be a successful deterrent. Most are Afghans apparently.
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.
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 mean, good for you and all, but I never hear much about these solutions other than “safe and legal routes” so you’d be forgiven if people missed that along the way.
Incidentally, it really says something about how the balance of this site has changed that this post got 6 likes on the views of Labour members in less than 15 minutes after 10pm on a Tuesday night.
I’m old enough to remember when this site was critiqued for having a Tory herd.
There are still plenty of right-leaning posters on PB; not so many are Tory supporters these days, because the Tories have made themselves very hard to like.
I'd guess the split is 60:40 in favour of the right.
I'd guess the split on here now is at least 60 left 40 right including Labour, LD and SNP supporters as left.
Though a number of Cameroon Tories now LD too
That would be in line with UK opinion polling. 60-65% Labour, Lib Dem, Green, SNP. 35% Tory + REFUK.
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.
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 mean, good for you and all, but I never hear much about these solutions other than “safe and legal routes” so you’d be forgiven if people missed that along the way.
Incidentally, it really says something about how the balance of this site has changed that this post got 6 likes on the views of Labour members in less than 15 minutes after 10pm on a Tuesday night.
I’m old enough to remember when this site was critiqued for having a Tory herd.
There are still plenty of right-leaning posters on PB; not so many are Tory supporters these days, because the Tories have made themselves very hard to like.
I'd guess the split is 60:40 in favour of the right.
I'd guess the split on here now is at least 60 left 40 right including Labour, LD and SNP supporters as left.
Though a number of Cameroon Tories now LD too
That would be in line with UK opinion polling. 60-65% Labour, Lib Dem, Green, SNP. 35% Tory + REFUK.
So PB = representative of UK public opinion.
It’s only unrepresentative because we aren’t saying what a good job Johnson is doing.
And nobody has yet made the case for why Rwanda will work. Because there isn’t one. So we are back to emotional nonsense. Good ground for the Tories.
Might be worth a bet on the Tories retaining Wakefield
Because...?
Don't think this immigration issue is doing Labour any good - voters will think they have an open door policy - Tories are 20/1 so a good value bet.
So. Fill your boots. If you think Wakefield is abuzz with Rwanda talk.
Unfortunately this stuff works. We have a living case study to our East: an entire civilisation conditioned by government and media to believe erasing the Ukrainian nation and identity is a virtuous national objective.
That Hitchin focus group in Starmer today: one person said “I heard he let off Jimmy Saville”. It works. Not always perfectly, particularly when the economy is fucked up, but it does work.
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?
ID cards for all, and incentives (including a route to citizenship) for those who shop employers of illegal immigrants and people smugglers.
Illegal immigrants are already excluded from the benefits system, with no route to employment the incentives for people to try to enter illegally would be very much reduced.
There is merit in that and I am happy to have an ID card but not sure it is politically possible at present
It seems a little illogical to me to change the entire British way of life in order to hamper the course of illegal migration. It is surely simpler to (politely and kindly) prevent illegal migration in the first place.
As I have said before, and I believe others here have agreed the idea has merit, all British asylum claims should be processed overseas. The successful applicants would be brought to Britain and assisted in their new lives. Those who arrived in the UK to claim assylum would be taken to the nearest overseas claim centre. Those who arrived hoping to evade any authority at all would be swiftly deported. Thus no more dangerous boats, no more trafficking.
How does ID cards "change the entire British way of life"? I mean genuine question. Do you have a driver's licence?
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.
No, that's a caricature. Give me one quote from a Labour politician, even on the left, that suggests we should let everyone in.
The point about France is simply that we shouldn't hide behind the fact that we're harder to get at than France is - developed countries should try to take a share that they feel they can manage - I reckon most people would be up for 0.1-0.2% of the population per year, i.e. 100 or so people in an average constituency (=65,000 nationally).
It should however be counted as a point in FAVOUR of the application if it's done at a distance where the applicant is currently living (whether a dangerous place or a refugee camp). Make people feel that the best shot at applying is doing it where they live, rather than risking their life to have a less good chance. At present, it's the other way round - you have a far better chance of asylum if you arrive in a leaky boat, so we have a sort of Hunger Games approach - yes, we'll consider you but only if you risk your life.
I have said before Nick, even the activist groups won't come out in public and say that - they are too smart to know that it would undermine their plans. It's hidden behind emotive language but the goal is the same: let everyone in who wants to come in on the slimmest of pretexts. Let's flip the question - how many migrant charity groups have come out and said they support ANY deportation, even when it's obvious there is not a case? I can't think of one and I bet you can't either.
As for the 0.1% - 0.2%, ok. Does that include their families? Because you know as well as I do that 'immediate' family members would be let in, so how many extra relatives for each person is that? I reckon 4-6 per applicant would come in claiming to be close relatives, so we are now talking 400-600 people in each constituency. And we all know they are not going into Primrose Hill or Dartmouth Park.
The fact that you don't even see it as a problem shows that many on the left just don't see it as an issue.
I've not said I don't think it's a problem - I see it partly as a reflection of the grotesque inequalities of global wealth and opportunity. If I was Syrian, say, especially one with dissident views, I would certainly try to come to a Western country, wouldn't you? So part of my solution is not to cut the aid budget, and not to use it as a means of projecting soft power, but to invest in making the countries of origin better places to live. As others have said, not arming their civil wars would be a useful start.
We can debate numbers - my figures would include families, and I'd be reasonably restrictive on what counted as family. Essentially the point is that it's an artificial divide to say that the right want to deport everyone and the left want to deport nobody - that leads to a pseudo-debate where we all fight straw men. Asking what number of refugees from terror we'd accept each year gives a more rational debate - in the real world, almost nobody says "none" or "everyone", so why pretend that they do?
It's important to stress that the ECHR doesn't give unlimited protection against deportation. Here's an example where a migrant was behaving so badly that he was deported even though he had lived in the country (Austria) for 14 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.
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...?
🔺 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.
Because its leaders failed to remember they are the servants not the masters
This doesn’t really mean much. Perhaps you’d care to expand.
The pursuit of globalisation and ignoring those left behind in the UK. A willingness to condemn people to a life of benefits. All sorts of things.
I think what you are saying is too broad to have much explanatory power. You could have levied such a criticism at any government, at any time, anywhere.
It’s a summary, of course.
But basically from the Clintons onwards. The belief that GDP growth is enough even if GDP/capita goes backwards.
Macro statistics are distorted by the very large actors and don’t necessarily reflect the lives experience of the voters
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.
Their so-called “solutions” are comical
I mean, it's like asking a flint-knapper about Artificial Intelligence immigration policy.
So @Leon thinks my so-called solutions are 'comical', does he?
Would this be the same Leon who earlier today wrote this when I summarised my suggested solutions:
Comments
Sorry.
Illegal immigrants are already excluded from the benefits system, with no route to employment the incentives for people to try to enter illegally would be very much reduced.
Who makes our laws and who has the final say, UK courts or others ?
It’s not representative of you but that’s not the same thing.
What I meant was that the Archbishops and the PoW and a third of the population oppose this policy, but I don’t think that’s the same thing as desiring “open borders”.
Hope that’s clearer.
Does anyone think the government wanted this flight to take off?
That's not how the PM works.
And that was under Corbyn.
I am utterly fed up with a few users pretending they know how Labour works. It is evident they are just blagging it.
Until someone engages with this topic properly then we can only assume that they're acting according to their stereotypical impulses: the Tories will let pretty much all the migrants in because they want a flood of cheap workers (but will make occasional performative gestures to con their supporters into believing otherwise,) whereas Labour will let them all in because they're universalists and believe that borders = discrimination = bad.
Of course, trust in politicians is, in any event, so badly corroded that most of us wouldn't believe them even if they produced a vaguely workable looking plan and promised to introduce it. Personally I'm entirely cynical and don't trust any political party on any subject at all.
Used the phrase repeatedly per those in Cabinet. Said he wanted to avoid a trade war with Brussels.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/06/14/boris-johnson-tells-cabinet-de-escalate-protocol-stand-off-brussels/
Let's leave the ECHR though...
Okay thanks.
iirc he told Cameron he was "crazy" to go for a vote.
Send them to Rwanda (or, like the EU, to Libya)
Outside it ?
Fuck off
The point about France is simply that we shouldn't hide behind the fact that we're harder to get at than France is - developed countries should try to take a share that they feel they can manage - I reckon most people would be up for 0.1-0.2% of the population per year, i.e. 100 or so people in an average constituency (=65,000 nationally).
It should however be counted as a point in FAVOUR of the application if it's done at a distance where the applicant is currently living (whether a dangerous place or a refugee camp). Make people feel that the best shot at applying is doing it where they live, rather than risking their life to have a less good chance. At present, it's the other way round - you have a far better chance of asylum if you arrive in a leaky boat, so we have a sort of Hunger Games approach - yes, we'll consider you but only if you risk your life.
Maybe I am just an old git?
Or is it personal responsibility but not like that as usual from these people?
This government likes picking fights, doing things to shock the old elites. But because of who they are, they are the political equivalent of the chancers you used to see on those America's Dumbest Criminals shows.
To take a topical example, it ought not to have been that hard to find 50 people who unambiguously shouldn't be in the UK, check that the strories and legal stuff were watertight and get them out. That didn't happen, partly because the government are incompetent, partly because this is a rush job, partly becuase the headlines were the point of the policy- who the hell reads the paragraphs?
The trouble the government have is that, irrespective of their media prowess, reality has a habit of winning. Northern towns not feeling levelled up. Backlog Britain. More month than paycheck. That sort of thing.
However, we digress.
What I want is a fair and just immigration and asylum policy. We do not have that at the moment. As I mentioned before, I agree with many of the suggestions on here (including yours). However, the same lobby that has worked against the Rwanda plans would work against yours, and would use the same language. If you came out publicly with your plans and said this, you would be quickly branded a racist by these groups, even if not by the left-leaning posters on here.
I'm happy to go with yours, and others, plans. We are not losing the plot over that. What the plot is being lost over is that there are very well organised / funded groups out who will do everything they can to ensure that we have open immigration and that becomes the stated policy, even if it goes against the views of most people (who they view as racist bigots whose voice doesn't count anyway).
https://twitter.com/ColinYeo1/status/1536747810661576706
Perhaps there are two Mr Johnsons?
Time for another break from PB methinks
https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/05/31/mind-the-gap/
It bears rereading now.
Incidentally, it really says something about how the balance of this site has changed that this post got 6 likes on the views of Labour members in less than 15 minutes after 10pm on a Tuesday night.
I’m old enough to remember when this site was critiqued for having a Tory herd.
https://twitter.com/MattChorley/status/1536609479462199296
would love to know which ministers - surely some - argued for the flight to take off anyway with no one on it
https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1536823882576969729
And the people that liked my post weren’t even majority Labour members.
Genuinely I mean this kindly but you come across incredibly condescendingly in all of your posts. Perhaps something to think about.
Night all.
Backing the Blue Meanies in Tiverton is good value though.
I'd guess the split is 60:40 in favour of the right.
It posts here as Leon
Do you agree that Rwanda has not stopped it at all?
As for the 0.1% - 0.2%, ok. Does that include their families? Because you know as well as I do that 'immediate' family members would be let in, so how many extra relatives for each person is that? I reckon 4-6 per applicant would come in claiming to be close relatives, so we are now talking 400-600 people in each constituency. And we all know they are not going into Primrose Hill or Dartmouth Park.
The fact that you don't even see it as a problem shows that many on the left just don't see it as an issue.
Honestly we are screwed.
However he has every intention of stoking up division, hatred and witch-hunts by pretending he might do so.
Sunder Kutwala this morning highlighted that “You should be sent to Rwanda” is now being used as a term of abuse on David Lammy, Sadiq Khan, and even Priti Patel.
Meanwhile one of my friends - who happens to be a “lefty lawyer” involved in the asylum seeker defences - was today emailed that she was a “menacing whore waiting to be raped”.
I don’t really have much time for the idea that this is all fair dos because Boris gets to “own the libs”.
Though a number of Cameroon Tories now LD too
Please don't go - we need all the sane voices to be heard!
As I have said before, and I believe others here have agreed the idea has merit, all British asylum claims should be processed overseas. The successful applicants would be brought to Britain and assisted in their new lives. Those who arrived in the UK to claim assylum would be taken to the nearest overseas claim centre. Those who arrived hoping to evade any authority at all would be swiftly deported. Thus no more dangerous boats, no more trafficking.
Sometimes I get a bit fruity when I’m wound up. Different and not personal.
I bet if you get into trouble you’d pray for the same.
The issue is that we don’t because legal aid has been gutted and the CPS is being left to die.
I like you too a lot and you get a lot of unnecessary abuse but you have written some utter drivel tonight and insulted me and a lot of Labour members. I won’t say how the Tories work because I don’t know. But you evidently don’t have a clue about Labour.
Couple of questions. Deported where? And where is this “nearest overseas claim centre”?
But cost of living and poor public services are all I hear about*. Even from those who non-stop used to moan about immigration.
*Outwith this board in real life.
It seems like Boris has fallen back on the Greatest Hits after the difficult second album bombed.
It's Second Coming after the Stone Roses stuff.
As I said, I'm interested.
Refugees would take a ferry or the tunnel and then lodge a claim in Britain which could then be processed.
And the vast majority of people living here would see either zero impact of this, or quite possibly a net economic benefit as well as very nice easy trips all around the continent with no passport queues, and no more distressing news reports about small boat crossings.
I'm sorry you think they are drivel and I'm sure a lot of people agree with you. However, I will say I think it is telling that you can post on here that you agree with the proposals others have put forwards and then be ripped for saying that. I will go back to the original post I made on this topic - this issue has fallen right into the hands of BJ because it ticks many of the boxes for those who voted for him in 2019.
I also think with regards to your comment about 'insulting' Labour people by claiming they want open immigration, actually it's not far from the truth. I will ask the same question I asked of Nick P - how many asylum groups do you know who have actually said that deportation is right in some circumstances?
Just one more group thrown under the bus to enable Big Dog to get through another week.
And the bonus is that lawyers go under the wheels as well. And we all know who is lawyer.
When will tory mps end this nightmare?
Burke and Thatcher must be turning in their graves.
Deported whereever they wanted to go I suppose.
So PB = representative of UK public opinion.
And nobody has yet made the case for why Rwanda will work. Because there isn’t one. So we are back to emotional nonsense. Good ground for the Tories.
Mail and Express headlines are depressingly predictable
That Hitchin focus group in Starmer today: one person said “I heard he let off Jimmy Saville”. It works. Not always perfectly, particularly when the economy is fucked up, but it does work.
I mean genuine question. Do you have a driver's licence?
We can debate numbers - my figures would include families, and I'd be reasonably restrictive on what counted as family. Essentially the point is that it's an artificial divide to say that the right want to deport everyone and the left want to deport nobody - that leads to a pseudo-debate where we all fight straw men. Asking what number of refugees from terror we'd accept each year gives a more rational debate - in the real world, almost nobody says "none" or "everyone", so why pretend that they do?
It's important to stress that the ECHR doesn't give unlimited protection against deportation. Here's an example where a migrant was behaving so badly that he was deported even though he had lived in the country (Austria) for 14 years:
https://www.echrcaselaw.com/en/echr-decisions/by-article/article-8/deportation-when-justified-on-grounds-of-public-interest-is-not-incompatible-with-article-8-of-the-echr/
Away from Nottingham, it seems some people kicked a ball around and weren't very good at it.
But basically from the Clintons onwards. The belief that GDP growth is enough even if GDP/capita goes backwards.
Macro statistics are distorted by the very large actors and don’t necessarily reflect the lives experience of the voters
So just to confirm, the Mail has confirmed Rwanda doesn’t deter people. Okay then.
Would this be the same Leon who earlier today wrote this when I summarised my suggested solutions:
"OK, my apologies @cyclefree
That’s actually quite a thoughtful, considered and judicious proposal, not the usual “Stop illegal employment!” nonsense
I agree with almost everything you say."
Or has he been imbibing again?