Surprise, surprise, they are behind. Expectations management, of course.
Its like a deep soapy expectations management bath. Ooooh its so close! We have a chance but only if everyone pulls together! Soooooo close. Lol
Sentence one: The Liberal Democrats plan to flood Tiverton and Honiton with activists after internal polling suggested the party was only marginally trailing the Conservatives before next week’s byelection in the Devon constituency.
Yeah. Like they weren't planning to flood it with activists anyway.
I’m wondering if there’s any way they could visually demonstrate how close it was to the residents? Some form of graph or chart.
Surprise, surprise, they are behind. Expectations management, of course.
Its like a deep soapy expectations management bath. Ooooh its so close! We have a chance but only if everyone pulls together! Soooooo close. Lol
Sentence one: The Liberal Democrats plan to flood Tiverton and Honiton with activists after internal polling suggested the party was only marginally trailing the Conservatives before next week’s byelection in the Devon constituency.
Yeah. Like they weren't planning to flood it with activists anyway.
I’m wondering if there’s any way they could visually demonstrate how close it was to the residents? Some form of graph or chart.
At least the Tories will have no difficulty in deciding on the coordinate axes for their graph of deportees to Rwanda over the last 3 months.
Winston Churchill was instrumental in setting up the ECHR after the Second World War . Should the UK stay in this or leave I’d expect a large majority to say stay .
The issue at times in the UK has been judges interpretation of that .
You’re never going to agree with every ruling but that’s par for the course .
For no 10 nothing is sacred , that is they are willing to dismantle any institution that doesn’t agree with them .
This is where authoritarianism starts , turn people against judges , try and dupe then into accepting less rights etc.
And a simple question for people . Will UK democracy be in a better place years down the line if they win the next general election ?
They are slowly chiseling away at the UKs foundations , bit by bit .
For the good of the country they must be removed and spend a period of time in opposition where they might hopefully come to their senses .
As a rule, I think Governments go mad after two terms. This one especially so. Alternating two terms of each side, that’s the sweet spot.
That does rely on the Opposition not going bonkers...
'LaMDA, which group of people are most uncaring about the fate of brown refugees?'
'Well Divvie, using my newly acquired sentience, in my judgment folk who bleat on about refugees drowning in the Channel to justify sending them to Rwanda don't give the teeniest flying fuck about refugees, drownded or not.'
Completely disagreed. The USA ought to have shown in recent years just how useless a written constitution is in protecting civil liberties, if the government wants to water down or reverse those liberties then whoever controls the courts controls how the constitution is interpreted. See the USA or the ECHR Victor Orban's Hungary.
The advantage of constitutional checks and balances is not that they are a magic barrier that can eternally protect us from tyranny. It is firstly, that they function as an alarm system -- if a government is frequently rebuffed by courts for its unconstitutional behaviour this should be an alarm bell to voters -- and secondly, that they help to delay -- it takes time and effort to dismantle machinery, stack courts and overrule second chambers -- and that delay means damage is reduced and there is time for the next election to be held in which voters can change the government. Whether the electorate chooses to heed the warnings and make good use of the time thus bought is of course up to them...
Surprise, surprise, they are behind. Expectations management, of course.
Its like a deep soapy expectations management bath. Ooooh its so close! We have a chance but only if everyone pulls together! Soooooo close. Lol
Sentence one: The Liberal Democrats plan to flood Tiverton and Honiton with activists after internal polling suggested the party was only marginally trailing the Conservatives before next week’s byelection in the Devon constituency.
Yeah. Like they weren't planning to flood it with activists anyway.
I’m wondering if there’s any way they could visually demonstrate how close it was to the residents? Some form of graph or chart.
At least the Tories will have no difficulty in deciding on the coordinate axes for their graph of deportees to Rwanda over the last 3 months.
Maybe you’re on to something. Maybe the Tories want to save cash be reusing all the 60s Powellite placards?
Surprise, surprise, they are behind. Expectations management, of course.
Its like a deep soapy expectations management bath. Ooooh its so close! We have a chance but only if everyone pulls together! Soooooo close. Lol
Sentence one: The Liberal Democrats plan to flood Tiverton and Honiton with activists after internal polling suggested the party was only marginally trailing the Conservatives before next week’s byelection in the Devon constituency.
Yeah. Like they weren't planning to flood it with activists anyway.
They weren't going to but then they suddenly realised it was mega hyper super close. Giant orange hammers and blue cardboard box walls selling out fast. And i mean fast. One vote could decide it! If anything its closer than even stevens. Nearer than next door. Tighter than a gnats chuff. Amazeballs.
It would be a mistake to leave the ECHR but it is a far more honest policy than pretending to implement laws that are not consistent with it and then moaning about the left establishment, judges and even the EU which is not involved.
I see no problem with negotiating with others to try and update the ECHR to reflect modern life but very much doubt the current lot in power have any interest in the hard work that involves or the patience to make such a tactic work. A serious govt should be doing that and using UK soft power to progress it, whilst accepting and understanding it might take several years for the right international conditions for progress to be met.
Far easier to abdicate responsibility by deliberately creating laws they know will get struck down so the reason the problems are seen to get worse over time lies with the courts rather than government. So I expect we will continue to talk about leaving the ECHR, perhaps a little more loudly over time, but not actually leave it or do anything constructive to reform it.
Or we could just leave the ECHR and have Parliament change the law subject to democratic consent.
If the ECHR needs to be updated to reflect modern life then we should do that via Parliament, not negotiations.
As I said, although it would be a mistake, that approach would be a far honest policy. That means it is unlikely to be the chosen path of this particular government. Also I don't think it would be part of a manifesto that could get a majority (unless against another Corbyn type of course).
I think it's complicated in the UK by the lack of a written constitution.
Imagine a government was elected with 326 MPs in the UK that changed the law so that Jews no longer got the vote. Or that people born in Australia could not own property.
In the US, this wouldn't be possible because there is something above the decisions of Parliament/Congress - the Constitution - that cannot easily be overridden by 51% of those elected. (Who might - as in 2005 - be those chosen by just 35% of voters.)
The goal is to ensure that certain rights cannot be stripped from the 49% by the 51%.
If you wish to rid us of the foreign oversight of the EHCR, then - to my mind - we need to solve this issue.
Completely disagreed. The USA ought to have shown in recent years just how useless a written constitution is in protecting civil liberties, if the government wants to water down or reverse those liberties then whoever controls the courts controls how the constitution is interpreted. See the USA or the ECHR Victor Orban's Hungary.
The way to ensure that we have a liberal society is to value Jews and others so that we won't elect a government that would do that, and if an horrendous government tried to do that, then we'd oust them and reverse it - not put our faith in documents like constitutions or international courts etc that are not accountable.
That's a great argument for the ECHR - a court the government will never be able to control.
Presumably Mr Churchill grasped that key point when he helped set it up? (Not familiar with the history myself.)
Churchill didn't set up the Court.
Churchill was involved in setting up the Convention, which was to be binding upon domestic courts at the time, not overseas courts, they came later.
Churchill, of course, wanted to run in 1955 on the slogan Keep England White, as he had become alarmed at the number of Commonwealth immigrants over the preceding decade. So I'm not sure he'd have supported the convention if he'd have known that it would preventing the government from removing the mostly non-white asylum seekers for processing elsewhere - he was an Anglo-Saxon supremacist for longer than almost all his contemporaries in front line politics, Enoch Powell excepted. So he might have turned against it, just as Mrs Thatcher turned against the Common Market when she realised it was being used to introduce a federal Europe and quasi-socailist regulation by the back door, and the Labour Party made the leap in the opposite direciton.
Just as an aside, Douglas Murray has written two outstanding books (the strange death of Europe and the madness of crowds). I don't agree completely with what he says in them, but the former in particular completely changed my thinking on immigration and multiculturalism.
"If they offer no alternatives, it is fair game to assume they have no alternatives. Which considerably undermines their outrage in a Government that is doing "something". If it is not the right thing, then it is incumbent on them to say what their workable alternative would be. Otherwise, voters will draw the conclusion that they are happy for thousands of people to make a terrible journey with serious risk of death to profit a small number of people traffickers. Now, I'm sure that is not what they want. So tell us that workable way forward you would support the Home Office in implementing.
This is sophistry.
With all due respect, the idea that we can only criticise a policy if we are able to propose a superior alternative policy is transparently designed to suppress criticism.
On that basis, you would be unable to critique senior execs of listed firms - government economic policy - or more seriously managers of Premier League clubs.
Really poor.
Not at all. You can't say "something must be done, we have no ideas, but definitely not what you're doing" and expect to be taken seriously. The middle leg makes the first and last mutually exclusive.
I'm probably the wrong poster - I trotted out a number of measures to suppress demand and curb supply.
The falling cost of transponders means we could simply introduce requirements to have the installed.
All this polarisation is just self defeating long term.
Transponders wouldn’t work - if the boat is intercepted by Border Force/Navy/RNLI, they are going to take the people off and confiscate the boat anyway.
The boats are being piloted by the refugee/immigrants themselves.
The ones that aren’t intercepted - do they even try to bring them back or are they just abandoned?
The boats are bought for cash on the Continent - who are you going to go after?
Contributory benefits would be resisted by the progressive side of the debate until the death. I’ve been told, on occasion, that a UBI would be immoral because it would be a move to a “Xenophobic Benefit System”….
My favourite is -
- increase the fine for employing an undocumented workers to £100k. Per offence. - Half goes to the witness who gives evidence - If the witness is undocumented, they get indefinite leave to remain as well.
15 minutes after that law passes, no undocumented employment in the country.
The transponders are cross referenced against granular radar.
They turn off the transponder - you intercept.
A vessel leaves without a transponder - you intercept.
Vessels are a couple of hundred grand and up. They're not single use.
Or digitally tag the engines. Simply get a Gendarme to check all the engines in a port with a scanner.
All new purchases have to be logged. It'll be really clear who is buying all the boats - normal types buy and hold, or buy a lot through companies.
This is quite straightforward detail. You'd also pick up on a lot of other illicit activity though...
Finally - the boats are not being piloted by the immigrants themselves. Do you think a bunch of Middle Eastern and African refugees have the skills to pilot small boats through one of the world's busiest commercial lanes??
Get the Belgians and French to confiscate the boats - do you really think they're all dinghies?
This is dangerous. It's delusional to think there's a simple trade to be made. Land for peace really means land for a pause in the war. it certainly won't mean an end to the conflict.
Still, now we get to see why Chamberlain was so popular after Munich.
Having said that, the poll's details are considerably less clearcut than the headline suggests, with a large number of responses being undecided on the issue - which given the likely complexities of any eventual outcome is not altogether unrealistic. ...But ECFR’s polling showed a clear divide between Europeans who want peace as soon as possible (35% across the 10 countries), and those who want justice – defined as restoring Ukraine’s territorial integrity and holding Russia to account (22%).
A third “swing” group, who share the anti-Russian feelings of justice supporters but also the peace camp’s fears of escalation, accounted for about 20% of voters, the report found – with major distribution differences between countries...
It's quite natural and right that the people of the UK, whilst opposed strongly to the invasion of Ukraine, and extremely tolerant of the fairly significant costs and disruption to businesses already incurred, are anxious about the long term harm. The British Government is meant to look after the interests and security of the British people, not prosecute foreign conflicts that make them poorer. This was true in the time of The Crusades and The War of Spanish Succession is still true today.
So what we are saying is that we no longer believe in British law.
What they are saying is that an institution which they barely had an opinion on until this week is now an unacceptable burden on the UK government because it issued an injunction which delays the implementation of a Home Secretary’s administrative decision (note this policy is not based on new legislation) by three weeks.
And so we have to leave an institution of which we were a founder member shortly after WWII.
Whatever else they are, it certainly isn’t conservative.
"If they offer no alternatives, it is fair game to assume they have no alternatives. Which considerably undermines their outrage in a Government that is doing "something". If it is not the right thing, then it is incumbent on them to say what their workable alternative would be. Otherwise, voters will draw the conclusion that they are happy for thousands of people to make a terrible journey with serious risk of death to profit a small number of people traffickers. Now, I'm sure that is not what they want. So tell us that workable way forward you would support the Home Office in implementing.
This is sophistry.
With all due respect, the idea that we can only criticise a policy if we are able to propose a superior alternative policy is transparently designed to suppress criticism.
On that basis, you would be unable to critique senior execs of listed firms - government economic policy - or more seriously managers of Premier League clubs.
Really poor.
Not at all. You can't say "something must be done, we have no ideas, but definitely not what you're doing" and expect to be taken seriously. The middle leg makes the first and last mutually exclusive.
I'm probably the wrong poster - I trotted out a number of measures to suppress demand and curb supply.
The falling cost of transponders means we could simply introduce requirements to have them activated in UK territorial waters. Confiscate the boats that don't comply.
ID cards and contributory benefits.
Tracking financial assets of people smugglers. Etc etc.
Rwanda is cheaper, will appeal to the base and UKIP sympathisers and upset the right people.
If a Labour government was being needlessly partisan, and ineffective, you would call them out.
It's like the NHS - everyone and his dog knows it's a money pit that will bankrupt us and a contributory insurance model would deliver better outcomes.
But according to Marquee Mark's logic, nobody can make that criticism unless they know enough about trust management to make the case.
The people who know keep their mouths shut because they suspect Truss, Patel and Raab would love nothing better than firing 60% of the workforce and inviting in the big US and Aussie health providers.
All this polarisation is just self defeating long term.
Transponders wouldn’t work - if the boat is intercepted by Border Force/Navy/RNLI, they are going to take the people off and confiscate the boat anyway.
The boats are being piloted by the refugee/immigrants themselves.
The ones that aren’t intercepted - do they even try to bring them back or are they just abandoned?
The boats are bought for cash on the Continent - who are you going to go after?
Contributory benefits would be resisted by the progressive side of the debate until the death. I’ve been told, on occasion, that a UBI would be immoral because it would be a move to a “Xenophobic Benefit System”….
My favourite is -
- increase the fine for employing an undocumented workers to £100k. Per offence. - Half goes to the witness who gives evidence - If the witness is undocumented, they get indefinite leave to remain as well.
15 minutes after that law passes, no undocumented employment in the country.
I would include landlords (and subletters) in that too.
If a landlord is renting you a place despite you having no legal right to be in the UK, then he should be subject to a fine. (Likewise if you sublet a room.)
This last came in in 2014, and is just another part of the leaning tower of regulatory bureaucracy.
The fine is a Civil Penalty of up to £3k per individual.
It also applies to lodgers renting your spare bedrooms, even under the tax-free rent-a-room scheme. But with somewhat lower fines.
"If they offer no alternatives, it is fair game to assume they have no alternatives. Which considerably undermines their outrage in a Government that is doing "something". If it is not the right thing, then it is incumbent on them to say what their workable alternative would be. Otherwise, voters will draw the conclusion that they are happy for thousands of people to make a terrible journey with serious risk of death to profit a small number of people traffickers. Now, I'm sure that is not what they want. So tell us that workable way forward you would support the Home Office in implementing.
This is sophistry.
With all due respect, the idea that we can only criticise a policy if we are able to propose a superior alternative policy is transparently designed to suppress criticism.
On that basis, you would be unable to critique senior execs of listed firms - government economic policy - or more seriously managers of Premier League clubs.
Really poor.
Not at all. You can't say "something must be done, we have no ideas, but definitely not what you're doing" and expect to be taken seriously. The middle leg makes the first and last mutually exclusive.
I'm probably the wrong poster - I trotted out a number of measures to suppress demand and curb supply.
The falling cost of transponders means we could simply introduce requirements to have the installed.
All this polarisation is just self defeating long term.
Transponders wouldn’t work - if the boat is intercepted by Border Force/Navy/RNLI, they are going to take the people off and confiscate the boat anyway.
The boats are being piloted by the refugee/immigrants themselves.
The ones that aren’t intercepted - do they even try to bring them back or are they just abandoned?
The boats are bought for cash on the Continent - who are you going to go after?
Contributory benefits would be resisted by the progressive side of the debate until the death. I’ve been told, on occasion, that a UBI would be immoral because it would be a move to a “Xenophobic Benefit System”….
My favourite is -
- increase the fine for employing an undocumented workers to £100k. Per offence. - Half goes to the witness who gives evidence - If the witness is undocumented, they get indefinite leave to remain as well.
15 minutes after that law passes, no undocumented employment in the country.
The transponders are cross referenced against granular radar.
They turn off the transponder - you intercept.
A vessel leaves without a transponder - you intercept.
Vessels are a couple of hundred grand and up. They're not single use.
Or digitally tag the engines. Simply get a Gendarme to check all the engines in a port with a scanner.
All new purchases have to be logged. It'll be really clear who is buying all the boats - normal types buy and hold, or buy a lot through companies.
This is quite straightforward detail. You'd also pick up on a lot of other illicit activity though...
Finally - the boats are not being piloted by the immigrants themselves. Do you think a bunch of Middle Eastern and African refugees have the skills to pilot small boats through one of the world's busiest commercial lanes??
Get the Belgians and French to confiscate the boats - do you really think they're all dinghies?
Here's a sample boat that landed last year. The one on the left, I think.
It seems the Rwanda policy is subject to a judicial review next month and I assume that any issues will be addressed and then the policy will be enacted
By enacted you mean set aside? As various commentators and journalists have pointed out, the government knows this policy is illegal under international law. It was never intended to be enacted.
If its so illegal then why is it already done by other nations? .
It does not deport individuals seeking asylum to seek asylum in a third country, as we aim to do with Rwanda.
Correct. And that is a crucial distinction.
Yes. The crucial distinction. That is the killer fact. It does not deport individuals seeking asylum to seek asylum in a third country, as we aim to do with Rwanda.
We know a lot of posters on here as bright, so it’s surprising the penny has not dropped for them yet on this killer fact.
St Bart I know as very clued in and intelligent, so a surprise to me he went rushing towards comparisons with Oz scheme, when Patel herself distanced herself from that discredited scheme.
Let’s deal with that killer fact, and open our friends on here to exactly why Charles and the Church so instinctively know this to be wrong.
With “deport individuals seeking asylum to seek asylum in a third country” the UK government, in our name, are seeking to use Asylum seekers who have reached this country, for investing in Rwanda. They are very open about that. They believe that’s the right thing to do, on the economic development side, but also on the migration partnership - exploiting these asylum seekers in the same way as those chained in cargo holds during the slave trade.
IT - IS - COLONIALISM.
And Just go there for processing? At what point are they processed? At the point Patel’s government decides who is and who isn’t put on the plane, thats the moment of processing. Like choosing between slaves in a trade market.
I’m no wishywashy lefty - and I am proud to stand with Prince Charles and the Church of England on this one.
I quite agree. The policy is rotten from any side of the political aisle and we shouldn’t be afraid to voice that alongside those we normally disagree with. If we have any adherence to the traditions of justice, order and defence of the individual that the UK has (usually) always championed we should be building an ironclad asylum system. One that can hear cases swiftly, with appropriate avenues of appeal and well planned and executed avenues for integration or deportation.
Instead we have a Home Office that for pretty much my whole lifetime has existed as the PR wing of the government of the time and has become more and more incompetent and half-arsed. The reason the flights are delayed is because the drafting of the law is crap and the Home Office is unable to make it work (a joint effort of poor culture and bad legislation). Quite beyond the moral aspect, it’s embarrassing that the government is unable to follow its own bloody laws.
I can’t give your brilliant reply any more likes than 1
They say it’s Conservatism, but not as we have always known or trusted it 😕
Comments
Depressingly this predicted the current atmosphere
Giant orange hammers and blue cardboard box walls selling out fast. And i mean fast.
One vote could decide it!
If anything its closer than even stevens. Nearer than next door. Tighter than a gnats chuff.
Amazeballs.
But of course we'll never know.
They turn off the transponder - you intercept.
A vessel leaves without a transponder - you intercept.
Vessels are a couple of hundred grand and up. They're not single use.
Or digitally tag the engines. Simply get a Gendarme to check all the engines in a port with a scanner.
All new purchases have to be logged. It'll be really clear who is buying all the boats - normal types buy and hold, or buy a lot through companies.
This is quite straightforward detail. You'd also pick up on a lot of other illicit activity though...
Finally - the boats are not being piloted by the immigrants themselves. Do you think a bunch of Middle Eastern and African refugees have the skills to pilot small boats through one of the world's busiest commercial lanes??
Get the Belgians and French to confiscate the boats - do you really think they're all dinghies?
And so we have to leave an institution of which we were a founder member shortly after WWII.
Whatever else they are, it certainly isn’t conservative.
Labour 40%
Conservative 34%
LD 10%
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1537111983392231426?s=20&t=eG6PdbziAubIOtPTg6wEsQ
The fine is a Civil Penalty of up to £3k per individual.
It also applies to lodgers renting your spare bedrooms, even under the tax-free rent-a-room scheme. But with somewhat lower fines.
It does not look like £200k.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-english-channel-illegal-migrants-b1887019.html
Even so, a lot are a lot more fragile than that.
They say it’s Conservatism, but not as we have always known or trusted it 😕