Howdy, Stranger!

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

Whilst CON MPs don’t decide who leads they can sack the winner – politicalbetting.com

1457910

Comments

  • Taz said:

    Taz said:

    I don't understand why Truss can't say "this is what I would do on mitigating energy prices if I were elected Conservative leader and became PM". Sunak has done it, Starmer has done it. The only reason not to do it is because she does not yet know. Given how far in advance the rises have been signalled, that is not good enough.

    Because she doesn't care! We've got @williamglenn and to a gentler extent @Big_G_NorthWales claiming Truss will intervene and some of us are just attacking her / the Tories. Based on what? That they believe she is a Massive Liar?

    She cannot be clearer. On a "here's what I would do as Prime Minister" tour for a month and a half, meetings all across the country saying the same thing over and over and over. Hope that she already has a plan up her sleeve, or that she will pick a plan supposedly being drawn up by the Treasury is to hope she is a massive liar saying "no handouts" whilst planning handouts.

    "You can trust her to act because she's a massive liar" is hardly a political position that will hold. So I believe the opposite is true - she isn't lying. I don't doubt that she will be forced to do *something*. But unlike the previous government whose belief only in Boris allowed the massive u-turn into furlough, this one has zeal behind it.

    When the pile of pensioner corpses grows too high and the "you've already had a handout" excuses just provoke actual riots, they will have to act. But it will be way too late, far too little, and aimed at the people who don't need it to ameliorate the horror of handouts.
    She may be changing tack, if this is to be believed.

    I hold her in the same high regard as you do. However she has succeeded in politics by having principles that can be adopted or jetisoned as often as practical.

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/truss-changes-tack-over-energy-bills-after-previously-saying-she-favours-tax-cuts-over-handouts/ar-AA116LWV?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=88d6f65729d64888f1fdf599ec5e27e5
    Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. She doesn't want handouts to the workshy. Repeated again last night. So when they put this together it won't be targeted. It will be universal to ensure her lot get theirs and so that she isn't rewarding failure. And it will be a loan.

    Which defers rather than resolves the problem of unpayable debt.
    You're lying, that's not what she said.

    What she said actually is that support is on the way, but her priority is fixing the problem.

    You're tilting at windmills.
    I *directly quoted* her. " “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”

    Reading your pro-Truss posts is like watching a toddler throw a tantrum. You want your tax cut and people die so what. That the country is reacting in horror rather than agreeing with you has you with your arms crossed scowling and stamping the floor.
    Yes, to "just" bung more money into the system "isn't right".

    But she also explicitly said that support is on the way and you're lying by saying she said it isn't. Outright lie.

    Support is on the way, but it shouldn't just be that.
    If support is on the way she has had a somewhat Damascene conversion then. It remains to be seen what it is and how effective it is.

    Her only promises so far reward the wealthiest in society and do nothing for the poorest.

    There are two issues here. The short term pain and the medium to long term energy security of the nation. She needs to tackle both. Fixing on the medium to long term at the expense of the short term simply means she won't be around to implement anything post the next election.
    She literally said she'd do both.

    She specifically said there'd be support in the emergency budget.

    Rochdale dishonestly cut out her saying that and took the follow up the but where she would not "just" do what she'd just literally said she'd do, and twisted it to mean that she wouldn't do what she literally just said she would do.

    Taking half a sentence out of context to make it mean the opposite of what was said is lying.
    Daft sod. I quoted verbatim line after line after line from her article. Two whole paragraphs:

    "To those of you feeling the squeeze, my message is clear: I will ensure support is on its way and we get through these tough times. My immediate priority will be to put more money back in people’s pockets by cutting taxes, such as reversing the rise in national insurance.

    I would also suspend the green levy on energy bills, bringing down average energy bills by £153. This will build on the work already underway, such as the Energy Bills Support Scheme, which will see a £400 discount paid to consumers from October, and the £1,200 package of support for the most vulnerable."
    "such as" means it will be part of the Emergency Budget, not exclusively all of it, you daft sod.
    So your big play is that we can trust Truss because she has been lying for weeks? Great!
    No, you're the only one who's been lying.

    She literally said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget, but it can't "just" be support.

    You dishonestly said that meant no support.

    If there's support forthcoming in the Emergency Budget, like she said there would be, then she hasn't lied.
    That's a "no, your mum" answer.

    That all you got left?
    No I've got what she said. She said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget. You said there won't be.

    If there is, she's told the truth, you haven't.
    She said the support will be tax cuts and cutting the green crap you dimwit. Listen to what she is saying rather than what you want her to be saying.
    "Such as" doesn't mean "only" or "exclusively".

    Try again, where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim. Full quote or it didn't happen.
    Where have I claimed she will provide "no support"?

    Just in the quote chain above I have posted: "they will have to act but it will be too little too late" and "Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. "

    Do read what is written, not what you want to have been written.
    Re-read what I wrote.

    Where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim.


    Not you, when has she ever said that?
    But I am not claiming that am I? Its your usual twatty strawman bullshit. You're only missing the arsehole shrug emoji for the full house. The stuff she posted in the Mail and has said eleventy times through the campaigns - tax cuts, green levy cuts etc - are support. Just "too little" as I noted above.
    But she never said they would be the limits of her support did she? 🤷‍♂️
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 42,393

    Sandpit said:

    From all the comments here today, you’d think that the government hadn’t already announced a £37,000,000,000 package of support measures for this winter, and that the likely next PM has already committed to remove VAT and green levies from energy bills before the winter.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/energy-bills-support-scheme-explainer

    The Energy Bills Support Scheme will deliver a £400 non-repayable discount to eligible households to help with energy bills from October

    Households most in need will be eligible for further support in addition to the Energy Bills discount. This includes:
    1. a £650 one-off Cost of Living Payment for around 8 million households on means tested benefits
    2. a one-off £300 Pensioner Cost of Living Payment for over 8 million pensioner households to be paid alongside the Winter Fuel Payment
    3. a payment of £150 for around 6 million people across the UK who receive certain disability benefits
    4. a £500 million increase and extension of the Household Support Fund

    The point is, it's all been piecemeal and has had no effect on inflation. If you're going to spend £37bn why not use it to reduce the price cap, and inflation?

    People will say it's targeted but the poorest spend the highest proportion of their income on fuel, so freezing the cap would be helping them the most.

    I also question how much these piecemeal initiatives will cost in administration. Volunteering for Citizens Advice, we are getting a lot of queries from people who are confused or need help applying (e.g. for the HSF).
    Interesting. From looking at it, the scheme appears designed to minimise the administration costs. The £400 payment is being administered by the suppliers through bills, and the various top-ups are linked to other existing state benefits.

    Watching this from afar, there appears to be poor communication about what has already been announced by the government, and how the price cap actually works in practice. Not helped by scaremongering and government-bashing from certain sections of the media.

    There also needs to be a public information campaign in the autumn, reminding people of how best they can reduce their energy consumption. Many people will not have thought to wear a jumper indoors, replace old light bulbs with LEDs, and not boil a full kettle for one cup of tea.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 28,050
    edited August 2022

    Morning folks

    A genuine question/suggestion as I don't know enough about the financial and downstream side of energy to see what the issues are with my following suggestion:

    50% of UK gas usage is still produced from UK fields.

    The cost of producing those fields has not significantly increased. Basically although there have been some increases due to (ironically) fuel costs and some ancillary costs they are only in the region of 10-20% at worst. This bit I do know as it is part of my business.

    This is not a normal situation. It is, as some have already mentioned, a war footing.

    We should instruct UK gas producers that for this winter their profits from UK gas production are capped at (for example) 5%. They are still making a profit but we detach the UK gas market from the international gas price rises until the crisis is passed.

    Someone mentioned when I made a similar suggestion a few days ago that I have always said that one of the problems with getting investment in the North Sea is continually changing the rules and tax situation. This is true and it has caused a huge amount of damage to the UK in the past and is, at least in a small way, partly responsible for the issues we now have. So under normal circumstances my ideas would be very bad. But these are not normal circumstances and I think we have to accept that this is a necessary evil for now.

    I would also suggest that, where possible, if companies find gas where they were expecting oil and their infrastructure allows (it usually does) they have to complete the gas wells and produce them rather than abandoning them - which does happen. More often than people would imagine.

    Absolutely feel free to point out the flaws in any and all of this. It could be there are huge obvious flaws. It goes against my normal instincts but, as I say, these are not normal circumstances.

    Valid question, and one that echoes my angry Spanish FIL objecting to gas bills soaring despite them not buying from Russia.

    I assume part of the problem is that we don't own the gas, and BP etc would quite like the revenues of market price as opposed to the proposed lower price.
    We do own the gas. All oil and gas (along with coal, gold and silver) is property of the Crown under the Petroleum (Production) Act 1934. This was extended to include the UK Continental Shelf in 1964. We issue licences to the Oil and Gas companies to extract it.
    Appreciate the finer details here. OK, so under the *licenses* we issued to BP et al they will expect the market price and not some lower rate we just made up.

    Ultimately someone needs to pay the scores of billions it will cost. At least a proportion of that will have to be from the likes of BP. Though we keep being told it can't possibly be so as they will stop extracting oil and making profits here.
    Just also to add on your last point. In normal circumstances companies invest their money where they will get the best stable return in line with their AFEs (the planned costs of exploration, production and development). It is not the rates of tax that affect them so much when considering investment. It is the stability to allow long term planning given it can take up to a decade to get field into production.

    No one planned for these massive increases in gas prices. They never even dreamed of them. Setting a limit on the gas price for the duration of the crisis is not going to break those companies. Tie it to commitments for a stable tax a regulatory regime for the next decade and that will go a long way to dealing with the possible flight of investment.
    That all sounds positive. So if as you suggest Shell / BP et al will accept this, why aren't we discussing it with them? To listen to the likes of Truss you would believe the opposite was true.
    I think it is a market intervention too far for the Tories (and probably Labour who don't want to scare the horses). I would recoil from it in normal times but I have eventually (and perhaps belatedly) come to the conclusion that these are not normal times. We did all sorts of stuff like this during the war and I think the big change in mindset is for politicians to realise this is rather like a war.

    Edit: Oh and as I said in my original post, there could be some really really good reasons why this is a stupid idea which I haven't identified but which are obvious to those with more experience of the market. This is why it would be good to seem someone like Robert S. or others with relevant knowledge of finance to comment on it and point out the flaws.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,649

    Leon said:

    Alistair said:

    A new Challenger enters the arena

    https://twitter.com/PeoplePolling/status/1563090691000938496

    Our first Westminster Voting Intention poll:

    LAB: 40%
    CON: 26%
    LDM: 11%
    GRN: 6%
    SNP: 6%

    Sample size: 1,235. Fieldwork: 22 Aug. Full tables: https://peoplepolling.org/tables/202208_GBN_W34_full.pdf


    Commissioned by GB News.

    I'm sure Leon will be commenting on the SNP figure to work out if peak SNP has passed.


    My comment is that this poll looks decidedly rogue, on multiple fronts

    I don’t doubt that Labour have a sizeable lead. But 14 points? Am Skeptical
    11% other others. The return of UKIP, lol
    Actually I quite like that, once you take the reform out, so many votes for fringe local independents all the time, perhaps everyone should show larger other figure?
    No, because the nutter parties never achieve that level of support (Reform wont get near 2% let alone 5 and they are by far the biggest) and there arent many strong 'independants' - Jason Zadrozny in Ashfield and Claire Swire in East Devon (but shes not certain to run again)
    But this is an opinion poll, saying rrform 5 today not prediction what they will get on polling day, I agree likely 3 or 2.

    I think you might be missing the non labour lefties get votes, non Lib Dem liberals get votes, non Reform UKip get votes etc.
    Like who though? TUSC? Who is thinking of these fringe parties when polled? None of them are prompted
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 16,232

    nico679 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:
    Idiotic.

    Macron is not a friend, he's the President of France but no friend. He's not a foe either.

    Why do muppets feel the need to pretend the President of France is our friend?
    Clue in the fact that relationships between countries are called diplomacy.
    Diplomacy, yes.

    Friendship, no.
    Category mistake Bart. Diplomacy is the game. Calling non hostile powers friends is one of the rules of the game.
    Why?

    Is Erdogan a friend? Is Victor Orban?
    France and the UK have a bi-lateral military alliance signed by Cameron and Sarkozy , France and the UK need to co-operate on a range of issues so Truss’s comments aren’t exactly helpful . You need to stop digging and accept that she could have been more diplomatic .
    We have an alliance with Turkey and Hungary and USA too.

    So is Orban a friend? Is Erdogan? Was Trump?
    Even with those three, the much better answer if you don't want to say politician x is a friend, is more like "we are good friends with the people of Hungary/Turkey/US and look forward to working with Orban/Erdogan/Trump on the issues we agree on".
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,379
    One surprise benefit of this energy crisis may be a shift of old people into much smaller homes, thus freeing up property for young families who urgently need it

    That is to say: are you an old scrote couple sitting in a 4 bed house with garden, worrying about your gas bill? Move to a fucking flat then, and let kids play in the garden
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 46,853

    Nigelb said:
    Idiotic.

    Macron is not a friend, he's the President of France but no friend. He's not a foe either.

    Why do muppets feel the need to pretend the President of France is our friend?
    For the same reason you don’t go to a dinner party and be honest about how fat your friends wife is looking.

    Unless you are honest enough to tell everyone she is looking fat, in which case you are not a muppet quite like us then! 😆
    Give over.

    Is Victor Orban a friend?
    Is Recep Tayyip Erdoğan a friend?

    Was Donald Trump a friend?

    If a leader prevaricated over calling Donald Trump a friend or foe would you be so alarmed?
    Absolutely.

    The UK has allies - France and the US, for example - and it has foes (like Putin).
    Getting confused between the two categories is not something a Foreign Secretary or Prime Minister should be doing.

    Which should have been the obvious answer to such stupid questions from provocateurs like Hartley Brewer.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,817
    Chris said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:
    Perhaps Macron could have remembered this, that we are a supposed friend, before he tried to destroy confidence in a British Covid vaccine? Just because it was British?
    Just because he wanted to distract attention from the almighty cock-up the EU had made procuring vaccines.
    Macron is a quasi-ineffective friend of the UK.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,649

    Leon said:

    Alistair said:

    A new Challenger enters the arena

    https://twitter.com/PeoplePolling/status/1563090691000938496

    Our first Westminster Voting Intention poll:

    LAB: 40%
    CON: 26%
    LDM: 11%
    GRN: 6%
    SNP: 6%

    Sample size: 1,235. Fieldwork: 22 Aug. Full tables: https://peoplepolling.org/tables/202208_GBN_W34_full.pdf


    Commissioned by GB News.

    I'm sure Leon will be commenting on the SNP figure to work out if peak SNP has passed.


    My comment is that this poll looks decidedly rogue, on multiple fronts

    I don’t doubt that Labour have a sizeable lead. But 14 points? Am Skeptical
    11% other others. The return of UKIP, lol
    Actually I quite like that, once you take the reform out, so many votes for fringe local independents all the time, perhaps everyone should show larger other figure?
    No, because the nutter parties never achieve that level of support (Reform wont get near 2% let alone 5 and they are by far the biggest) and there arent many strong 'independants' - Jason Zadrozny in Ashfield and Claire Swire in East Devon (but shes not certain to run again)
    But this is an opinion poll, saying rrform 5 today not prediction what they will get on polling day, I agree likely 3 or 2.

    I think you might be missing the non labour lefties get votes, non Lib Dem liberals get votes, non Reform UKip get votes etc.
    Tbf Reform could easily be sub 1% next GE if they only stand 100 or so candidates (which seems probable short of a big donation splurge)
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,379
    Dunno why, but I've really got a thing against old people now. I might start a political party (before I get too old) to attack them

  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,649
    Leon said:

    Dunno why, but I've really got a thing against old people now. I might start a political party (before I get too old) to attack them

    Masochist
  • Nigelb said:

    Morning folks

    A genuine question/suggestion as I don't know enough about the financial and downstream side of energy to see what the issues are with my following suggestion:

    50% of UK gas usage is still produced from UK fields.

    The cost of producing those fields has not significantly increased. Basically although there have been some increases due to (ironically) fuel costs and some ancillary costs they are only in the region of 10-20% at worst. This bit I do know as it is part of my business.

    This is not a normal situation. It is, as some have already mentioned, a war footing.

    We should instruct UK gas producers that for this winter their profits from UK gas production are capped at (for example) 5%. They are still making a profit but we detach the UK gas market from the international gas price rises until the crisis is passed.

    Someone mentioned when I made a similar suggestion a few days ago that I have always said that one of the problems with getting investment in the North Sea is continually changing the rules and tax situation. This is true and it has caused a huge amount of damage to the UK in the past and is, at least in a small way, partly responsible for the issues we now have. So under normal circumstances my ideas would be very bad. But these are not normal circumstances and I think we have to accept that this is a necessary evil for now.

    I would also suggest that, where possible, if companies find gas where they were expecting oil and their infrastructure allows (it usually does) they have to complete the gas wells and produce them rather than abandoning them - which does happen. More often than people would imagine.

    Absolutely feel free to point out the flaws in any and all of this. It could be there are huge obvious flaws. It goes against my normal instincts but, as I say, these are not normal circumstances.

    Valid question, and one that echoes my angry Spanish FIL objecting to gas bills soaring despite them not buying from Russia.

    I assume part of the problem is that we don't own the gas, and BP etc would quite like the revenues of market price as opposed to the proposed lower price.
    We do own the gas. All oil and gas (along with coal, gold and silver) is property of the Crown under the Petroleum (Production) Act 1934. This was extended to include the UK Continental Shelf in 1964. We issue licences to the Oil and Gas companies to extract it.
    Appreciate the finer details here. OK, so under the *licenses* we issued to BP et al they will expect the market price and not some lower rate we just made up.

    Ultimately someone needs to pay the scores of billions it will cost. At least a proportion of that will have to be from the likes of BP. Though we keep being told it can't possibly be so as they will stop extracting oil and making profits here.
    Not really. The companies didn't budget to produce the gas at this vastly inflated price. They were expecting the price to be a fraction of this and will still make huge profits on what they produce here in the UK.

    This is imaginary money with real life consequences. No company expected to be making it and no one needs to find it at harm to themselves except the consumer. So the only people that will; be 'paying' it are the Oil Companies with reduced profits. Yes I understand all the stuff about share holders and pension funds but to be honest what is the point of having hugely valuable pension funds if you have killed of all your pensioners?
    As I asked upthread, though, how much of that production is already sold at earlier, lower prices ?
    No idea. But not much as far as I can see given the fact we are looking at massive increases now.
  • Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:
    Idiotic.

    Macron is not a friend, he's the President of France but no friend. He's not a foe either.

    Why do muppets feel the need to pretend the President of France is our friend?
    For the same reason you don’t go to a dinner party and be honest about how fat your friends wife is looking.

    Unless you are honest enough to tell everyone she is looking fat, in which case you are not a muppet quite like us then! 😆
    Give over.

    Is Victor Orban a friend?
    Is Recep Tayyip Erdoğan a friend?

    Was Donald Trump a friend?

    If a leader prevaricated over calling Donald Trump a friend or foe would you be so alarmed?
    Absolutely.

    The UK has allies - France and the US, for example - and it has foes (like Putin).
    Getting confused between the two categories is not something a Foreign Secretary or Prime Minister should be doing.

    Which should have been the obvious answer to such stupid questions from provocateurs like Hartley Brewer.
    Allies aren't all friends.

    America is an ally, Trump is not a friend.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 16,232
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    From all the comments here today, you’d think that the government hadn’t already announced a £37,000,000,000 package of support measures for this winter, and that the likely next PM has already committed to remove VAT and green levies from energy bills before the winter.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/energy-bills-support-scheme-explainer

    The Energy Bills Support Scheme will deliver a £400 non-repayable discount to eligible households to help with energy bills from October

    Households most in need will be eligible for further support in addition to the Energy Bills discount. This includes:
    1. a £650 one-off Cost of Living Payment for around 8 million households on means tested benefits
    2. a one-off £300 Pensioner Cost of Living Payment for over 8 million pensioner households to be paid alongside the Winter Fuel Payment
    3. a payment of £150 for around 6 million people across the UK who receive certain disability benefits
    4. a £500 million increase and extension of the Household Support Fund

    The point is, it's all been piecemeal and has had no effect on inflation. If you're going to spend £37bn why not use it to reduce the price cap, and inflation?

    People will say it's targeted but the poorest spend the highest proportion of their income on fuel, so freezing the cap would be helping them the most.

    I also question how much these piecemeal initiatives will cost in administration. Volunteering for Citizens Advice, we are getting a lot of queries from people who are confused or need help applying (e.g. for the HSF).
    Interesting. From looking at it, the scheme appears designed to minimise the administration costs. The £400 payment is being administered by the suppliers through bills, and the various top-ups are linked to other existing state benefits.

    Watching this from afar, there appears to be poor communication about what has already been announced by the government, and how the price cap actually works in practice. Not helped by scaremongering and government-bashing from certain sections of the media.

    There also needs to be a public information campaign in the autumn, reminding people of how best they can reduce their energy consumption. Many people will not have thought to wear a jumper indoors, replace old light bulbs with LEDs, and not boil a full kettle for one cup of tea.
    People are calculating the price of a shower per minute, how much energy different meals cost to cook, whether to use the oven or microwave. And this isn't just the poor but middle classes. I don't normally like the "ex-pat so must be out of touch" arguments often repeated on here, but on this you are out of touch.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 9,007
    edited August 2022

    Nigelb said:
    Idiotic.

    Macron is not a friend, he's the President of France but no friend. He's not a foe either.

    Why do muppets feel the need to pretend the President of France is our friend?
    For the same reason you don’t go to a dinner party and be honest about how fat your friends wife is looking.

    Unless you are honest enough to tell everyone she is looking fat, in which case you are not a muppet quite like us then! 😆
    Give over.

    Is Victor Orban a friend?
    Is Recep Tayyip Erdoğan a friend?

    Was Donald Trump a friend?

    If a leader prevaricated over calling Donald Trump a friend or foe would you be so alarmed?
    I stick by my heavy tackle what you have tried to side step, but you are floored 🙂 your friends wife HAS put on weight is honest truth, we all knows it, but only a muppet blurts it out in front everyone. It’s called diplomacy.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 10,904
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    WILL NO ONE THINK OF THE DINGHY ALBANIANS

    Even as we lucky Brits contemplate a winter of gnawing cold pigeon, served on a bed of toxic seaweed, there are hard-pressed wealthy Albanian drug dealers who are being basically FORCED by themselves to climb into air-conditioned Mercedes minibuses, in which they are basically TRAFFICKED by themselves through several agreeable European spa-towns, with scenic lunch-stops, until they reach the Channel where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they have no money, dropping their Rolexes at Deauville, so they can cross ten minutes of water where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they are asylum seekers, which we are happy to accept despite it being ludicrous, thus allowing them to live on our money as they then go out and deal lethal drugs to our kids. And maybe do a couple of violent burglaries

    Thank God THEY will be warm this winter. In a British home YOU pay for

    Leon, the only person thinking about these Albanians is you. In fact, they won't need any kind of accommodation or heating as they live in your head rent-free, warmed by the glowing embers of your perpetual outrage.
    Remember when you told me it was all Eritreans. I think that was about two days ago?


    "Official data released on Thursday has confirmed suspicions that Albanians are now a prominent national group among the asylum seekers travelling across the Channel."

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/25/rise-in-albanian-asylum-seekers-may-be-down-to-criminal-gangs

    "Speculation has fallen upon dominant organised criminal gangs known to have previously trafficked sex workers and gang members into the UK, and which now control large parts of the marijuana and cocaine markets.

    "Albanian gang activity is “rising up the security services’ list” of priorities because of the surge in arrivals from the Balkan state, it is understood.

    Evidence of a growing market offering Albanians a route across the Channel to the UK can be found on TikTok"


    Soft-headed liberal dullards like you are still weeping about Rwanda. Get a grip

    It's a recent surge, who knows if it will be sustained. Hopefully intelligence led law enforcement can deal with the issue. The Rwandan scheme won't deter any Albanians as they will simply elect to go back to Albania if they are caught. They are not seeking asylum in the UK and are unlikely to be granted it if they did, their goal is to enter undetected and enter the black economy.
    Historically about 90% of those arriving by boat come from a handful of wartorn countries and more than half are granted leave to stay as they are genuine refugees.
    I've said this before, try to be civil when you post on here.
    But you are a softheaded liberal dullard. As this exchange conclusively proves. You don't like difficult truths, you are Woke liberal, and you're not very bright.

    Admitting this fact is not incivility, that's statin' the bleedin' obvious

    And, by the way, Rwanda really WOULD deter Albanians from crossing. If these drug lords think there is a 5% chance they will be sent to Africa, not back to Albania, they would all stop coming tomorrow
    There is a 0% chance that the UK would send anyone to Rwanda who they can send back to where they came from. The Rwandan scheme is designed for those who won't/can't go back to their country of origin. Although of course it's really designed to give people like you a semi, and it's unlikely to ever be used.
    People who call other people thick are usually thick themselves.
  • Taz said:

    Taz said:

    I don't understand why Truss can't say "this is what I would do on mitigating energy prices if I were elected Conservative leader and became PM". Sunak has done it, Starmer has done it. The only reason not to do it is because she does not yet know. Given how far in advance the rises have been signalled, that is not good enough.

    Because she doesn't care! We've got @williamglenn and to a gentler extent @Big_G_NorthWales claiming Truss will intervene and some of us are just attacking her / the Tories. Based on what? That they believe she is a Massive Liar?

    She cannot be clearer. On a "here's what I would do as Prime Minister" tour for a month and a half, meetings all across the country saying the same thing over and over and over. Hope that she already has a plan up her sleeve, or that she will pick a plan supposedly being drawn up by the Treasury is to hope she is a massive liar saying "no handouts" whilst planning handouts.

    "You can trust her to act because she's a massive liar" is hardly a political position that will hold. So I believe the opposite is true - she isn't lying. I don't doubt that she will be forced to do *something*. But unlike the previous government whose belief only in Boris allowed the massive u-turn into furlough, this one has zeal behind it.

    When the pile of pensioner corpses grows too high and the "you've already had a handout" excuses just provoke actual riots, they will have to act. But it will be way too late, far too little, and aimed at the people who don't need it to ameliorate the horror of handouts.
    She may be changing tack, if this is to be believed.

    I hold her in the same high regard as you do. However she has succeeded in politics by having principles that can be adopted or jetisoned as often as practical.

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/truss-changes-tack-over-energy-bills-after-previously-saying-she-favours-tax-cuts-over-handouts/ar-AA116LWV?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=88d6f65729d64888f1fdf599ec5e27e5
    Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. She doesn't want handouts to the workshy. Repeated again last night. So when they put this together it won't be targeted. It will be universal to ensure her lot get theirs and so that she isn't rewarding failure. And it will be a loan.

    Which defers rather than resolves the problem of unpayable debt.
    You're lying, that's not what she said.

    What she said actually is that support is on the way, but her priority is fixing the problem.

    You're tilting at windmills.
    I *directly quoted* her. " “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”

    Reading your pro-Truss posts is like watching a toddler throw a tantrum. You want your tax cut and people die so what. That the country is reacting in horror rather than agreeing with you has you with your arms crossed scowling and stamping the floor.
    Yes, to "just" bung more money into the system "isn't right".

    But she also explicitly said that support is on the way and you're lying by saying she said it isn't. Outright lie.

    Support is on the way, but it shouldn't just be that.
    If support is on the way she has had a somewhat Damascene conversion then. It remains to be seen what it is and how effective it is.

    Her only promises so far reward the wealthiest in society and do nothing for the poorest.

    There are two issues here. The short term pain and the medium to long term energy security of the nation. She needs to tackle both. Fixing on the medium to long term at the expense of the short term simply means she won't be around to implement anything post the next election.
    She literally said she'd do both.

    She specifically said there'd be support in the emergency budget.

    Rochdale dishonestly cut out her saying that and took the follow up the but where she would not "just" do what she'd just literally said she'd do, and twisted it to mean that she wouldn't do what she literally just said she would do.

    Taking half a sentence out of context to make it mean the opposite of what was said is lying.
    Daft sod. I quoted verbatim line after line after line from her article. Two whole paragraphs:

    "To those of you feeling the squeeze, my message is clear: I will ensure support is on its way and we get through these tough times. My immediate priority will be to put more money back in people’s pockets by cutting taxes, such as reversing the rise in national insurance.

    I would also suspend the green levy on energy bills, bringing down average energy bills by £153. This will build on the work already underway, such as the Energy Bills Support Scheme, which will see a £400 discount paid to consumers from October, and the £1,200 package of support for the most vulnerable."
    "such as" means it will be part of the Emergency Budget, not exclusively all of it, you daft sod.
    So your big play is that we can trust Truss because she has been lying for weeks? Great!
    No, you're the only one who's been lying.

    She literally said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget, but it can't "just" be support.

    You dishonestly said that meant no support.

    If there's support forthcoming in the Emergency Budget, like she said there would be, then she hasn't lied.
    That's a "no, your mum" answer.

    That all you got left?
    No I've got what she said. She said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget. You said there won't be.

    If there is, she's told the truth, you haven't.
    She said the support will be tax cuts and cutting the green crap you dimwit. Listen to what she is saying rather than what you want her to be saying.
    "Such as" doesn't mean "only" or "exclusively".

    Try again, where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim. Full quote or it didn't happen.
    Where have I claimed she will provide "no support"?

    Just in the quote chain above I have posted: "they will have to act but it will be too little too late" and "Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. "

    Do read what is written, not what you want to have been written.
    Re-read what I wrote.

    Where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim.


    Not you, when has she ever said that?
    But I am not claiming that am I? Its your usual twatty strawman bullshit. You're only missing the arsehole shrug emoji for the full house. The stuff she posted in the Mail and has said eleventy times through the campaigns - tax cuts, green levy cuts etc - are support. Just "too little" as I noted above.
    But she never said they would be the limits of her support did she? 🤷‍♂️
    Indeed! And as I said, "they will have to act" and "she will be forced to act".

    A long way from your strawman twattery.
  • Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    WILL NO ONE THINK OF THE DINGHY ALBANIANS

    Even as we lucky Brits contemplate a winter of gnawing cold pigeon, served on a bed of toxic seaweed, there are hard-pressed wealthy Albanian drug dealers who are being basically FORCED by themselves to climb into air-conditioned Mercedes minibuses, in which they are basically TRAFFICKED by themselves through several agreeable European spa-towns, with scenic lunch-stops, until they reach the Channel where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they have no money, dropping their Rolexes at Deauville, so they can cross ten minutes of water where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they are asylum seekers, which we are happy to accept despite it being ludicrous, thus allowing them to live on our money as they then go out and deal lethal drugs to our kids. And maybe do a couple of violent burglaries

    Thank God THEY will be warm this winter. In a British home YOU pay for

    Leon, the only person thinking about these Albanians is you. In fact, they won't need any kind of accommodation or heating as they live in your head rent-free, warmed by the glowing embers of your perpetual outrage.
    Remember when you told me it was all Eritreans. I think that was about two days ago?


    "Official data released on Thursday has confirmed suspicions that Albanians are now a prominent national group among the asylum seekers travelling across the Channel."

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/25/rise-in-albanian-asylum-seekers-may-be-down-to-criminal-gangs

    "Speculation has fallen upon dominant organised criminal gangs known to have previously trafficked sex workers and gang members into the UK, and which now control large parts of the marijuana and cocaine markets.

    "Albanian gang activity is “rising up the security services’ list” of priorities because of the surge in arrivals from the Balkan state, it is understood.

    Evidence of a growing market offering Albanians a route across the Channel to the UK can be found on TikTok"


    Soft-headed liberal dullards like you are still weeping about Rwanda. Get a grip

    It's a recent surge, who knows if it will be sustained. Hopefully intelligence led law enforcement can deal with the issue. The Rwandan scheme won't deter any Albanians as they will simply elect to go back to Albania if they are caught. They are not seeking asylum in the UK and are unlikely to be granted it if they did, their goal is to enter undetected and enter the black economy.
    Historically about 90% of those arriving by boat come from a handful of wartorn countries and more than half are granted leave to stay as they are genuine refugees.
    I've said this before, try to be civil when you post on here.
    But you are a softheaded liberal dullard. As this exchange conclusively proves. You don't like difficult truths, you are Woke liberal, and you're not very bright.

    Admitting this fact is not incivility, that's statin' the bleedin' obvious

    And, by the way, Rwanda really WOULD deter Albanians from crossing. If these drug lords think there is a 5% chance they will be sent to Africa, not back to Albania, they would all stop coming tomorrow
    There is a 0% chance that the UK would send anyone to Rwanda who they can send back to where they came from. The Rwandan scheme is designed for those who won't/can't go back to their country of origin. Although of course it's really designed to give people like you a semi, and it's unlikely to ever be used.
    People who call other people thick are usually thick themselves.
    Not true.

    The way the Aussie scheme works, people choose to return home rather than be sent to the offshore location.

    Facing a choice of Britain or Albania people say "I absolutely can't go back to Albania, not under any circumstances".
    Facing a choice of Rwanda or Albania people say "send me home".
  • Leon said:

    Dunno why, but I've really got a thing against old people now. I might start a political party (before I get too old) to attack them

    Question - is the issue that they are old, or what they are voting for?

    Suspect that you're actually demonstrating that you have a thing against people who disagree with whatever the issue is that possesses you at any given moment. Don't worry, that is normal, you don't need to start a "Persecute Pensioners" party.
  • Taz said:

    Taz said:

    I don't understand why Truss can't say "this is what I would do on mitigating energy prices if I were elected Conservative leader and became PM". Sunak has done it, Starmer has done it. The only reason not to do it is because she does not yet know. Given how far in advance the rises have been signalled, that is not good enough.

    Because she doesn't care! We've got @williamglenn and to a gentler extent @Big_G_NorthWales claiming Truss will intervene and some of us are just attacking her / the Tories. Based on what? That they believe she is a Massive Liar?

    She cannot be clearer. On a "here's what I would do as Prime Minister" tour for a month and a half, meetings all across the country saying the same thing over and over and over. Hope that she already has a plan up her sleeve, or that she will pick a plan supposedly being drawn up by the Treasury is to hope she is a massive liar saying "no handouts" whilst planning handouts.

    "You can trust her to act because she's a massive liar" is hardly a political position that will hold. So I believe the opposite is true - she isn't lying. I don't doubt that she will be forced to do *something*. But unlike the previous government whose belief only in Boris allowed the massive u-turn into furlough, this one has zeal behind it.

    When the pile of pensioner corpses grows too high and the "you've already had a handout" excuses just provoke actual riots, they will have to act. But it will be way too late, far too little, and aimed at the people who don't need it to ameliorate the horror of handouts.
    She may be changing tack, if this is to be believed.

    I hold her in the same high regard as you do. However she has succeeded in politics by having principles that can be adopted or jetisoned as often as practical.

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/truss-changes-tack-over-energy-bills-after-previously-saying-she-favours-tax-cuts-over-handouts/ar-AA116LWV?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=88d6f65729d64888f1fdf599ec5e27e5
    Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. She doesn't want handouts to the workshy. Repeated again last night. So when they put this together it won't be targeted. It will be universal to ensure her lot get theirs and so that she isn't rewarding failure. And it will be a loan.

    Which defers rather than resolves the problem of unpayable debt.
    You're lying, that's not what she said.

    What she said actually is that support is on the way, but her priority is fixing the problem.

    You're tilting at windmills.
    I *directly quoted* her. " “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”

    Reading your pro-Truss posts is like watching a toddler throw a tantrum. You want your tax cut and people die so what. That the country is reacting in horror rather than agreeing with you has you with your arms crossed scowling and stamping the floor.
    Yes, to "just" bung more money into the system "isn't right".

    But she also explicitly said that support is on the way and you're lying by saying she said it isn't. Outright lie.

    Support is on the way, but it shouldn't just be that.
    If support is on the way she has had a somewhat Damascene conversion then. It remains to be seen what it is and how effective it is.

    Her only promises so far reward the wealthiest in society and do nothing for the poorest.

    There are two issues here. The short term pain and the medium to long term energy security of the nation. She needs to tackle both. Fixing on the medium to long term at the expense of the short term simply means she won't be around to implement anything post the next election.
    She literally said she'd do both.

    She specifically said there'd be support in the emergency budget.

    Rochdale dishonestly cut out her saying that and took the follow up the but where she would not "just" do what she'd just literally said she'd do, and twisted it to mean that she wouldn't do what she literally just said she would do.

    Taking half a sentence out of context to make it mean the opposite of what was said is lying.
    Daft sod. I quoted verbatim line after line after line from her article. Two whole paragraphs:

    "To those of you feeling the squeeze, my message is clear: I will ensure support is on its way and we get through these tough times. My immediate priority will be to put more money back in people’s pockets by cutting taxes, such as reversing the rise in national insurance.

    I would also suspend the green levy on energy bills, bringing down average energy bills by £153. This will build on the work already underway, such as the Energy Bills Support Scheme, which will see a £400 discount paid to consumers from October, and the £1,200 package of support for the most vulnerable."
    "such as" means it will be part of the Emergency Budget, not exclusively all of it, you daft sod.
    So your big play is that we can trust Truss because she has been lying for weeks? Great!
    No, you're the only one who's been lying.

    She literally said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget, but it can't "just" be support.

    You dishonestly said that meant no support.

    If there's support forthcoming in the Emergency Budget, like she said there would be, then she hasn't lied.
    That's a "no, your mum" answer.

    That all you got left?
    No I've got what she said. She said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget. You said there won't be.

    If there is, she's told the truth, you haven't.
    She said the support will be tax cuts and cutting the green crap you dimwit. Listen to what she is saying rather than what you want her to be saying.
    "Such as" doesn't mean "only" or "exclusively".

    Try again, where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim. Full quote or it didn't happen.
    Where have I claimed she will provide "no support"?

    Just in the quote chain above I have posted: "they will have to act but it will be too little too late" and "Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. "

    Do read what is written, not what you want to have been written.
    Re-read what I wrote.

    Where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim.


    Not you, when has she ever said that?
    But I am not claiming that am I? Its your usual twatty strawman bullshit. You're only missing the arsehole shrug emoji for the full house. The stuff she posted in the Mail and has said eleventy times through the campaigns - tax cuts, green levy cuts etc - are support. Just "too little" as I noted above.
    But she never said they would be the limits of her support did she? 🤷‍♂️
    Indeed! And as I said, "they will have to act" and "she will be forced to act".

    A long way from your strawman twattery.
    She will act because she's said she'll act.

    You keep saying she's said that she won't, and that if she does she's lied. Now you're saying you've not said she's said she won't.

    Oh well, guess you accept I was right then, so we can retire this conversation.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 3,549

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    From all the comments here today, you’d think that the government hadn’t already announced a £37,000,000,000 package of support measures for this winter, and that the likely next PM has already committed to remove VAT and green levies from energy bills before the winter.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/energy-bills-support-scheme-explainer

    The Energy Bills Support Scheme will deliver a £400 non-repayable discount to eligible households to help with energy bills from October

    Households most in need will be eligible for further support in addition to the Energy Bills discount. This includes:
    1. a £650 one-off Cost of Living Payment for around 8 million households on means tested benefits
    2. a one-off £300 Pensioner Cost of Living Payment for over 8 million pensioner households to be paid alongside the Winter Fuel Payment
    3. a payment of £150 for around 6 million people across the UK who receive certain disability benefits
    4. a £500 million increase and extension of the Household Support Fund

    The point is, it's all been piecemeal and has had no effect on inflation. If you're going to spend £37bn why not use it to reduce the price cap, and inflation?

    People will say it's targeted but the poorest spend the highest proportion of their income on fuel, so freezing the cap would be helping them the most.

    I also question how much these piecemeal initiatives will cost in administration. Volunteering for Citizens Advice, we are getting a lot of queries from people who are confused or need help applying (e.g. for the HSF).
    Interesting. From looking at it, the scheme appears designed to minimise the administration costs. The £400 payment is being administered by the suppliers through bills, and the various top-ups are linked to other existing state benefits.

    Watching this from afar, there appears to be poor communication about what has already been announced by the government, and how the price cap actually works in practice. Not helped by scaremongering and government-bashing from certain sections of the media.

    There also needs to be a public information campaign in the autumn, reminding people of how best they can reduce their energy consumption. Many people will not have thought to wear a jumper indoors, replace old light bulbs with LEDs, and not boil a full kettle for one cup of tea.
    People are calculating the price of a shower
    per minute, how much energy different meals
    cost to cook, whether to use the oven or
    microwave. And this isn't just the poor but
    middle classes. I don't normally like the "ex-
    pat so must be out of touch" arguments often
    repeated on here, but on this you are out of
    touch.
    Realistically those things help around the margins only anyway. Home heating is by far the biggest contributor to cost. It’s a bit too late to insulate everywhere (government could have launched a big campaign with incentives on this back in March when Russia invaded) and there’s only so far the thermostat can be turned down before people suffer Ill health.

    Interesting evidence coming out this week of German industry massively improving its energy efficiency per unit of output this year, so hopefully UK manufacturing is able to do likewise. There is a lot offices could do too with a/c and heating settings to reduce consumption.

  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,379

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    WILL NO ONE THINK OF THE DINGHY ALBANIANS

    Even as we lucky Brits contemplate a winter of gnawing cold pigeon, served on a bed of toxic seaweed, there are hard-pressed wealthy Albanian drug dealers who are being basically FORCED by themselves to climb into air-conditioned Mercedes minibuses, in which they are basically TRAFFICKED by themselves through several agreeable European spa-towns, with scenic lunch-stops, until they reach the Channel where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they have no money, dropping their Rolexes at Deauville, so they can cross ten minutes of water where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they are asylum seekers, which we are happy to accept despite it being ludicrous, thus allowing them to live on our money as they then go out and deal lethal drugs to our kids. And maybe do a couple of violent burglaries

    Thank God THEY will be warm this winter. In a British home YOU pay for

    Leon, the only person thinking about these Albanians is you. In fact, they won't need any kind of accommodation or heating as they live in your head rent-free, warmed by the glowing embers of your perpetual outrage.
    Remember when you told me it was all Eritreans. I think that was about two days ago?


    "Official data released on Thursday has confirmed suspicions that Albanians are now a prominent national group among the asylum seekers travelling across the Channel."

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/25/rise-in-albanian-asylum-seekers-may-be-down-to-criminal-gangs

    "Speculation has fallen upon dominant organised criminal gangs known to have previously trafficked sex workers and gang members into the UK, and which now control large parts of the marijuana and cocaine markets.

    "Albanian gang activity is “rising up the security services’ list” of priorities because of the surge in arrivals from the Balkan state, it is understood.

    Evidence of a growing market offering Albanians a route across the Channel to the UK can be found on TikTok"


    Soft-headed liberal dullards like you are still weeping about Rwanda. Get a grip

    It's a recent surge, who knows if it will be sustained. Hopefully intelligence led law enforcement can deal with the issue. The Rwandan scheme won't deter any Albanians as they will simply elect to go back to Albania if they are caught. They are not seeking asylum in the UK and are unlikely to be granted it if they did, their goal is to enter undetected and enter the black economy.
    Historically about 90% of those arriving by boat come from a handful of wartorn countries and more than half are granted leave to stay as they are genuine refugees.
    I've said this before, try to be civil when you post on here.
    But you are a softheaded liberal dullard. As this exchange conclusively proves. You don't like difficult truths, you are Woke liberal, and you're not very bright.

    Admitting this fact is not incivility, that's statin' the bleedin' obvious

    And, by the way, Rwanda really WOULD deter Albanians from crossing. If these drug lords think there is a 5% chance they will be sent to Africa, not back to Albania, they would all stop coming tomorrow
    There is a 0% chance that the UK would send anyone to Rwanda who they can send back to where they came from. The Rwandan scheme is designed for those who won't/can't go back to their country of origin. Although of course it's really designed to give people like you a semi, and it's unlikely to ever be used.
    People who call other people thick are usually thick themselves.
    I didn't say you were thick, I said you were "not very bright". Which is surely indisputable. Indeed I suspect you know this and are content with it. You are not tortured by your intellectual mediocrity. That's a good thing. I have a friend who is like you - decidedly middlebrow in every way - who is less self-aware than you, and thinks he is super clever

    It can be agonising as he opines
  • TazTaz Posts: 6,545
    Leon said:

    Dunno why, but I've really got a thing against old people now. I might start a political party (before I get too old) to attack them

    Get Galloway on board. His dislike of oldies is visceral.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,817

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    WILL NO ONE THINK OF THE DINGHY ALBANIANS

    Even as we lucky Brits contemplate a winter of gnawing cold pigeon, served on a bed of toxic seaweed, there are hard-pressed wealthy Albanian drug dealers who are being basically FORCED by themselves to climb into air-conditioned Mercedes minibuses, in which they are basically TRAFFICKED by themselves through several agreeable European spa-towns, with scenic lunch-stops, until they reach the Channel where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they have no money, dropping their Rolexes at Deauville, so they can cross ten minutes of water where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they are asylum seekers, which we are happy to accept despite it being ludicrous, thus allowing them to live on our money as they then go out and deal lethal drugs to our kids. And maybe do a couple of violent burglaries

    Thank God THEY will be warm this winter. In a British home YOU pay for

    Leon, the only person thinking about these Albanians is you. In fact, they won't need any kind of accommodation or heating as they live in your head rent-free, warmed by the glowing embers of your perpetual outrage.
    Remember when you told me it was all Eritreans. I think that was about two days ago?


    "Official data released on Thursday has confirmed suspicions that Albanians are now a prominent national group among the asylum seekers travelling across the Channel."

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/25/rise-in-albanian-asylum-seekers-may-be-down-to-criminal-gangs

    "Speculation has fallen upon dominant organised criminal gangs known to have previously trafficked sex workers and gang members into the UK, and which now control large parts of the marijuana and cocaine markets.

    "Albanian gang activity is “rising up the security services’ list” of priorities because of the surge in arrivals from the Balkan state, it is understood.

    Evidence of a growing market offering Albanians a route across the Channel to the UK can be found on TikTok"


    Soft-headed liberal dullards like you are still weeping about Rwanda. Get a grip

    It's a recent surge, who knows if it will be sustained. Hopefully intelligence led law enforcement can deal with the issue. The Rwandan scheme won't deter any Albanians as they will simply elect to go back to Albania if they are caught. They are not seeking asylum in the UK and are unlikely to be granted it if they did, their goal is to enter undetected and enter the black economy.
    Historically about 90% of those arriving by boat come from a handful of wartorn countries and more than half are granted leave to stay as they are genuine refugees.
    I've said this before, try to be civil when you post on here.
    But you are a softheaded liberal dullard. As this exchange conclusively proves. You don't like difficult truths, you are Woke liberal, and you're not very bright.

    Admitting this fact is not incivility, that's statin' the bleedin' obvious

    And, by the way, Rwanda really WOULD deter Albanians from crossing. If these drug lords think there is a 5% chance they will be sent to Africa, not back to Albania, they would all stop coming tomorrow
    There is a 0% chance that the UK would send anyone to Rwanda who they can send back to where they came from. The Rwandan scheme is designed for those who won't/can't go back to their country of origin. Although of course it's really designed to give people like you a semi, and it's unlikely to ever be used.
    People who call other people thick are usually thick themselves.
    Not true.

    The way the Aussie scheme works, people choose to return home rather than be sent to the offshore location.

    Facing a choice of Britain or Albania people say "I absolutely can't go back to Albania, not under any circumstances".
    Facing a choice of Rwanda or Albania people say "send me home".
    Why can't we implement either of my ideas?

    - Illegal working = massive fine for employers, half goes to the immigrant in return for testimony against employer. And an indefinite leave to remain visa.

    Or

    - Anyone entering the country without documentation is deemed to have enlisted in the Royal Navy.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 42,393

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    From all the comments here today, you’d think that the government hadn’t already announced a £37,000,000,000 package of support measures for this winter, and that the likely next PM has already committed to remove VAT and green levies from energy bills before the winter.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/energy-bills-support-scheme-explainer

    The Energy Bills Support Scheme will deliver a £400 non-repayable discount to eligible households to help with energy bills from October

    Households most in need will be eligible for further support in addition to the Energy Bills discount. This includes:
    1. a £650 one-off Cost of Living Payment for around 8 million households on means tested benefits
    2. a one-off £300 Pensioner Cost of Living Payment for over 8 million pensioner households to be paid alongside the Winter Fuel Payment
    3. a payment of £150 for around 6 million people across the UK who receive certain disability benefits
    4. a £500 million increase and extension of the Household Support Fund

    The point is, it's all been piecemeal and has had no effect on inflation. If you're going to spend £37bn why not use it to reduce the price cap, and inflation?

    People will say it's targeted but the poorest spend the highest proportion of their income on fuel, so freezing the cap would be helping them the most.

    I also question how much these piecemeal initiatives will cost in administration. Volunteering for Citizens Advice, we are getting a lot of queries from people who are confused or need help applying (e.g. for the HSF).
    Interesting. From looking at it, the scheme appears designed to minimise the administration costs. The £400 payment is being administered by the suppliers through bills, and the various top-ups are linked to other existing state benefits.

    Watching this from afar, there appears to be poor communication about what has already been announced by the government, and how the price cap actually works in practice. Not helped by scaremongering and government-bashing from certain sections of the media.

    There also needs to be a public information campaign in the autumn, reminding people of how best they can reduce their energy consumption. Many people will not have thought to wear a jumper indoors, replace old light bulbs with LEDs, and not boil a full kettle for one cup of tea.
    People are calculating the price of a shower per minute, how much energy different meals cost to cook, whether to use the oven or microwave. And this isn't just the poor but middle classes. I don't normally like the "ex-pat so must be out of touch" arguments often repeated on here, but on this you are out of touch.
    What do you disagree with, that I wrote? It’s good that people are thinking about how to reduce their energy consumption.

    Here in expat-land, we are in the middle of a the hot summer, and last month’s air conditioning bill was more than £200, for a two bed apartment. My wife and I, on middle incomes, have been making a conscious decision to reduce usage this month, by switching off a/c in unoccupied zones, ditching the duvet and sleeping in sheets, wearing t-shirt and shorts indoors, switching everything off when the apartment is unoccupied, etc.

    For a lot of people, energy bills were not anything that was consciously thought about before, but they will need to be this winter - as they have been for me this summer!
  • Taz said:

    Taz said:

    I don't understand why Truss can't say "this is what I would do on mitigating energy prices if I were elected Conservative leader and became PM". Sunak has done it, Starmer has done it. The only reason not to do it is because she does not yet know. Given how far in advance the rises have been signalled, that is not good enough.

    Because she doesn't care! We've got @williamglenn and to a gentler extent @Big_G_NorthWales claiming Truss will intervene and some of us are just attacking her / the Tories. Based on what? That they believe she is a Massive Liar?

    She cannot be clearer. On a "here's what I would do as Prime Minister" tour for a month and a half, meetings all across the country saying the same thing over and over and over. Hope that she already has a plan up her sleeve, or that she will pick a plan supposedly being drawn up by the Treasury is to hope she is a massive liar saying "no handouts" whilst planning handouts.

    "You can trust her to act because she's a massive liar" is hardly a political position that will hold. So I believe the opposite is true - she isn't lying. I don't doubt that she will be forced to do *something*. But unlike the previous government whose belief only in Boris allowed the massive u-turn into furlough, this one has zeal behind it.

    When the pile of pensioner corpses grows too high and the "you've already had a handout" excuses just provoke actual riots, they will have to act. But it will be way too late, far too little, and aimed at the people who don't need it to ameliorate the horror of handouts.
    She may be changing tack, if this is to be believed.

    I hold her in the same high regard as you do. However she has succeeded in politics by having principles that can be adopted or jetisoned as often as practical.

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/truss-changes-tack-over-energy-bills-after-previously-saying-she-favours-tax-cuts-over-handouts/ar-AA116LWV?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=88d6f65729d64888f1fdf599ec5e27e5
    Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. She doesn't want handouts to the workshy. Repeated again last night. So when they put this together it won't be targeted. It will be universal to ensure her lot get theirs and so that she isn't rewarding failure. And it will be a loan.

    Which defers rather than resolves the problem of unpayable debt.
    You're lying, that's not what she said.

    What she said actually is that support is on the way, but her priority is fixing the problem.

    You're tilting at windmills.
    I *directly quoted* her. " “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”

    Reading your pro-Truss posts is like watching a toddler throw a tantrum. You want your tax cut and people die so what. That the country is reacting in horror rather than agreeing with you has you with your arms crossed scowling and stamping the floor.
    Yes, to "just" bung more money into the system "isn't right".

    But she also explicitly said that support is on the way and you're lying by saying she said it isn't. Outright lie.

    Support is on the way, but it shouldn't just be that.
    If support is on the way she has had a somewhat Damascene conversion then. It remains to be seen what it is and how effective it is.

    Her only promises so far reward the wealthiest in society and do nothing for the poorest.

    There are two issues here. The short term pain and the medium to long term energy security of the nation. She needs to tackle both. Fixing on the medium to long term at the expense of the short term simply means she won't be around to implement anything post the next election.
    She literally said she'd do both.

    She specifically said there'd be support in the emergency budget.

    Rochdale dishonestly cut out her saying that and took the follow up the but where she would not "just" do what she'd just literally said she'd do, and twisted it to mean that she wouldn't do what she literally just said she would do.

    Taking half a sentence out of context to make it mean the opposite of what was said is lying.
    Daft sod. I quoted verbatim line after line after line from her article. Two whole paragraphs:

    "To those of you feeling the squeeze, my message is clear: I will ensure support is on its way and we get through these tough times. My immediate priority will be to put more money back in people’s pockets by cutting taxes, such as reversing the rise in national insurance.

    I would also suspend the green levy on energy bills, bringing down average energy bills by £153. This will build on the work already underway, such as the Energy Bills Support Scheme, which will see a £400 discount paid to consumers from October, and the £1,200 package of support for the most vulnerable."
    "such as" means it will be part of the Emergency Budget, not exclusively all of it, you daft sod.
    So your big play is that we can trust Truss because she has been lying for weeks? Great!
    No, you're the only one who's been lying.

    She literally said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget, but it can't "just" be support.

    You dishonestly said that meant no support.

    If there's support forthcoming in the Emergency Budget, like she said there would be, then she hasn't lied.
    That's a "no, your mum" answer.

    That all you got left?
    No I've got what she said. She said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget. You said there won't be.

    If there is, she's told the truth, you haven't.
    She said the support will be tax cuts and cutting the green crap you dimwit. Listen to what she is saying rather than what you want her to be saying.
    "Such as" doesn't mean "only" or "exclusively".

    Try again, where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim. Full quote or it didn't happen.
    Where have I claimed she will provide "no support"?

    Just in the quote chain above I have posted: "they will have to act but it will be too little too late" and "Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. "

    Do read what is written, not what you want to have been written.
    Re-read what I wrote.

    Where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim.


    Not you, when has she ever said that?
    But I am not claiming that am I? Its your usual twatty strawman bullshit. You're only missing the arsehole shrug emoji for the full house. The stuff she posted in the Mail and has said eleventy times through the campaigns - tax cuts, green levy cuts etc - are support. Just "too little" as I noted above.
    But she never said they would be the limits of her support did she? 🤷‍♂️
    Indeed! And as I said, "they will have to act" and "she will be forced to act".

    A long way from your strawman twattery.
    She will act because she's said she'll act.

    You keep saying she's said that she won't, and that if she does she's lied. Now you're saying you've not said she's said she won't.

    Oh well, guess you accept I was right then, so we can retire this conversation.
    lolol. How she will act, when she will act, and in what tone is what I said.

    I think that she says what she thinks. You say she will do the opposite of what she says. Being able to translate Trussspeak into English would indeed be a skill to allow someone to retire off the profits.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,673

    Scott_xP said:

    In our regular Westminster voting intention tracker, Labour's lead has doubled to eight points in two weeks:

    Lab 41% (+2)
    Con 33% (-2)
    LibDem 11% (-1)
    Green 6% (+1)
    SNP 4% (nc)

    1,641 questioned on 17-18 August. Changes with 10-11 August.

    http://www.technetracker.co.uk https://twitter.com/techneUK/status/1563075063032987652/photo/1

    low 58 LLG here compared to the other polls. With Tory high on 33 They may have two much Tory vote in this sample I think.
    Same Tory vote as Kantar and Redfield yesterday which had LLG 59. Opinium was LLG 57. In line with recent polling bang on (last Techne was only a 4 lead and Tory 35)
    Opinium has swing back built in, Kantor are the Tories best friend (and I thought they hit 60, my maths is rubbish) we have to place Techne in the same bracket with them?
    Of those reporting since 'le shift' - Opinium, Kantar, Techne, BMG, Redfield all 8 to 10 lead with Tories 31 to 33
    YouGov and the new guys 15 and 14 and Tories sub 30. YouGov will report again over the next few days with fieldwork up to yesterday
    Is the difference down to certainty to vote? The GB News one had a lot of Don't Knows.
  • Taz said:

    Leon said:

    Dunno why, but I've really got a thing against old people now. I might start a political party (before I get too old) to attack them

    Get Galloway on board. His dislike of oldies is visceral.
    The gorgeous one is 68 years old. Which surely makes him old?
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 9,007

    Leon said:

    Alistair said:

    A new Challenger enters the arena

    https://twitter.com/PeoplePolling/status/1563090691000938496

    Our first Westminster Voting Intention poll:

    LAB: 40%
    CON: 26%
    LDM: 11%
    GRN: 6%
    SNP: 6%

    Sample size: 1,235. Fieldwork: 22 Aug. Full tables: https://peoplepolling.org/tables/202208_GBN_W34_full.pdf


    Commissioned by GB News.

    I'm sure Leon will be commenting on the SNP figure to work out if peak SNP has passed.


    My comment is that this poll looks decidedly rogue, on multiple fronts

    I don’t doubt that Labour have a sizeable lead. But 14 points? Am Skeptical
    11% other others. The return of UKIP, lol
    Actually I quite like that, once you take the reform out, so many votes for fringe local independents all the time, perhaps everyone should show larger other figure?
    No, because the nutter parties never achieve that level of support (Reform wont get near 2% let alone 5 and they are by far the biggest) and there arent many strong 'independants' - Jason Zadrozny in Ashfield and Claire Swire in East Devon (but shes not certain to run again)
    But this is an opinion poll, saying rrform 5 today not prediction what they will get on polling day, I agree likely 3 or 2.

    I think you might be missing the non labour lefties get votes, non Lib Dem liberals get votes, non Reform UKip get votes etc.
    Tbf Reform could easily be sub 1% next GE if they only stand 100 or so candidates (which seems probable short of a big donation splurge)
    A lot of this, UKIP instead of reform, liberals instead of Libdem, ultra lefties instead of Labour, the Gorgeous George’s of Tower Hamlets is all very localised though, I guess based on strength of personalities to some degree.

    A literal Democrat once got a lot of votes. All I said was, maybe other column on all opinion polls should be a bit bigger, just as a throw away comment - a bit like only saying I fancied an early night, not that I don’t love you anymore. 🙂
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103
    edited August 2022
    TimS said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    From all the comments here today, you’d think that the government hadn’t already announced a £37,000,000,000 package of support measures for this winter, and that the likely next PM has already committed to remove VAT and green levies from energy bills before the winter.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/energy-bills-support-scheme-explainer

    The Energy Bills Support Scheme will deliver a £400 non-repayable discount to eligible households to help with energy bills from October

    Households most in need will be eligible for further support in addition to the Energy Bills discount. This includes:
    1. a £650 one-off Cost of Living Payment for around 8 million households on means tested benefits
    2. a one-off £300 Pensioner Cost of Living Payment for over 8 million pensioner households to be paid alongside the Winter Fuel Payment
    3. a payment of £150 for around 6 million people across the UK who receive certain disability benefits
    4. a £500 million increase and extension of the Household Support Fund

    The point is, it's all been piecemeal and has had no effect on inflation. If you're going to spend £37bn why not use it to reduce the price cap, and inflation?

    People will say it's targeted but the poorest spend the highest proportion of their income on fuel, so freezing the cap would be helping them the most.

    I also question how much these piecemeal initiatives will cost in administration. Volunteering for Citizens Advice, we are getting a lot of queries from people who are confused or need help applying (e.g. for the HSF).
    Interesting. From looking at it, the scheme appears designed to minimise the administration costs. The £400 payment is being administered by the suppliers through bills, and the various top-ups are linked to other existing state benefits.

    Watching this from afar, there appears to be poor communication about what has already been announced by the government, and how the price cap actually works in practice. Not helped by scaremongering and government-bashing from certain sections of the media.

    There also needs to be a public information campaign in the autumn, reminding people of how best they can reduce their energy consumption. Many people will not have thought to wear a jumper indoors, replace old light bulbs with LEDs, and not boil a full kettle for one cup of tea.
    People are calculating the price of a shower
    per minute, how much energy different meals
    cost to cook, whether to use the oven or
    microwave. And this isn't just the poor but
    middle classes. I don't normally like the "ex-
    pat so must be out of touch" arguments often
    repeated on here, but on this you are out of
    touch.
    Realistically those things help around the margins only anyway. Home heating is by far the biggest contributor to cost. It’s a bit too late to insulate everywhere (government could have launched a big campaign with incentives on this back in March when Russia invaded) and there’s only so far the thermostat can be turned down before people suffer Ill health.

    Interesting evidence coming out this week of German industry massively improving its energy efficiency per unit of output this year, so hopefully UK manufacturing is able to do likewise. There is a lot offices could do too with a/c and heating settings to reduce consumption.

    There is a ton of stuff people could do to reduce energy. I am often amazed how people keep their thermostats way up and then just pad about the house in light clothing in middle of winter.

    And if the price signal is completely removed no one will do anything to reduce their demand.

    This is a nightmare policy choice, because we have to reduce our demand urgently.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,649
    edited August 2022
    I wonder if the new PM might not try and pressure to amend the leadership process? As is in opposition, MPs only in government as it was pre Hague?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 46,853

    Nigelb said:

    Morning folks

    A genuine question/suggestion as I don't know enough about the financial and downstream side of energy to see what the issues are with my following suggestion:

    50% of UK gas usage is still produced from UK fields.

    The cost of producing those fields has not significantly increased. Basically although there have been some increases due to (ironically) fuel costs and some ancillary costs they are only in the region of 10-20% at worst. This bit I do know as it is part of my business.

    This is not a normal situation. It is, as some have already mentioned, a war footing.

    We should instruct UK gas producers that for this winter their profits from UK gas production are capped at (for example) 5%. They are still making a profit but we detach the UK gas market from the international gas price rises until the crisis is passed.

    Someone mentioned when I made a similar suggestion a few days ago that I have always said that one of the problems with getting investment in the North Sea is continually changing the rules and tax situation. This is true and it has caused a huge amount of damage to the UK in the past and is, at least in a small way, partly responsible for the issues we now have. So under normal circumstances my ideas would be very bad. But these are not normal circumstances and I think we have to accept that this is a necessary evil for now.

    I would also suggest that, where possible, if companies find gas where they were expecting oil and their infrastructure allows (it usually does) they have to complete the gas wells and produce them rather than abandoning them - which does happen. More often than people would imagine.

    Absolutely feel free to point out the flaws in any and all of this. It could be there are huge obvious flaws. It goes against my normal instincts but, as I say, these are not normal circumstances.

    Valid question, and one that echoes my angry Spanish FIL objecting to gas bills soaring despite them not buying from Russia.

    I assume part of the problem is that we don't own the gas, and BP etc would quite like the revenues of market price as opposed to the proposed lower price.
    We do own the gas. All oil and gas (along with coal, gold and silver) is property of the Crown under the Petroleum (Production) Act 1934. This was extended to include the UK Continental Shelf in 1964. We issue licences to the Oil and Gas companies to extract it.
    Appreciate the finer details here. OK, so under the *licenses* we issued to BP et al they will expect the market price and not some lower rate we just made up.

    Ultimately someone needs to pay the scores of billions it will cost. At least a proportion of that will have to be from the likes of BP. Though we keep being told it can't possibly be so as they will stop extracting oil and making profits here.
    Not really. The companies didn't budget to produce the gas at this vastly inflated price. They were expecting the price to be a fraction of this and will still make huge profits on what they produce here in the UK.

    This is imaginary money with real life consequences. No company expected to be making it and no one needs to find it at harm to themselves except the consumer. So the only people that will; be 'paying' it are the Oil Companies with reduced profits. Yes I understand all the stuff about share holders and pension funds but to be honest what is the point of having hugely valuable pension funds if you have killed of all your pensioners?
    As I asked upthread, though, how much of that production is already sold at earlier, lower prices ?
    No idea. But not much as far as I can see given the fact we are looking at massive increases now.
    But that is the market price for un-contracted gas (or electricity).
    I have no idea what the arrangements are for North Sea production, but it's been reported (for example) that supplies from Norway are contracted some time ahead.

    Remember also that quite a lot of consumer or business gas and electricity is contracted ahead for the next year or so at much lower rates than the cap. Alongside a lot that isn't.
  • Taz said:

    Taz said:

    I don't understand why Truss can't say "this is what I would do on mitigating energy prices if I were elected Conservative leader and became PM". Sunak has done it, Starmer has done it. The only reason not to do it is because she does not yet know. Given how far in advance the rises have been signalled, that is not good enough.

    Because she doesn't care! We've got @williamglenn and to a gentler extent @Big_G_NorthWales claiming Truss will intervene and some of us are just attacking her / the Tories. Based on what? That they believe she is a Massive Liar?

    She cannot be clearer. On a "here's what I would do as Prime Minister" tour for a month and a half, meetings all across the country saying the same thing over and over and over. Hope that she already has a plan up her sleeve, or that she will pick a plan supposedly being drawn up by the Treasury is to hope she is a massive liar saying "no handouts" whilst planning handouts.

    "You can trust her to act because she's a massive liar" is hardly a political position that will hold. So I believe the opposite is true - she isn't lying. I don't doubt that she will be forced to do *something*. But unlike the previous government whose belief only in Boris allowed the massive u-turn into furlough, this one has zeal behind it.

    When the pile of pensioner corpses grows too high and the "you've already had a handout" excuses just provoke actual riots, they will have to act. But it will be way too late, far too little, and aimed at the people who don't need it to ameliorate the horror of handouts.
    She may be changing tack, if this is to be believed.

    I hold her in the same high regard as you do. However she has succeeded in politics by having principles that can be adopted or jetisoned as often as practical.

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/truss-changes-tack-over-energy-bills-after-previously-saying-she-favours-tax-cuts-over-handouts/ar-AA116LWV?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=88d6f65729d64888f1fdf599ec5e27e5
    Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. She doesn't want handouts to the workshy. Repeated again last night. So when they put this together it won't be targeted. It will be universal to ensure her lot get theirs and so that she isn't rewarding failure. And it will be a loan.

    Which defers rather than resolves the problem of unpayable debt.
    You're lying, that's not what she said.

    What she said actually is that support is on the way, but her priority is fixing the problem.

    You're tilting at windmills.
    I *directly quoted* her. " “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”

    Reading your pro-Truss posts is like watching a toddler throw a tantrum. You want your tax cut and people die so what. That the country is reacting in horror rather than agreeing with you has you with your arms crossed scowling and stamping the floor.
    Yes, to "just" bung more money into the system "isn't right".

    But she also explicitly said that support is on the way and you're lying by saying she said it isn't. Outright lie.

    Support is on the way, but it shouldn't just be that.
    If support is on the way she has had a somewhat Damascene conversion then. It remains to be seen what it is and how effective it is.

    Her only promises so far reward the wealthiest in society and do nothing for the poorest.

    There are two issues here. The short term pain and the medium to long term energy security of the nation. She needs to tackle both. Fixing on the medium to long term at the expense of the short term simply means she won't be around to implement anything post the next election.
    She literally said she'd do both.

    She specifically said there'd be support in the emergency budget.

    Rochdale dishonestly cut out her saying that and took the follow up the but where she would not "just" do what she'd just literally said she'd do, and twisted it to mean that she wouldn't do what she literally just said she would do.

    Taking half a sentence out of context to make it mean the opposite of what was said is lying.
    Daft sod. I quoted verbatim line after line after line from her article. Two whole paragraphs:

    "To those of you feeling the squeeze, my message is clear: I will ensure support is on its way and we get through these tough times. My immediate priority will be to put more money back in people’s pockets by cutting taxes, such as reversing the rise in national insurance.

    I would also suspend the green levy on energy bills, bringing down average energy bills by £153. This will build on the work already underway, such as the Energy Bills Support Scheme, which will see a £400 discount paid to consumers from October, and the £1,200 package of support for the most vulnerable."
    "such as" means it will be part of the Emergency Budget, not exclusively all of it, you daft sod.
    So your big play is that we can trust Truss because she has been lying for weeks? Great!
    No, you're the only one who's been lying.

    She literally said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget, but it can't "just" be support.

    You dishonestly said that meant no support.

    If there's support forthcoming in the Emergency Budget, like she said there would be, then she hasn't lied.
    That's a "no, your mum" answer.

    That all you got left?
    No I've got what she said. She said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget. You said there won't be.

    If there is, she's told the truth, you haven't.
    She said the support will be tax cuts and cutting the green crap you dimwit. Listen to what she is saying rather than what you want her to be saying.
    "Such as" doesn't mean "only" or "exclusively".

    Try again, where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim. Full quote or it didn't happen.
    Where have I claimed she will provide "no support"?

    Just in the quote chain above I have posted: "they will have to act but it will be too little too late" and "Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. "

    Do read what is written, not what you want to have been written.
    Re-read what I wrote.

    Where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim.


    Not you, when has she ever said that?
    But I am not claiming that am I? Its your usual twatty strawman bullshit. You're only missing the arsehole shrug emoji for the full house. The stuff she posted in the Mail and has said eleventy times through the campaigns - tax cuts, green levy cuts etc - are support. Just "too little" as I noted above.
    But she never said they would be the limits of her support did she? 🤷‍♂️
    Indeed! And as I said, "they will have to act" and "she will be forced to act".

    A long way from your strawman twattery.
    She will act because she's said she'll act.

    You keep saying she's said that she won't, and that if she does she's lied. Now you're saying you've not said she's said she won't.

    Oh well, guess you accept I was right then, so we can retire this conversation.
    lolol. How she will act, when she will act, and in what tone is what I said.

    I think that she says what she thinks. You say she will do the opposite of what she says. Being able to translate Trussspeak into English would indeed be a skill to allow someone to retire off the profits.
    I think she will do what she's said, which is offer support in the Emergency Budget.

    Support such as cutting NI, which allows people to keep more of their own money they work for. 👍
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,379

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    WILL NO ONE THINK OF THE DINGHY ALBANIANS

    Even as we lucky Brits contemplate a winter of gnawing cold pigeon, served on a bed of toxic seaweed, there are hard-pressed wealthy Albanian drug dealers who are being basically FORCED by themselves to climb into air-conditioned Mercedes minibuses, in which they are basically TRAFFICKED by themselves through several agreeable European spa-towns, with scenic lunch-stops, until they reach the Channel where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they have no money, dropping their Rolexes at Deauville, so they can cross ten minutes of water where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they are asylum seekers, which we are happy to accept despite it being ludicrous, thus allowing them to live on our money as they then go out and deal lethal drugs to our kids. And maybe do a couple of violent burglaries

    Thank God THEY will be warm this winter. In a British home YOU pay for

    Leon, the only person thinking about these Albanians is you. In fact, they won't need any kind of accommodation or heating as they live in your head rent-free, warmed by the glowing embers of your perpetual outrage.
    Remember when you told me it was all Eritreans. I think that was about two days ago?


    "Official data released on Thursday has confirmed suspicions that Albanians are now a prominent national group among the asylum seekers travelling across the Channel."

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/25/rise-in-albanian-asylum-seekers-may-be-down-to-criminal-gangs

    "Speculation has fallen upon dominant organised criminal gangs known to have previously trafficked sex workers and gang members into the UK, and which now control large parts of the marijuana and cocaine markets.

    "Albanian gang activity is “rising up the security services’ list” of priorities because of the surge in arrivals from the Balkan state, it is understood.

    Evidence of a growing market offering Albanians a route across the Channel to the UK can be found on TikTok"


    Soft-headed liberal dullards like you are still weeping about Rwanda. Get a grip

    It's a recent surge, who knows if it will be sustained. Hopefully intelligence led law enforcement can deal with the issue. The Rwandan scheme won't deter any Albanians as they will simply elect to go back to Albania if they are caught. They are not seeking asylum in the UK and are unlikely to be granted it if they did, their goal is to enter undetected and enter the black economy.
    Historically about 90% of those arriving by boat come from a handful of wartorn countries and more than half are granted leave to stay as they are genuine refugees.
    I've said this before, try to be civil when you post on here.
    But you are a softheaded liberal dullard. As this exchange conclusively proves. You don't like difficult truths, you are Woke liberal, and you're not very bright.

    Admitting this fact is not incivility, that's statin' the bleedin' obvious

    And, by the way, Rwanda really WOULD deter Albanians from crossing. If these drug lords think there is a 5% chance they will be sent to Africa, not back to Albania, they would all stop coming tomorrow
    There is a 0% chance that the UK would send anyone to Rwanda who they can send back to where they came from. The Rwandan scheme is designed for those who won't/can't go back to their country of origin. Although of course it's really designed to give people like you a semi, and it's unlikely to ever be used.
    People who call other people thick are usually thick themselves.
    Not true.

    The way the Aussie scheme works, people choose to return home rather than be sent to the offshore location.

    Facing a choice of Britain or Albania people say "I absolutely can't go back to Albania, not under any circumstances".
    Facing a choice of Rwanda or Albania people say "send me home".
    It's perfectly easy to make the scheme cruel enough to deter people. And it does have to be a tiny bit cruel to work

    If we catch anyone landing we say to them: are you an asylum seeker? If they say Yes, we say, Right, off to Rwanda to be processed

    If they say No I'm from Albania, we say: OK you're an illegal immigrant you will go to jail: here or in Albania

    At that point - when the first flight takes off for Africa - Albanian crossings would cease entirely
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 46,853

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:
    Idiotic.

    Macron is not a friend, he's the President of France but no friend. He's not a foe either.

    Why do muppets feel the need to pretend the President of France is our friend?
    For the same reason you don’t go to a dinner party and be honest about how fat your friends wife is looking.

    Unless you are honest enough to tell everyone she is looking fat, in which case you are not a muppet quite like us then! 😆
    Give over.

    Is Victor Orban a friend?
    Is Recep Tayyip Erdoğan a friend?

    Was Donald Trump a friend?

    If a leader prevaricated over calling Donald Trump a friend or foe would you be so alarmed?
    Absolutely.

    The UK has allies - France and the US, for example - and it has foes (like Putin).
    Getting confused between the two categories is not something a Foreign Secretary or Prime Minister should be doing.

    Which should have been the obvious answer to such stupid questions from provocateurs like Hartley Brewer.
    Allies aren't all friends.

    America is an ally, Trump is not a friend.
    Which is fine for you to say; a minister, not so much.
    They are supposed to be able to avoid inserting their feet in their mouth.
  • Taz said:

    Taz said:

    I don't understand why Truss can't say "this is what I would do on mitigating energy prices if I were elected Conservative leader and became PM". Sunak has done it, Starmer has done it. The only reason not to do it is because she does not yet know. Given how far in advance the rises have been signalled, that is not good enough.

    Because she doesn't care! We've got @williamglenn and to a gentler extent @Big_G_NorthWales claiming Truss will intervene and some of us are just attacking her / the Tories. Based on what? That they believe she is a Massive Liar?

    She cannot be clearer. On a "here's what I would do as Prime Minister" tour for a month and a half, meetings all across the country saying the same thing over and over and over. Hope that she already has a plan up her sleeve, or that she will pick a plan supposedly being drawn up by the Treasury is to hope she is a massive liar saying "no handouts" whilst planning handouts.

    "You can trust her to act because she's a massive liar" is hardly a political position that will hold. So I believe the opposite is true - she isn't lying. I don't doubt that she will be forced to do *something*. But unlike the previous government whose belief only in Boris allowed the massive u-turn into furlough, this one has zeal behind it.

    When the pile of pensioner corpses grows too high and the "you've already had a handout" excuses just provoke actual riots, they will have to act. But it will be way too late, far too little, and aimed at the people who don't need it to ameliorate the horror of handouts.
    She may be changing tack, if this is to be believed.

    I hold her in the same high regard as you do. However she has succeeded in politics by having principles that can be adopted or jetisoned as often as practical.

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/truss-changes-tack-over-energy-bills-after-previously-saying-she-favours-tax-cuts-over-handouts/ar-AA116LWV?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=88d6f65729d64888f1fdf599ec5e27e5
    Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. She doesn't want handouts to the workshy. Repeated again last night. So when they put this together it won't be targeted. It will be universal to ensure her lot get theirs and so that she isn't rewarding failure. And it will be a loan.

    Which defers rather than resolves the problem of unpayable debt.
    You're lying, that's not what she said.

    What she said actually is that support is on the way, but her priority is fixing the problem.

    You're tilting at windmills.
    I *directly quoted* her. " “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”

    Reading your pro-Truss posts is like watching a toddler throw a tantrum. You want your tax cut and people die so what. That the country is reacting in horror rather than agreeing with you has you with your arms crossed scowling and stamping the floor.
    Yes, to "just" bung more money into the system "isn't right".

    But she also explicitly said that support is on the way and you're lying by saying she said it isn't. Outright lie.

    Support is on the way, but it shouldn't just be that.
    If support is on the way she has had a somewhat Damascene conversion then. It remains to be seen what it is and how effective it is.

    Her only promises so far reward the wealthiest in society and do nothing for the poorest.

    There are two issues here. The short term pain and the medium to long term energy security of the nation. She needs to tackle both. Fixing on the medium to long term at the expense of the short term simply means she won't be around to implement anything post the next election.
    She literally said she'd do both.

    She specifically said there'd be support in the emergency budget.

    Rochdale dishonestly cut out her saying that and took the follow up the but where she would not "just" do what she'd just literally said she'd do, and twisted it to mean that she wouldn't do what she literally just said she would do.

    Taking half a sentence out of context to make it mean the opposite of what was said is lying.
    Daft sod. I quoted verbatim line after line after line from her article. Two whole paragraphs:

    "To those of you feeling the squeeze, my message is clear: I will ensure support is on its way and we get through these tough times. My immediate priority will be to put more money back in people’s pockets by cutting taxes, such as reversing the rise in national insurance.

    I would also suspend the green levy on energy bills, bringing down average energy bills by £153. This will build on the work already underway, such as the Energy Bills Support Scheme, which will see a £400 discount paid to consumers from October, and the £1,200 package of support for the most vulnerable."
    "such as" means it will be part of the Emergency Budget, not exclusively all of it, you daft sod.
    So your big play is that we can trust Truss because she has been lying for weeks? Great!
    No, you're the only one who's been lying.

    She literally said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget, but it can't "just" be support.

    You dishonestly said that meant no support.

    If there's support forthcoming in the Emergency Budget, like she said there would be, then she hasn't lied.
    That's a "no, your mum" answer.

    That all you got left?
    No I've got what she said. She said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget. You said there won't be.

    If there is, she's told the truth, you haven't.
    She said the support will be tax cuts and cutting the green crap you dimwit. Listen to what she is saying rather than what you want her to be saying.
    "Such as" doesn't mean "only" or "exclusively".

    Try again, where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim. Full quote or it didn't happen.
    Where have I claimed she will provide "no support"?

    Just in the quote chain above I have posted: "they will have to act but it will be too little too late" and "Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. "

    Do read what is written, not what you want to have been written.
    Re-read what I wrote.

    Where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim.


    Not you, when has she ever said that?
    But I am not claiming that am I? Its your usual twatty strawman bullshit. You're only missing the arsehole shrug emoji for the full house. The stuff she posted in the Mail and has said eleventy times through the campaigns - tax cuts, green levy cuts etc - are support. Just "too little" as I noted above.
    But she never said they would be the limits of her support did she? 🤷‍♂️
    Indeed! And as I said, "they will have to act" and "she will be forced to act".

    A long way from your strawman twattery.
    She will act because she's said she'll act.

    You keep saying she's said that she won't, and that if she does she's lied. Now you're saying you've not said she's said she won't.

    Oh well, guess you accept I was right then, so we can retire this conversation.
    lolol. How she will act, when she will act, and in what tone is what I said.

    I think that she says what she thinks. You say she will do the opposite of what she says. Being able to translate Trussspeak into English would indeed be a skill to allow someone to retire off the profits.
    I think she will do what she's said, which is offer support in the Emergency Budget.

    Support such as cutting NI, which allows people to keep more of their own money they work for. 👍
    Exactly! We agree! The support she will offer is stuff like cutting NI which does three parts of fuck all to pay people's energy bills. And presumably an emergency rebate on the green levies which makes five parts of fuck all difference.

    Nowhere near enough.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 16,232
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    From all the comments here today, you’d think that the government hadn’t already announced a £37,000,000,000 package of support measures for this winter, and that the likely next PM has already committed to remove VAT and green levies from energy bills before the winter.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/energy-bills-support-scheme-explainer

    The Energy Bills Support Scheme will deliver a £400 non-repayable discount to eligible households to help with energy bills from October

    Households most in need will be eligible for further support in addition to the Energy Bills discount. This includes:
    1. a £650 one-off Cost of Living Payment for around 8 million households on means tested benefits
    2. a one-off £300 Pensioner Cost of Living Payment for over 8 million pensioner households to be paid alongside the Winter Fuel Payment
    3. a payment of £150 for around 6 million people across the UK who receive certain disability benefits
    4. a £500 million increase and extension of the Household Support Fund

    The point is, it's all been piecemeal and has had no effect on inflation. If you're going to spend £37bn why not use it to reduce the price cap, and inflation?

    People will say it's targeted but the poorest spend the highest proportion of their income on fuel, so freezing the cap would be helping them the most.

    I also question how much these piecemeal initiatives will cost in administration. Volunteering for Citizens Advice, we are getting a lot of queries from people who are confused or need help applying (e.g. for the HSF).
    Interesting. From looking at it, the scheme appears designed to minimise the administration costs. The £400 payment is being administered by the suppliers through bills, and the various top-ups are linked to other existing state benefits.

    Watching this from afar, there appears to be poor communication about what has already been announced by the government, and how the price cap actually works in practice. Not helped by scaremongering and government-bashing from certain sections of the media.

    There also needs to be a public information campaign in the autumn, reminding people of how best they can reduce their energy consumption. Many people will not have thought to wear a jumper indoors, replace old light bulbs with LEDs, and not boil a full kettle for one cup of tea.
    People are calculating the price of a shower per minute, how much energy different meals cost to cook, whether to use the oven or microwave. And this isn't just the poor but middle classes. I don't normally like the "ex-pat so must be out of touch" arguments often repeated on here, but on this you are out of touch.
    What do you disagree with, that I wrote? It’s good that people are thinking about how to reduce their energy consumption.

    Here in expat-land, we are in the middle of a the hot summer, and last month’s air conditioning bill was more than £200, for a two bed apartment. My wife and I, on middle incomes, have been making a conscious decision to reduce usage this month, by switching off a/c in unoccupied zones, ditching the duvet and sleeping in sheets, wearing t-shirt and shorts indoors, switching everything off when the apartment is unoccupied, etc.

    For a lot of people, energy bills were not anything that was consciously thought about before, but they will need to be this winter - as they have been for me this summer!
    "Many people will not have thought to wear a jumper indoors, replace old light bulbs with LEDs, and not boil a full kettle for one cup of tea."

    This is general chit chat in regular everyday conversation, in August with nice summer days, not something that requires a public information campaign over the winter. People are already worried and seriously planning ahead - everyone bar the rich enough regardless have thought of wearing an extra jumper or three.
  • Taz said:

    Taz said:

    I don't understand why Truss can't say "this is what I would do on mitigating energy prices if I were elected Conservative leader and became PM". Sunak has done it, Starmer has done it. The only reason not to do it is because she does not yet know. Given how far in advance the rises have been signalled, that is not good enough.

    Because she doesn't care! We've got @williamglenn and to a gentler extent @Big_G_NorthWales claiming Truss will intervene and some of us are just attacking her / the Tories. Based on what? That they believe she is a Massive Liar?

    She cannot be clearer. On a "here's what I would do as Prime Minister" tour for a month and a half, meetings all across the country saying the same thing over and over and over. Hope that she already has a plan up her sleeve, or that she will pick a plan supposedly being drawn up by the Treasury is to hope she is a massive liar saying "no handouts" whilst planning handouts.

    "You can trust her to act because she's a massive liar" is hardly a political position that will hold. So I believe the opposite is true - she isn't lying. I don't doubt that she will be forced to do *something*. But unlike the previous government whose belief only in Boris allowed the massive u-turn into furlough, this one has zeal behind it.

    When the pile of pensioner corpses grows too high and the "you've already had a handout" excuses just provoke actual riots, they will have to act. But it will be way too late, far too little, and aimed at the people who don't need it to ameliorate the horror of handouts.
    She may be changing tack, if this is to be believed.

    I hold her in the same high regard as you do. However she has succeeded in politics by having principles that can be adopted or jetisoned as often as practical.

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/truss-changes-tack-over-energy-bills-after-previously-saying-she-favours-tax-cuts-over-handouts/ar-AA116LWV?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=88d6f65729d64888f1fdf599ec5e27e5
    Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. She doesn't want handouts to the workshy. Repeated again last night. So when they put this together it won't be targeted. It will be universal to ensure her lot get theirs and so that she isn't rewarding failure. And it will be a loan.

    Which defers rather than resolves the problem of unpayable debt.
    You're lying, that's not what she said.

    What she said actually is that support is on the way, but her priority is fixing the problem.

    You're tilting at windmills.
    I *directly quoted* her. " “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”

    Reading your pro-Truss posts is like watching a toddler throw a tantrum. You want your tax cut and people die so what. That the country is reacting in horror rather than agreeing with you has you with your arms crossed scowling and stamping the floor.
    Yes, to "just" bung more money into the system "isn't right".

    But she also explicitly said that support is on the way and you're lying by saying she said it isn't. Outright lie.

    Support is on the way, but it shouldn't just be that.
    If support is on the way she has had a somewhat Damascene conversion then. It remains to be seen what it is and how effective it is.

    Her only promises so far reward the wealthiest in society and do nothing for the poorest.

    There are two issues here. The short term pain and the medium to long term energy security of the nation. She needs to tackle both. Fixing on the medium to long term at the expense of the short term simply means she won't be around to implement anything post the next election.
    She literally said she'd do both.

    She specifically said there'd be support in the emergency budget.

    Rochdale dishonestly cut out her saying that and took the follow up the but where she would not "just" do what she'd just literally said she'd do, and twisted it to mean that she wouldn't do what she literally just said she would do.

    Taking half a sentence out of context to make it mean the opposite of what was said is lying.
    Daft sod. I quoted verbatim line after line after line from her article. Two whole paragraphs:

    "To those of you feeling the squeeze, my message is clear: I will ensure support is on its way and we get through these tough times. My immediate priority will be to put more money back in people’s pockets by cutting taxes, such as reversing the rise in national insurance.

    I would also suspend the green levy on energy bills, bringing down average energy bills by £153. This will build on the work already underway, such as the Energy Bills Support Scheme, which will see a £400 discount paid to consumers from October, and the £1,200 package of support for the most vulnerable."
    "such as" means it will be part of the Emergency Budget, not exclusively all of it, you daft sod.
    So your big play is that we can trust Truss because she has been lying for weeks? Great!
    No, you're the only one who's been lying.

    She literally said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget, but it can't "just" be support.

    You dishonestly said that meant no support.

    If there's support forthcoming in the Emergency Budget, like she said there would be, then she hasn't lied.
    That's a "no, your mum" answer.

    That all you got left?
    No I've got what she said. She said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget. You said there won't be.

    If there is, she's told the truth, you haven't.
    She said the support will be tax cuts and cutting the green crap you dimwit. Listen to what she is saying rather than what you want her to be saying.
    "Such as" doesn't mean "only" or "exclusively".

    Try again, where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim. Full quote or it didn't happen.
    Where have I claimed she will provide "no support"?

    Just in the quote chain above I have posted: "they will have to act but it will be too little too late" and "Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. "

    Do read what is written, not what you want to have been written.
    Re-read what I wrote.

    Where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim.


    Not you, when has she ever said that?
    But I am not claiming that am I? Its your usual twatty strawman bullshit. You're only missing the arsehole shrug emoji for the full house. The stuff she posted in the Mail and has said eleventy times through the campaigns - tax cuts, green levy cuts etc - are support. Just "too little" as I noted above.
    But she never said they would be the limits of her support did she? 🤷‍♂️
    Indeed! And as I said, "they will have to act" and "she will be forced to act".

    A long way from your strawman twattery.
    She will act because she's said she'll act.

    You keep saying she's said that she won't, and that if she does she's lied. Now you're saying you've not said she's said she won't.

    Oh well, guess you accept I was right then, so we can retire this conversation.
    lolol. How she will act, when she will act, and in what tone is what I said.

    I think that she says what she thinks. You say she will do the opposite of what she says. Being able to translate Trussspeak into English would indeed be a skill to allow someone to retire off the profits.
    I think she will do what she's said, which is offer support in the Emergency Budget.

    Support such as cutting NI, which allows people to keep more of their own money they work for. 👍
    Exactly! We agree! The support she will offer is stuff like cutting NI which does three parts of fuck all to pay people's energy bills. And presumably an emergency rebate on the green levies which makes five parts of fuck all difference.

    Nowhere near enough.
    "Stuff like" isn't exclusive though.

    NI as a permanent cut, and one-off support for the duration of the war on top off that, would also fall within "such as".
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,817

    TimS said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    From all the comments here today, you’d think that the government hadn’t already announced a £37,000,000,000 package of support measures for this winter, and that the likely next PM has already committed to remove VAT and green levies from energy bills before the winter.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/energy-bills-support-scheme-explainer

    The Energy Bills Support Scheme will deliver a £400 non-repayable discount to eligible households to help with energy bills from October

    Households most in need will be eligible for further support in addition to the Energy Bills discount. This includes:
    1. a £650 one-off Cost of Living Payment for around 8 million households on means tested benefits
    2. a one-off £300 Pensioner Cost of Living Payment for over 8 million pensioner households to be paid alongside the Winter Fuel Payment
    3. a payment of £150 for around 6 million people across the UK who receive certain disability benefits
    4. a £500 million increase and extension of the Household Support Fund

    The point is, it's all been piecemeal and has had no effect on inflation. If you're going to spend £37bn why not use it to reduce the price cap, and inflation?

    People will say it's targeted but the poorest spend the highest proportion of their income on fuel, so freezing the cap would be helping them the most.

    I also question how much these piecemeal initiatives will cost in administration. Volunteering for Citizens Advice, we are getting a lot of queries from people who are confused or need help applying (e.g. for the HSF).
    Interesting. From looking at it, the scheme appears designed to minimise the administration costs. The £400 payment is being administered by the suppliers through bills, and the various top-ups are linked to other existing state benefits.

    Watching this from afar, there appears to be poor communication about what has already been announced by the government, and how the price cap actually works in practice. Not helped by scaremongering and government-bashing from certain sections of the media.

    There also needs to be a public information campaign in the autumn, reminding people of how best they can reduce their energy consumption. Many people will not have thought to wear a jumper indoors, replace old light bulbs with LEDs, and not boil a full kettle for one cup of tea.
    People are calculating the price of a shower
    per minute, how much energy different meals
    cost to cook, whether to use the oven or
    microwave. And this isn't just the poor but
    middle classes. I don't normally like the "ex-
    pat so must be out of touch" arguments often
    repeated on here, but on this you are out of
    touch.
    Realistically those things help around the margins only anyway. Home heating is by far the biggest contributor to cost. It’s a bit too late to insulate everywhere (government could have launched a big campaign with incentives on this back in March when Russia invaded) and there’s only so far the thermostat can be turned down before people suffer Ill health.

    Interesting evidence coming out this week of German industry massively improving its energy efficiency per unit of output this year, so hopefully UK manufacturing is able to do likewise. There is a lot offices could do too with a/c and heating settings to reduce consumption.

    There is a ton of stuff people could do to reduce energy. I am often amazed how people keep their thermostats way up and then just pad about the house in light clothing in middle of winter.

    And if the price signal is completely removed no one will do anything to reduce their demand.

    This is a nightmare policy choice, because we have to reduce our demand urgently.
    A friend who studied art history and history of design put it this way - "We now live in what our ancestors would have described as their underwear."

    I find 18c quite reasonable - but apparently it is freezing to many people.....
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,379
    oooh!

    How warm is it in Colorado and Utah in October? Just been invited there for ten days. Nice

    At this rate I will be living permanently abroad. Oh well. Bye
  • Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    WILL NO ONE THINK OF THE DINGHY ALBANIANS

    Even as we lucky Brits contemplate a winter of gnawing cold pigeon, served on a bed of toxic seaweed, there are hard-pressed wealthy Albanian drug dealers who are being basically FORCED by themselves to climb into air-conditioned Mercedes minibuses, in which they are basically TRAFFICKED by themselves through several agreeable European spa-towns, with scenic lunch-stops, until they reach the Channel where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they have no money, dropping their Rolexes at Deauville, so they can cross ten minutes of water where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they are asylum seekers, which we are happy to accept despite it being ludicrous, thus allowing them to live on our money as they then go out and deal lethal drugs to our kids. And maybe do a couple of violent burglaries

    Thank God THEY will be warm this winter. In a British home YOU pay for

    Leon, the only person thinking about these Albanians is you. In fact, they won't need any kind of accommodation or heating as they live in your head rent-free, warmed by the glowing embers of your perpetual outrage.
    Remember when you told me it was all Eritreans. I think that was about two days ago?


    "Official data released on Thursday has confirmed suspicions that Albanians are now a prominent national group among the asylum seekers travelling across the Channel."

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/25/rise-in-albanian-asylum-seekers-may-be-down-to-criminal-gangs

    "Speculation has fallen upon dominant organised criminal gangs known to have previously trafficked sex workers and gang members into the UK, and which now control large parts of the marijuana and cocaine markets.

    "Albanian gang activity is “rising up the security services’ list” of priorities because of the surge in arrivals from the Balkan state, it is understood.

    Evidence of a growing market offering Albanians a route across the Channel to the UK can be found on TikTok"


    Soft-headed liberal dullards like you are still weeping about Rwanda. Get a grip

    It's a recent surge, who knows if it will be sustained. Hopefully intelligence led law enforcement can deal with the issue. The Rwandan scheme won't deter any Albanians as they will simply elect to go back to Albania if they are caught. They are not seeking asylum in the UK and are unlikely to be granted it if they did, their goal is to enter undetected and enter the black economy.
    Historically about 90% of those arriving by boat come from a handful of wartorn countries and more than half are granted leave to stay as they are genuine refugees.
    I've said this before, try to be civil when you post on here.
    But you are a softheaded liberal dullard. As this exchange conclusively proves. You don't like difficult truths, you are Woke liberal, and you're not very bright.

    Admitting this fact is not incivility, that's statin' the bleedin' obvious

    And, by the way, Rwanda really WOULD deter Albanians from crossing. If these drug lords think there is a 5% chance they will be sent to Africa, not back to Albania, they would all stop coming tomorrow
    There is a 0% chance that the UK would send anyone to Rwanda who they can send back to where they came from. The Rwandan scheme is designed for those who won't/can't go back to their country of origin. Although of course it's really designed to give people like you a semi, and it's unlikely to ever be used.
    People who call other people thick are usually thick themselves.
    Not true.

    The way the Aussie scheme works, people choose to return home rather than be sent to the offshore location.

    Facing a choice of Britain or Albania people say "I absolutely can't go back to Albania, not under any circumstances".
    Facing a choice of Rwanda or Albania people say "send me home".
    It's perfectly easy to make the scheme cruel enough to deter people. And it does have to be a tiny bit cruel to work

    If we catch anyone landing we say to them: are you an asylum seeker? If they say Yes, we say, Right, off to Rwanda to be processed

    If they say No I'm from Albania, we say: OK you're an illegal immigrant you will go to jail: here or in Albania

    At that point - when the first flight takes off for Africa - Albanian crossings would cease entirely
    There is a basic problem here. Rwanda has said very clearly they are not able to receive our asylum seekers. So although we continue to threat deportation to Rwanda as we aren't actually doing it our threat sounds rather hollow.

    The Australians managed to create an abroad detention centre people could be sent to. We paid £160m for one and got one disused backpackers hostel.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,673
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    WILL NO ONE THINK OF THE DINGHY ALBANIANS

    Even as we lucky Brits contemplate a winter of gnawing cold pigeon, served on a bed of toxic seaweed, there are hard-pressed wealthy Albanian drug dealers who are being basically FORCED by themselves to climb into air-conditioned Mercedes minibuses, in which they are basically TRAFFICKED by themselves through several agreeable European spa-towns, with scenic lunch-stops, until they reach the Channel where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they have no money, dropping their Rolexes at Deauville, so they can cross ten minutes of water where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they are asylum seekers, which we are happy to accept despite it being ludicrous, thus allowing them to live on our money as they then go out and deal lethal drugs to our kids. And maybe do a couple of violent burglaries

    Thank God THEY will be warm this winter. In a British home YOU pay for

    Leon, the only person thinking about these Albanians is you. In fact, they won't need any kind of accommodation or heating as they live in your head rent-free, warmed by the glowing embers of your perpetual outrage.
    Remember when you told me it was all Eritreans. I think that was about two days ago?


    "Official data released on Thursday has confirmed suspicions that Albanians are now a prominent national group among the asylum seekers travelling across the Channel."

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/25/rise-in-albanian-asylum-seekers-may-be-down-to-criminal-gangs

    "Speculation has fallen upon dominant organised criminal gangs known to have previously trafficked sex workers and gang members into the UK, and which now control large parts of the marijuana and cocaine markets.

    "Albanian gang activity is “rising up the security services’ list” of priorities because of the surge in arrivals from the Balkan state, it is understood.

    Evidence of a growing market offering Albanians a route across the Channel to the UK can be found on TikTok"


    Soft-headed liberal dullards like you are still weeping about Rwanda. Get a grip

    It's a recent surge, who knows if it will be sustained. Hopefully intelligence led law enforcement can deal with the issue. The Rwandan scheme won't deter any Albanians as they will simply elect to go back to Albania if they are caught. They are not seeking asylum in the UK and are unlikely to be granted it if they did, their goal is to enter undetected and enter the black economy.
    Historically about 90% of those arriving by boat come from a handful of wartorn countries and more than half are granted leave to stay as they are genuine refugees.
    I've said this before, try to be civil when you post on here.
    But you are a softheaded liberal dullard. As this exchange conclusively proves. You don't like difficult truths, you are Woke liberal, and you're not very bright.

    Admitting this fact is not incivility, that's statin' the bleedin' obvious

    And, by the way, Rwanda really WOULD deter Albanians from crossing. If these drug lords think there is a 5% chance they will be sent to Africa, not back to Albania, they would all stop coming tomorrow
    They wouldn't be prisoners in Rwanda, and free to go to Albania if they chose.

    Albanians are pretty certain to be rejected for an asylum claim. They should be be taken straight to one of our own immigration centres for deportation. Indeed I think all arrivals should go straight to camps so that they can get an express assessment of any asylum claim on site. It needs a bit of investment in camps and legal system, but is far more likely to work than the Rwandan scheme, which has been a total failure.

  • Dura_Ace said:

    Leon said:

    WILL NO ONE THINK OF THE DINGHY ALBANIANS

    Even as we lucky Brits contemplate a winter of gnawing cold pigeon, served on a bed of toxic seaweed, there are hard-pressed wealthy Albanian drug dealers who are being basically FORCED by themselves to climb into air-conditioned Mercedes minibuses, in which they are basically TRAFFICKED by themselves through several agreeable European spa-towns, with scenic lunch-stops, until they reach the Channel where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they have no money, dropping their Rolexes at Deauville, so they can cross ten minutes of water where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they are asylum seekers, which we are happy to accept despite it being ludicrous, thus allowing them to live on our money as they then go out and deal lethal drugs to our kids. And maybe do a couple of violent burglaries

    Thank God THEY will be warm this winter. In a British home YOU pay for

    Is this post produced by Dalle2, an alien or a real human?
    It was produced by John TynDalle-2.
    It’s better than your SMO-sturbating in our faces
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 43,283
    Today in Germany: A group of left-wing Social Democrats (SPD) are calling for peace negotiations with Russia. They are worried about escalation and say a "modus vivendi" must be found to deal with the Russian government. They also want China to act as a mediator.

    https://twitter.com/marceldirsus/status/1563098877594460162
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,649
    edited August 2022
    Foxy said:

    Scott_xP said:

    In our regular Westminster voting intention tracker, Labour's lead has doubled to eight points in two weeks:

    Lab 41% (+2)
    Con 33% (-2)
    LibDem 11% (-1)
    Green 6% (+1)
    SNP 4% (nc)

    1,641 questioned on 17-18 August. Changes with 10-11 August.

    http://www.technetracker.co.uk https://twitter.com/techneUK/status/1563075063032987652/photo/1

    low 58 LLG here compared to the other polls. With Tory high on 33 They may have two much Tory vote in this sample I think.
    Same Tory vote as Kantar and Redfield yesterday which had LLG 59. Opinium was LLG 57. In line with recent polling bang on (last Techne was only a 4 lead and Tory 35)
    Opinium has swing back built in, Kantor are the Tories best friend (and I thought they hit 60, my maths is rubbish) we have to place Techne in the same bracket with them?
    Of those reporting since 'le shift' - Opinium, Kantar, Techne, BMG, Redfield all 8 to 10 lead with Tories 31 to 33
    YouGov and the new guys 15 and 14 and Tories sub 30. YouGov will report again over the next few days with fieldwork up to yesterday
    Is the difference down to certainty to vote? The GB News one had a lot of Don't Knows.
    The GB News one was 31 20 before dont knows etc reallocated or taken out. We dont know what they would have been finding recently, they are a new pollster so we will see.
    YouGov remains, for now, the established pollsters outlier. Maybe it just happened to coinicide with maximum public interest in Plan Starmer. Maybe its a realistic finding in the current 'range'. They should report again this weekend so, again, we will see
  • Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    WILL NO ONE THINK OF THE DINGHY ALBANIANS

    Even as we lucky Brits contemplate a winter of gnawing cold pigeon, served on a bed of toxic seaweed, there are hard-pressed wealthy Albanian drug dealers who are being basically FORCED by themselves to climb into air-conditioned Mercedes minibuses, in which they are basically TRAFFICKED by themselves through several agreeable European spa-towns, with scenic lunch-stops, until they reach the Channel where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they have no money, dropping their Rolexes at Deauville, so they can cross ten minutes of water where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they are asylum seekers, which we are happy to accept despite it being ludicrous, thus allowing them to live on our money as they then go out and deal lethal drugs to our kids. And maybe do a couple of violent burglaries

    Thank God THEY will be warm this winter. In a British home YOU pay for

    Leon, the only person thinking about these Albanians is you. In fact, they won't need any kind of accommodation or heating as they live in your head rent-free, warmed by the glowing embers of your perpetual outrage.
    Remember when you told me it was all Eritreans. I think that was about two days ago?


    "Official data released on Thursday has confirmed suspicions that Albanians are now a prominent national group among the asylum seekers travelling across the Channel."

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/25/rise-in-albanian-asylum-seekers-may-be-down-to-criminal-gangs

    "Speculation has fallen upon dominant organised criminal gangs known to have previously trafficked sex workers and gang members into the UK, and which now control large parts of the marijuana and cocaine markets.

    "Albanian gang activity is “rising up the security services’ list” of priorities because of the surge in arrivals from the Balkan state, it is understood.

    Evidence of a growing market offering Albanians a route across the Channel to the UK can be found on TikTok"


    Soft-headed liberal dullards like you are still weeping about Rwanda. Get a grip

    It's a recent surge, who knows if it will be sustained. Hopefully intelligence led law enforcement can deal with the issue. The Rwandan scheme won't deter any Albanians as they will simply elect to go back to Albania if they are caught. They are not seeking asylum in the UK and are unlikely to be granted it if they did, their goal is to enter undetected and enter the black economy.
    Historically about 90% of those arriving by boat come from a handful of wartorn countries and more than half are granted leave to stay as they are genuine refugees.
    I've said this before, try to be civil when you post on here.
    But you are a softheaded liberal dullard. As this exchange conclusively proves. You don't like difficult truths, you are Woke liberal, and you're not very bright.

    Admitting this fact is not incivility, that's statin' the bleedin' obvious

    And, by the way, Rwanda really WOULD deter Albanians from crossing. If these drug lords think there is a 5% chance they will be sent to Africa, not back to Albania, they would all stop coming tomorrow
    There is a 0% chance that the UK would send anyone to Rwanda who they can send back to where they came from. The Rwandan scheme is designed for those who won't/can't go back to their country of origin. Although of course it's really designed to give people like you a semi, and it's unlikely to ever be used.
    People who call other people thick are usually thick themselves.
    Not true.

    The way the Aussie scheme works, people choose to return home rather than be sent to the offshore location.

    Facing a choice of Britain or Albania people say "I absolutely can't go back to Albania, not under any circumstances".
    Facing a choice of Rwanda or Albania people say "send me home".
    It's perfectly easy to make the scheme cruel enough to deter people. And it does have to be a tiny bit cruel to work

    If we catch anyone landing we say to them: are you an asylum seeker? If they say Yes, we say, Right, off to Rwanda to be processed

    If they say No I'm from Albania, we say: OK you're an illegal immigrant you will go to jail: here or in Albania

    At that point - when the first flight takes off for Africa - Albanian crossings would cease entirely
    There is a basic problem here. Rwanda has said very clearly they are not able to receive our asylum seekers. So although we continue to threat deportation to Rwanda as we aren't actually doing it our threat sounds rather hollow.

    The Australians managed to create an abroad detention centre people could be sent to. We paid £160m for one and got one disused backpackers hostel.
    The Australian system started with few people, then got scaled up, then fell back to few people as the crossings stopped.

    Given the legal challenges, £160m is enough to begin with for a trial. Get over the legal hoopla and it can be expanded.
  • nico679 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:
    Idiotic.

    Macron is not a friend, he's the President of France but no friend. He's not a foe either.

    Why do muppets feel the need to pretend the President of France is our friend?
    Clue in the fact that relationships between countries are called diplomacy.
    Diplomacy, yes.

    Friendship, no.
    Category mistake Bart. Diplomacy is the game. Calling non hostile powers friends is one of the rules of the game.
    Why?

    Is Erdogan a friend? Is Victor Orban?
    France and the UK have a bi-lateral military alliance signed by Cameron and Sarkozy , France and the UK need to co-operate on a range of issues so Truss’s comments aren’t exactly helpful . You need to stop digging and accept that she could have been more diplomatic .
    We have an alliance with Turkey and Hungary and USA too.

    So is Orban a friend? Is Erdogan? Was Trump?
    Even with those three, the much better answer if you don't want to say politician x is a friend, is more like "we are good friends with the people of Hungary/Turkey/US and look forward to working with Orban/Erdogan/Trump on the issues we agree on".
    Yup, diplomacy is the art of telling someone to go to Hell in a way that means they ask for directions.

    If you can't say something nice, say nothing. Or use a plausibly deniable code. It's not difficult.

    But Truss (who, remember, is currently Foreign Secretary) decided she would rather sound hard in front of an audience that has already voted for her.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,673
    Leon said:

    Dunno why, but I've really got a thing against old people now. I might start a political party (before I get too old) to attack them

    Perhaps it is because you are now recognising your own senescence and senility, and reacting against the dying of the light?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,379
    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    WILL NO ONE THINK OF THE DINGHY ALBANIANS

    Even as we lucky Brits contemplate a winter of gnawing cold pigeon, served on a bed of toxic seaweed, there are hard-pressed wealthy Albanian drug dealers who are being basically FORCED by themselves to climb into air-conditioned Mercedes minibuses, in which they are basically TRAFFICKED by themselves through several agreeable European spa-towns, with scenic lunch-stops, until they reach the Channel where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they have no money, dropping their Rolexes at Deauville, so they can cross ten minutes of water where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they are asylum seekers, which we are happy to accept despite it being ludicrous, thus allowing them to live on our money as they then go out and deal lethal drugs to our kids. And maybe do a couple of violent burglaries

    Thank God THEY will be warm this winter. In a British home YOU pay for

    Leon, the only person thinking about these Albanians is you. In fact, they won't need any kind of accommodation or heating as they live in your head rent-free, warmed by the glowing embers of your perpetual outrage.
    Remember when you told me it was all Eritreans. I think that was about two days ago?


    "Official data released on Thursday has confirmed suspicions that Albanians are now a prominent national group among the asylum seekers travelling across the Channel."

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/25/rise-in-albanian-asylum-seekers-may-be-down-to-criminal-gangs

    "Speculation has fallen upon dominant organised criminal gangs known to have previously trafficked sex workers and gang members into the UK, and which now control large parts of the marijuana and cocaine markets.

    "Albanian gang activity is “rising up the security services’ list” of priorities because of the surge in arrivals from the Balkan state, it is understood.

    Evidence of a growing market offering Albanians a route across the Channel to the UK can be found on TikTok"


    Soft-headed liberal dullards like you are still weeping about Rwanda. Get a grip

    It's a recent surge, who knows if it will be sustained. Hopefully intelligence led law enforcement can deal with the issue. The Rwandan scheme won't deter any Albanians as they will simply elect to go back to Albania if they are caught. They are not seeking asylum in the UK and are unlikely to be granted it if they did, their goal is to enter undetected and enter the black economy.
    Historically about 90% of those arriving by boat come from a handful of wartorn countries and more than half are granted leave to stay as they are genuine refugees.
    I've said this before, try to be civil when you post on here.
    But you are a softheaded liberal dullard. As this exchange conclusively proves. You don't like difficult truths, you are Woke liberal, and you're not very bright.

    Admitting this fact is not incivility, that's statin' the bleedin' obvious

    And, by the way, Rwanda really WOULD deter Albanians from crossing. If these drug lords think there is a 5% chance they will be sent to Africa, not back to Albania, they would all stop coming tomorrow
    They wouldn't be prisoners in Rwanda, and free to go to Albania if they chose.

    Albanians are pretty certain to be rejected for an asylum claim. They should be be taken straight to one of our own immigration centres for deportation. Indeed I think all arrivals should go straight to camps so that they can get an express assessment of any asylum claim on site. It needs a bit of investment in camps and legal system, but is far more likely to work than the Rwandan scheme, which has been a total failure.

    But then they will just come back on the next chauffeured minibus from Tirana. This is already happening. We deport them, they come back a week later, on a dinghy

    Fuck this, why should we tolerate it? Life is getting harder, Brits could die of cold this winter, the UKG needs to toughen up on those who would prey on our generosity, and kill our kids with drugs

    Send these fuckers to Rwanda. They won't try again after THAT
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103
    Alex Wickham
    @alexwickham
    ·
    1h
    Some Truss backing MPs are getting jittery

    - one worries there will be civil disobedience or even riots if she gets it wrong
    - another says they don't want her govt to be an experiment on whether the Laffer curve can solve a cost of living crisis

    https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1563105981906661377

    ===

    It's like watching a slow motion car crash that you can do nothing about. Leadership election next summer.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 46,853
    edited August 2022

    Dura_Ace said:

    Leon said:

    WILL NO ONE THINK OF THE DINGHY ALBANIANS

    Even as we lucky Brits contemplate a winter of gnawing cold pigeon, served on a bed of toxic seaweed, there are hard-pressed wealthy Albanian drug dealers who are being basically FORCED by themselves to climb into air-conditioned Mercedes minibuses, in which they are basically TRAFFICKED by themselves through several agreeable European spa-towns, with scenic lunch-stops, until they reach the Channel where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they have no money, dropping their Rolexes at Deauville, so they can cross ten minutes of water where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they are asylum seekers, which we are happy to accept despite it being ludicrous, thus allowing them to live on our money as they then go out and deal lethal drugs to our kids. And maybe do a couple of violent burglaries

    Thank God THEY will be warm this winter. In a British home YOU pay for

    Is this post produced by Dalle2, an alien or a real human?
    It was produced by John TynDalle-2.
    It’s better than your SMO-sturbating in our faces
    Except you should note that the right wing [email protected] which seems to be inspiring @Leon 's recent posting tends also to be quite pro-Putin.
  • nico679 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:
    Idiotic.

    Macron is not a friend, he's the President of France but no friend. He's not a foe either.

    Why do muppets feel the need to pretend the President of France is our friend?
    Clue in the fact that relationships between countries are called diplomacy.
    Diplomacy, yes.

    Friendship, no.
    Category mistake Bart. Diplomacy is the game. Calling non hostile powers friends is one of the rules of the game.
    Why?

    Is Erdogan a friend? Is Victor Orban?
    France and the UK have a bi-lateral military alliance signed by Cameron and Sarkozy , France and the UK need to co-operate on a range of issues so Truss’s comments aren’t exactly helpful . You need to stop digging and accept that she could have been more diplomatic .
    We have an alliance with Turkey and Hungary and USA too.

    So is Orban a friend? Is Erdogan? Was Trump?
    Even with those three, the much better answer if you don't want to say politician x is a friend, is more like "we are good friends with the people of Hungary/Turkey/US and look forward to working with Orban/Erdogan/Trump on the issues we agree on".
    Yup, diplomacy is the art of telling someone to go to Hell in a way that means they ask for directions.

    If you can't say something nice, say nothing. Or use a plausibly deniable code. It's not difficult.

    But Truss (who, remember, is currently Foreign Secretary) decided she would rather sound hard in front of an audience that has already voted for her.
    Like this? Was lapped up by the same people outraged at Truss saying "the juries out".

    https://twitter.com/ShehabKhan/status/1042839541143547904
  • AlistairMAlistairM Posts: 1,587

    Today in Germany: A group of left-wing Social Democrats (SPD) are calling for peace negotiations with Russia. They are worried about escalation and say a "modus vivendi" must be found to deal with the Russian government. They also want China to act as a mediator.

    https://twitter.com/marceldirsus/status/1563098877594460162

    Let us not forget this and the big diversion that had to be made around Germany...

    Here's a time-lapse of all of the United Kingdom to #Ukraine weapons airlift flights from the morning of the 17th of January to this very minute on the 19th of January 2022. The UK has no intention of letting Ukraine fall.
    https://twitter.com/geoallison/status/1483899430378127365
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    I wonder if the new PM might not try and pressure to amend the leadership process? As is in opposition, MPs only in government as it was pre Hague?

    A unique way of delegitimising her own position, so no.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,844
    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    WILL NO ONE THINK OF THE DINGHY ALBANIANS

    Even as we lucky Brits contemplate a winter of gnawing cold pigeon, served on a bed of toxic seaweed, there are hard-pressed wealthy Albanian drug dealers who are being basically FORCED by themselves to climb into air-conditioned Mercedes minibuses, in which they are basically TRAFFICKED by themselves through several agreeable European spa-towns, with scenic lunch-stops, until they reach the Channel where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they have no money, dropping their Rolexes at Deauville, so they can cross ten minutes of water where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they are asylum seekers, which we are happy to accept despite it being ludicrous, thus allowing them to live on our money as they then go out and deal lethal drugs to our kids. And maybe do a couple of violent burglaries

    Thank God THEY will be warm this winter. In a British home YOU pay for

    Leon, the only person thinking about these Albanians is you. In fact, they won't need any kind of accommodation or heating as they live in your head rent-free, warmed by the glowing embers of your perpetual outrage.
    Remember when you told me it was all Eritreans. I think that was about two days ago?


    "Official data released on Thursday has confirmed suspicions that Albanians are now a prominent national group among the asylum seekers travelling across the Channel."

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/25/rise-in-albanian-asylum-seekers-may-be-down-to-criminal-gangs

    "Speculation has fallen upon dominant organised criminal gangs known to have previously trafficked sex workers and gang members into the UK, and which now control large parts of the marijuana and cocaine markets.

    "Albanian gang activity is “rising up the security services’ list” of priorities because of the surge in arrivals from the Balkan state, it is understood.

    Evidence of a growing market offering Albanians a route across the Channel to the UK can be found on TikTok"


    Soft-headed liberal dullards like you are still weeping about Rwanda. Get a grip

    It's a recent surge, who knows if it will be sustained. Hopefully intelligence led law enforcement can deal with the issue. The Rwandan scheme won't deter any Albanians as they will simply elect to go back to Albania if they are caught. They are not seeking asylum in the UK and are unlikely to be granted it if they did, their goal is to enter undetected and enter the black economy.
    Historically about 90% of those arriving by boat come from a handful of wartorn countries and more than half are granted leave to stay as they are genuine refugees.
    I've said this before, try to be civil when you post on here.
    But you are a softheaded liberal dullard. As this exchange conclusively proves. You don't like difficult truths, you are Woke liberal, and you're not very bright.

    Admitting this fact is not incivility, that's statin' the bleedin' obvious

    And, by the way, Rwanda really WOULD deter Albanians from crossing. If these drug lords think there is a 5% chance they will be sent to Africa, not back to Albania, they would all stop coming tomorrow
    They wouldn't be prisoners in Rwanda, and free to go to Albania if they chose.

    Albanians are pretty certain to be rejected for an asylum claim. They should be be taken straight to one of our own immigration centres for deportation. Indeed I think all arrivals should go straight to camps so that they can get an express assessment of any asylum claim on site. It needs a bit of investment in camps and legal system, but is far more likely to work than the Rwandan scheme, which has been a total failure.

    But then they will just come back on the next chauffeured minibus from Tirana. This is already happening. We deport them, they come back a week later, on a dinghy

    Fuck this, why should we tolerate it? Life is getting harder, Brits could die of cold this winter, the UKG needs to toughen up on those who would prey on our generosity, and kill our kids with drugs

    Send these fuckers to Rwanda. They won't try again after THAT
    Hold on, first things first has anyone actually been deported to anywhere in the last few years ?
  • AlistairM said:

    Today in Germany: A group of left-wing Social Democrats (SPD) are calling for peace negotiations with Russia. They are worried about escalation and say a "modus vivendi" must be found to deal with the Russian government. They also want China to act as a mediator.

    https://twitter.com/marceldirsus/status/1563098877594460162

    Let us not forget this and the big diversion that had to be made around Germany...

    Here's a time-lapse of all of the United Kingdom to #Ukraine weapons airlift flights from the morning of the 17th of January to this very minute on the 19th of January 2022. The UK has no intention of letting Ukraine fall.
    https://twitter.com/geoallison/status/1483899430378127365
    But there will be a stream of Remain fanatics on here insisting the German Chancellor is our friend.

    The same people who'd be spitting blood if a Tory called Trump a friend.
  • TazTaz Posts: 6,545

    Taz said:

    Leon said:

    Dunno why, but I've really got a thing against old people now. I might start a political party (before I get too old) to attack them

    Get Galloway on board. His dislike of oldies is visceral.
    The gorgeous one is 68 years old. Which surely makes him old?
    Lol

    I meant the one who posts here who thinks taxing old people is the solutions to every problem.
  • Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    WILL NO ONE THINK OF THE DINGHY ALBANIANS

    Even as we lucky Brits contemplate a winter of gnawing cold pigeon, served on a bed of toxic seaweed, there are hard-pressed wealthy Albanian drug dealers who are being basically FORCED by themselves to climb into air-conditioned Mercedes minibuses, in which they are basically TRAFFICKED by themselves through several agreeable European spa-towns, with scenic lunch-stops, until they reach the Channel where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they have no money, dropping their Rolexes at Deauville, so they can cross ten minutes of water where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they are asylum seekers, which we are happy to accept despite it being ludicrous, thus allowing them to live on our money as they then go out and deal lethal drugs to our kids. And maybe do a couple of violent burglaries

    Thank God THEY will be warm this winter. In a British home YOU pay for

    Leon, the only person thinking about these Albanians is you. In fact, they won't need any kind of accommodation or heating as they live in your head rent-free, warmed by the glowing embers of your perpetual outrage.
    Remember when you told me it was all Eritreans. I think that was about two days ago?


    "Official data released on Thursday has confirmed suspicions that Albanians are now a prominent national group among the asylum seekers travelling across the Channel."

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/25/rise-in-albanian-asylum-seekers-may-be-down-to-criminal-gangs

    "Speculation has fallen upon dominant organised criminal gangs known to have previously trafficked sex workers and gang members into the UK, and which now control large parts of the marijuana and cocaine markets.

    "Albanian gang activity is “rising up the security services’ list” of priorities because of the surge in arrivals from the Balkan state, it is understood.

    Evidence of a growing market offering Albanians a route across the Channel to the UK can be found on TikTok"


    Soft-headed liberal dullards like you are still weeping about Rwanda. Get a grip

    It's a recent surge, who knows if it will be sustained. Hopefully intelligence led law enforcement can deal with the issue. The Rwandan scheme won't deter any Albanians as they will simply elect to go back to Albania if they are caught. They are not seeking asylum in the UK and are unlikely to be granted it if they did, their goal is to enter undetected and enter the black economy.
    Historically about 90% of those arriving by boat come from a handful of wartorn countries and more than half are granted leave to stay as they are genuine refugees.
    I've said this before, try to be civil when you post on here.
    But you are a softheaded liberal dullard. As this exchange conclusively proves. You don't like difficult truths, you are Woke liberal, and you're not very bright.

    Admitting this fact is not incivility, that's statin' the bleedin' obvious

    And, by the way, Rwanda really WOULD deter Albanians from crossing. If these drug lords think there is a 5% chance they will be sent to Africa, not back to Albania, they would all stop coming tomorrow
    There is a 0% chance that the UK would send anyone to Rwanda who they can send back to where they came from. The Rwandan scheme is designed for those who won't/can't go back to their country of origin. Although of course it's really designed to give people like you a semi, and it's unlikely to ever be used.
    People who call other people thick are usually thick themselves.
    Not true.

    The way the Aussie scheme works, people choose to return home rather than be sent to the offshore location.

    Facing a choice of Britain or Albania people say "I absolutely can't go back to Albania, not under any circumstances".
    Facing a choice of Rwanda or Albania people say "send me home".
    It's perfectly easy to make the scheme cruel enough to deter people. And it does have to be a tiny bit cruel to work

    If we catch anyone landing we say to them: are you an asylum seeker? If they say Yes, we say, Right, off to Rwanda to be processed

    If they say No I'm from Albania, we say: OK you're an illegal immigrant you will go to jail: here or in Albania

    At that point - when the first flight takes off for Africa - Albanian crossings would cease entirely
    There is a basic problem here. Rwanda has said very clearly they are not able to receive our asylum seekers. So although we continue to threat deportation to Rwanda as we aren't actually doing it our threat sounds rather hollow.

    The Australians managed to create an abroad detention centre people could be sent to. We paid £160m for one and got one disused backpackers hostel.
    The Australian system started with few people, then got scaled up, then fell back to few people as the crossings stopped.

    Given the legal challenges, £160m is enough to begin with for a trial. Get over the legal hoopla and it can be expanded.
    I am not the blockage. The Rwandan government is.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 42,393
    AlistairM said:

    Today in Germany: A group of left-wing Social Democrats (SPD) are calling for peace negotiations with Russia. They are worried about escalation and say a "modus vivendi" must be found to deal with the Russian government. They also want China to act as a mediator.

    https://twitter.com/marceldirsus/status/1563098877594460162

    Let us not forget this and the big diversion that had to be made around Germany...

    Here's a time-lapse of all of the United Kingdom to #Ukraine weapons airlift flights from the morning of the 17th of January to this very minute on the 19th of January 2022. The UK has no intention of letting Ukraine fall.
    https://twitter.com/geoallison/status/1483899430378127365
    That was just three days in January. The flights continued unabated, until the minute Putin’s tanks rolled over the border on 24th February. Every flight with weapons on board had to divert around Germany.
  • Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    WILL NO ONE THINK OF THE DINGHY ALBANIANS

    Even as we lucky Brits contemplate a winter of gnawing cold pigeon, served on a bed of toxic seaweed, there are hard-pressed wealthy Albanian drug dealers who are being basically FORCED by themselves to climb into air-conditioned Mercedes minibuses, in which they are basically TRAFFICKED by themselves through several agreeable European spa-towns, with scenic lunch-stops, until they reach the Channel where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they have no money, dropping their Rolexes at Deauville, so they can cross ten minutes of water where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they are asylum seekers, which we are happy to accept despite it being ludicrous, thus allowing them to live on our money as they then go out and deal lethal drugs to our kids. And maybe do a couple of violent burglaries

    Thank God THEY will be warm this winter. In a British home YOU pay for

    Leon, the only person thinking about these Albanians is you. In fact, they won't need any kind of accommodation or heating as they live in your head rent-free, warmed by the glowing embers of your perpetual outrage.
    Remember when you told me it was all Eritreans. I think that was about two days ago?


    "Official data released on Thursday has confirmed suspicions that Albanians are now a prominent national group among the asylum seekers travelling across the Channel."

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/25/rise-in-albanian-asylum-seekers-may-be-down-to-criminal-gangs

    "Speculation has fallen upon dominant organised criminal gangs known to have previously trafficked sex workers and gang members into the UK, and which now control large parts of the marijuana and cocaine markets.

    "Albanian gang activity is “rising up the security services’ list” of priorities because of the surge in arrivals from the Balkan state, it is understood.

    Evidence of a growing market offering Albanians a route across the Channel to the UK can be found on TikTok"


    Soft-headed liberal dullards like you are still weeping about Rwanda. Get a grip

    It's a recent surge, who knows if it will be sustained. Hopefully intelligence led law enforcement can deal with the issue. The Rwandan scheme won't deter any Albanians as they will simply elect to go back to Albania if they are caught. They are not seeking asylum in the UK and are unlikely to be granted it if they did, their goal is to enter undetected and enter the black economy.
    Historically about 90% of those arriving by boat come from a handful of wartorn countries and more than half are granted leave to stay as they are genuine refugees.
    I've said this before, try to be civil when you post on here.
    But you are a softheaded liberal dullard. As this exchange conclusively proves. You don't like difficult truths, you are Woke liberal, and you're not very bright.

    Admitting this fact is not incivility, that's statin' the bleedin' obvious

    And, by the way, Rwanda really WOULD deter Albanians from crossing. If these drug lords think there is a 5% chance they will be sent to Africa, not back to Albania, they would all stop coming tomorrow
    There is a 0% chance that the UK would send anyone to Rwanda who they can send back to where they came from. The Rwandan scheme is designed for those who won't/can't go back to their country of origin. Although of course it's really designed to give people like you a semi, and it's unlikely to ever be used.
    People who call other people thick are usually thick themselves.
    Not true.

    The way the Aussie scheme works, people choose to return home rather than be sent to the offshore location.

    Facing a choice of Britain or Albania people say "I absolutely can't go back to Albania, not under any circumstances".
    Facing a choice of Rwanda or Albania people say "send me home".
    It's perfectly easy to make the scheme cruel enough to deter people. And it does have to be a tiny bit cruel to work

    If we catch anyone landing we say to them: are you an asylum seeker? If they say Yes, we say, Right, off to Rwanda to be processed

    If they say No I'm from Albania, we say: OK you're an illegal immigrant you will go to jail: here or in Albania

    At that point - when the first flight takes off for Africa - Albanian crossings would cease entirely
    There is a basic problem here. Rwanda has said very clearly they are not able to receive our asylum seekers. So although we continue to threat deportation to Rwanda as we aren't actually doing it our threat sounds rather hollow.

    The Australians managed to create an abroad detention centre people could be sent to. We paid £160m for one and got one disused backpackers hostel.
    The Australian system started with few people, then got scaled up, then fell back to few people as the crossings stopped.

    Given the legal challenges, £160m is enough to begin with for a trial. Get over the legal hoopla and it can be expanded.
    I am not the blockage. The Rwandan government is.
    No, your are not, the legal system is the blockage.

    Have the Rwanda government said they won't possibly accept more money for more spaces if the original spaces get filled up?

    Until the original spaces are all full, there's no need to pay for more yet.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 43,283
    Sandpit said:

    AlistairM said:

    Today in Germany: A group of left-wing Social Democrats (SPD) are calling for peace negotiations with Russia. They are worried about escalation and say a "modus vivendi" must be found to deal with the Russian government. They also want China to act as a mediator.

    https://twitter.com/marceldirsus/status/1563098877594460162

    Let us not forget this and the big diversion that had to be made around Germany...

    Here's a time-lapse of all of the United Kingdom to #Ukraine weapons airlift flights from the morning of the 17th of January to this very minute on the 19th of January 2022. The UK has no intention of letting Ukraine fall.
    https://twitter.com/geoallison/status/1483899430378127365
    That was just three days in January. The flights continued unabated, until the minute Putin’s tanks rolled over the border on 24th February. Every flight with weapons on board had to divert around Germany.
    It’s not as if fuel is a precious resource…
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 851
    Leon said:

    oooh!

    How warm is it in Colorado and Utah in October? Just been invited there for ten days. Nice

    At this rate I will be living permanently abroad. Oh well. Bye

    Y'know, even old people know how to use google these days.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 42,393

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    From all the comments here today, you’d think that the government hadn’t already announced a £37,000,000,000 package of support measures for this winter, and that the likely next PM has already committed to remove VAT and green levies from energy bills before the winter.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/energy-bills-support-scheme-explainer

    The Energy Bills Support Scheme will deliver a £400 non-repayable discount to eligible households to help with energy bills from October

    Households most in need will be eligible for further support in addition to the Energy Bills discount. This includes:
    1. a £650 one-off Cost of Living Payment for around 8 million households on means tested benefits
    2. a one-off £300 Pensioner Cost of Living Payment for over 8 million pensioner households to be paid alongside the Winter Fuel Payment
    3. a payment of £150 for around 6 million people across the UK who receive certain disability benefits
    4. a £500 million increase and extension of the Household Support Fund

    The point is, it's all been piecemeal and has had no effect on inflation. If you're going to spend £37bn why not use it to reduce the price cap, and inflation?

    People will say it's targeted but the poorest spend the highest proportion of their income on fuel, so freezing the cap would be helping them the most.

    I also question how much these piecemeal initiatives will cost in administration. Volunteering for Citizens Advice, we are getting a lot of queries from people who are confused or need help applying (e.g. for the HSF).
    Interesting. From looking at it, the scheme appears designed to minimise the administration costs. The £400 payment is being administered by the suppliers through bills, and the various top-ups are linked to other existing state benefits.

    Watching this from afar, there appears to be poor communication about what has already been announced by the government, and how the price cap actually works in practice. Not helped by scaremongering and government-bashing from certain sections of the media.

    There also needs to be a public information campaign in the autumn, reminding people of how best they can reduce their energy consumption. Many people will not have thought to wear a jumper indoors, replace old light bulbs with LEDs, and not boil a full kettle for one cup of tea.
    People are calculating the price of a shower per minute, how much energy different meals cost to cook, whether to use the oven or microwave. And this isn't just the poor but middle classes. I don't normally like the "ex-pat so must be out of touch" arguments often repeated on here, but on this you are out of touch.
    What do you disagree with, that I wrote? It’s good that people are thinking about how to reduce their energy consumption.

    Here in expat-land, we are in the middle of a the hot summer, and last month’s air conditioning bill was more than £200, for a two bed apartment. My wife and I, on middle incomes, have been making a conscious decision to reduce usage this month, by switching off a/c in unoccupied zones, ditching the duvet and sleeping in sheets, wearing t-shirt and shorts indoors, switching everything off when the apartment is unoccupied, etc.

    For a lot of people, energy bills were not anything that was consciously thought about before, but they will need to be this winter - as they have been for me this summer!
    "Many people will not have thought to wear a jumper indoors, replace old light bulbs with LEDs, and not boil a full kettle for one cup of tea."

    This is general chit chat in regular everyday conversation, in August with nice summer days, not something that requires a public information campaign over the winter. People are already worried and seriously planning ahead - everyone bar the rich enough regardless have thought of wearing an extra jumper or three.
    If a public information campaign can make a small difference, then it’s worth doing.

    There will be people who genuinely aren’t paying attention until the bill comes in, and many more who don’t realise just how much bills will rise. Maybe today’s announcement by OFGEM will help nudge people in the right direction. We all have anecdotes about people overheating their homes and wearing shorts, there will be people who won’t make the connection between the house temperature and the size of the bill, until it’s pointed out to them.
  • Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    WILL NO ONE THINK OF THE DINGHY ALBANIANS

    Even as we lucky Brits contemplate a winter of gnawing cold pigeon, served on a bed of toxic seaweed, there are hard-pressed wealthy Albanian drug dealers who are being basically FORCED by themselves to climb into air-conditioned Mercedes minibuses, in which they are basically TRAFFICKED by themselves through several agreeable European spa-towns, with scenic lunch-stops, until they reach the Channel where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they have no money, dropping their Rolexes at Deauville, so they can cross ten minutes of water where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they are asylum seekers, which we are happy to accept despite it being ludicrous, thus allowing them to live on our money as they then go out and deal lethal drugs to our kids. And maybe do a couple of violent burglaries

    Thank God THEY will be warm this winter. In a British home YOU pay for

    Leon, the only person thinking about these Albanians is you. In fact, they won't need any kind of accommodation or heating as they live in your head rent-free, warmed by the glowing embers of your perpetual outrage.
    Remember when you told me it was all Eritreans. I think that was about two days ago?


    "Official data released on Thursday has confirmed suspicions that Albanians are now a prominent national group among the asylum seekers travelling across the Channel."

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/25/rise-in-albanian-asylum-seekers-may-be-down-to-criminal-gangs

    "Speculation has fallen upon dominant organised criminal gangs known to have previously trafficked sex workers and gang members into the UK, and which now control large parts of the marijuana and cocaine markets.

    "Albanian gang activity is “rising up the security services’ list” of priorities because of the surge in arrivals from the Balkan state, it is understood.

    Evidence of a growing market offering Albanians a route across the Channel to the UK can be found on TikTok"


    Soft-headed liberal dullards like you are still weeping about Rwanda. Get a grip

    It's a recent surge, who knows if it will be sustained. Hopefully intelligence led law enforcement can deal with the issue. The Rwandan scheme won't deter any Albanians as they will simply elect to go back to Albania if they are caught. They are not seeking asylum in the UK and are unlikely to be granted it if they did, their goal is to enter undetected and enter the black economy.
    Historically about 90% of those arriving by boat come from a handful of wartorn countries and more than half are granted leave to stay as they are genuine refugees.
    I've said this before, try to be civil when you post on here.
    But you are a softheaded liberal dullard. As this exchange conclusively proves. You don't like difficult truths, you are Woke liberal, and you're not very bright.

    Admitting this fact is not incivility, that's statin' the bleedin' obvious

    And, by the way, Rwanda really WOULD deter Albanians from crossing. If these drug lords think there is a 5% chance they will be sent to Africa, not back to Albania, they would all stop coming tomorrow
    There is a 0% chance that the UK would send anyone to Rwanda who they can send back to where they came from. The Rwandan scheme is designed for those who won't/can't go back to their country of origin. Although of course it's really designed to give people like you a semi, and it's unlikely to ever be used.
    People who call other people thick are usually thick themselves.
    Not true.

    The way the Aussie scheme works, people choose to return home rather than be sent to the offshore location.

    Facing a choice of Britain or Albania people say "I absolutely can't go back to Albania, not under any circumstances".
    Facing a choice of Rwanda or Albania people say "send me home".
    It's perfectly easy to make the scheme cruel enough to deter people. And it does have to be a tiny bit cruel to work

    If we catch anyone landing we say to them: are you an asylum seeker? If they say Yes, we say, Right, off to Rwanda to be processed

    If they say No I'm from Albania, we say: OK you're an illegal immigrant you will go to jail: here or in Albania

    At that point - when the first flight takes off for Africa - Albanian crossings would cease entirely
    There is a basic problem here. Rwanda has said very clearly they are not able to receive our asylum seekers. So although we continue to threat deportation to Rwanda as we aren't actually doing it our threat sounds rather hollow.

    The Australians managed to create an abroad detention centre people could be sent to. We paid £160m for one and got one disused backpackers hostel.
    The Australian system started with few people, then got scaled up, then fell back to few people as the crossings stopped.

    Given the legal challenges, £160m is enough to begin with for a trial. Get over the legal hoopla and it can be expanded.
    I am not the blockage. The Rwandan government is.
    No, your are not, the legal system is the blockage.

    Have the Rwanda government said they won't possibly accept more money for more spaces if the original spaces get filled up?

    Until the original spaces are all full, there's no need to pay for more yet.
    OK. So your mate Truss is saying how many people she will deport having fixed the legal issues. The Rwandan government say they can't accept them.

    We can fix the English legal system. We can't fix the Rwandan government.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,409
    Ghedebrav said:

    Leon said:

    oooh!

    How warm is it in Colorado and Utah in October? Just been invited there for ten days. Nice

    At this rate I will be living permanently abroad. Oh well. Bye

    Y'know, even old people know how to use google these days.
    But Leon's not an old person.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 42,393

    Sandpit said:

    AlistairM said:

    Today in Germany: A group of left-wing Social Democrats (SPD) are calling for peace negotiations with Russia. They are worried about escalation and say a "modus vivendi" must be found to deal with the Russian government. They also want China to act as a mediator.

    https://twitter.com/marceldirsus/status/1563098877594460162

    Let us not forget this and the big diversion that had to be made around Germany...

    Here's a time-lapse of all of the United Kingdom to #Ukraine weapons airlift flights from the morning of the 17th of January to this very minute on the 19th of January 2022. The UK has no intention of letting Ukraine fall.
    https://twitter.com/geoallison/status/1483899430378127365
    That was just three days in January. The flights continued unabated, until the minute Putin’s tanks rolled over the border on 24th February. Every flight with weapons on board had to divert around Germany.
    It’s not as if fuel is a precious resource…
    Not as precious as NLAWs and Stingers were to the Ukranians in late Feb and early March!
  • Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    WILL NO ONE THINK OF THE DINGHY ALBANIANS

    Even as we lucky Brits contemplate a winter of gnawing cold pigeon, served on a bed of toxic seaweed, there are hard-pressed wealthy Albanian drug dealers who are being basically FORCED by themselves to climb into air-conditioned Mercedes minibuses, in which they are basically TRAFFICKED by themselves through several agreeable European spa-towns, with scenic lunch-stops, until they reach the Channel where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they have no money, dropping their Rolexes at Deauville, so they can cross ten minutes of water where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they are asylum seekers, which we are happy to accept despite it being ludicrous, thus allowing them to live on our money as they then go out and deal lethal drugs to our kids. And maybe do a couple of violent burglaries

    Thank God THEY will be warm this winter. In a British home YOU pay for

    Leon, the only person thinking about these Albanians is you. In fact, they won't need any kind of accommodation or heating as they live in your head rent-free, warmed by the glowing embers of your perpetual outrage.
    Remember when you told me it was all Eritreans. I think that was about two days ago?


    "Official data released on Thursday has confirmed suspicions that Albanians are now a prominent national group among the asylum seekers travelling across the Channel."

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/25/rise-in-albanian-asylum-seekers-may-be-down-to-criminal-gangs

    "Speculation has fallen upon dominant organised criminal gangs known to have previously trafficked sex workers and gang members into the UK, and which now control large parts of the marijuana and cocaine markets.

    "Albanian gang activity is “rising up the security services’ list” of priorities because of the surge in arrivals from the Balkan state, it is understood.

    Evidence of a growing market offering Albanians a route across the Channel to the UK can be found on TikTok"


    Soft-headed liberal dullards like you are still weeping about Rwanda. Get a grip

    It's a recent surge, who knows if it will be sustained. Hopefully intelligence led law enforcement can deal with the issue. The Rwandan scheme won't deter any Albanians as they will simply elect to go back to Albania if they are caught. They are not seeking asylum in the UK and are unlikely to be granted it if they did, their goal is to enter undetected and enter the black economy.
    Historically about 90% of those arriving by boat come from a handful of wartorn countries and more than half are granted leave to stay as they are genuine refugees.
    I've said this before, try to be civil when you post on here.
    But you are a softheaded liberal dullard. As this exchange conclusively proves. You don't like difficult truths, you are Woke liberal, and you're not very bright.

    Admitting this fact is not incivility, that's statin' the bleedin' obvious

    And, by the way, Rwanda really WOULD deter Albanians from crossing. If these drug lords think there is a 5% chance they will be sent to Africa, not back to Albania, they would all stop coming tomorrow
    There is a 0% chance that the UK would send anyone to Rwanda who they can send back to where they came from. The Rwandan scheme is designed for those who won't/can't go back to their country of origin. Although of course it's really designed to give people like you a semi, and it's unlikely to ever be used.
    People who call other people thick are usually thick themselves.
    Not true.

    The way the Aussie scheme works, people choose to return home rather than be sent to the offshore location.

    Facing a choice of Britain or Albania people say "I absolutely can't go back to Albania, not under any circumstances".
    Facing a choice of Rwanda or Albania people say "send me home".
    It's perfectly easy to make the scheme cruel enough to deter people. And it does have to be a tiny bit cruel to work

    If we catch anyone landing we say to them: are you an asylum seeker? If they say Yes, we say, Right, off to Rwanda to be processed

    If they say No I'm from Albania, we say: OK you're an illegal immigrant you will go to jail: here or in Albania

    At that point - when the first flight takes off for Africa - Albanian crossings would cease entirely
    There is a basic problem here. Rwanda has said very clearly they are not able to receive our asylum seekers. So although we continue to threat deportation to Rwanda as we aren't actually doing it our threat sounds rather hollow.

    The Australians managed to create an abroad detention centre people could be sent to. We paid £160m for one and got one disused backpackers hostel.
    The Australian system started with few people, then got scaled up, then fell back to few people as the crossings stopped.

    Given the legal challenges, £160m is enough to begin with for a trial. Get over the legal hoopla and it can be expanded.
    I am not the blockage. The Rwandan government is.
    No, your are not, the legal system is the blockage.

    Have the Rwanda government said they won't possibly accept more money for more spaces if the original spaces get filled up?

    Until the original spaces are all full, there's no need to pay for more yet.
    OK. So your mate Truss is saying how many people she will deport having fixed the legal issues. The Rwandan government say they can't accept them.

    We can fix the English legal system. We can't fix the Rwandan government.
    [Citation Needed]

    Where are the Rwandan government saying they can't accept more than 130 people even if we offer them more money?

    Of course 130 people in Rwanda != 130 deportations, since many people will choose to be deported elsewhere rather than go to Rwanda is they know they have no alternative.
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,507
    Leon said:

    Dunno why, but I've really got a thing against old people now. I might start a political party (before I get too old) to attack them

    Definition of old will be kind of like the definition of rich, won't it:

    "Me plus "

    At sixty, you'll insist 70 is old. At seventy, it'll become clear that actually eighty is "old"
    As you approach eighty, you'll realise that advances in medical science mean that "old" really starts at ninety.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,409

    Leon said:

    Dunno why, but I've really got a thing against old people now. I might start a political party (before I get too old) to attack them

    Definition of old will be kind of like the definition of rich, won't it:

    "Me plus "

    At sixty, you'll insist 70 is old. At seventy, it'll become clear that actually eighty is "old"
    As you approach eighty, you'll realise that advances in medical science mean that "old" really starts at ninety.
    And at 165, you will confidently declare *really* old people start at about 200.
  • Leon said:

    Dunno why, but I've really got a thing against old people now. I might start a political party (before I get too old) to attack them

    Definition of old will be kind of like the definition of rich, won't it:

    "Me plus "

    At sixty, you'll insist 70 is old. At seventy, it'll become clear that actually eighty is "old"
    As you approach eighty, you'll realise that advances in medical science mean that "old" really starts at ninety.
    At a certain point though people accept they're old and become proud of the fact.

    My granddad is 92 and has a "not a bad innings" attitude to that. :)
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 2,644

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    I don't understand why Truss can't say "this is what I would do on mitigating energy prices if I were elected Conservative leader and became PM". Sunak has done it, Starmer has done it. The only reason not to do it is because she does not yet know. Given how far in advance the rises have been signalled, that is not good enough.

    Because she doesn't care! We've got @williamglenn and to a gentler extent @Big_G_NorthWales claiming Truss will intervene and some of us are just attacking her / the Tories. Based on what? That they believe she is a Massive Liar?

    She cannot be clearer. On a "here's what I would do as Prime Minister" tour for a month and a half, meetings all across the country saying the same thing over and over and over. Hope that she already has a plan up her sleeve, or that she will pick a plan supposedly being drawn up by the Treasury is to hope she is a massive liar saying "no handouts" whilst planning handouts.

    "You can trust her to act because she's a massive liar" is hardly a political position that will hold. So I believe the opposite is true - she isn't lying. I don't doubt that she will be forced to do *something*. But unlike the previous government whose belief only in Boris allowed the massive u-turn into furlough, this one has zeal behind it.

    When the pile of pensioner corpses grows too high and the "you've already had a handout" excuses just provoke actual riots, they will have to act. But it will be way too late, far too little, and aimed at the people who don't need it to ameliorate the horror of handouts.
    She may be changing tack, if this is to be believed.

    I hold her in the same high regard as you do. However she has succeeded in politics by having principles that can be adopted or jetisoned as often as practical.

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/truss-changes-tack-over-energy-bills-after-previously-saying-she-favours-tax-cuts-over-handouts/ar-AA116LWV?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=88d6f65729d64888f1fdf599ec5e27e5
    Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. She doesn't want handouts to the workshy. Repeated again last night. So when they put this together it won't be targeted. It will be universal to ensure her lot get theirs and so that she isn't rewarding failure. And it will be a loan.

    Which defers rather than resolves the problem of unpayable debt.
    You're lying, that's not what she said.

    What she said actually is that support is on the way, but her priority is fixing the problem.

    You're tilting at windmills.
    I *directly quoted* her. " “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”

    Reading your pro-Truss posts is like watching a toddler throw a tantrum. You want your tax cut and people die so what. That the country is reacting in horror rather than agreeing with you has you with your arms crossed scowling and stamping the floor.
    Yes, to "just" bung more money into the system "isn't right".

    But she also explicitly said that support is on the way and you're lying by saying she said it isn't. Outright lie.

    Support is on the way, but it shouldn't just be that.
    If support is on the way she has had a somewhat Damascene conversion then. It remains to be seen what it is and how effective it is.

    Her only promises so far reward the wealthiest in society and do nothing for the poorest.

    There are two issues here. The short term pain and the medium to long term energy security of the nation. She needs to tackle both. Fixing on the medium to long term at the expense of the short term simply means she won't be around to implement anything post the next election.
    She literally said she'd do both.

    She specifically said there'd be support in the emergency budget.

    Rochdale dishonestly cut out her saying that and took the follow up the but where she would not "just" do what she'd just literally said she'd do, and twisted it to mean that she wouldn't do what she literally just said she would do.

    Taking half a sentence out of context to make it mean the opposite of what was said is lying.
    Daft sod. I quoted verbatim line after line after line from her article. Two whole paragraphs:

    "To those of you feeling the squeeze, my message is clear: I will ensure support is on its way and we get through these tough times. My immediate priority will be to put more money back in people’s pockets by cutting taxes, such as reversing the rise in national insurance.

    I would also suspend the green levy on energy bills, bringing down average energy bills by £153. This will build on the work already underway, such as the Energy Bills Support Scheme, which will see a £400 discount paid to consumers from October, and the £1,200 package of support for the most vulnerable."
    "such as" means it will be part of the Emergency Budget, not exclusively all of it, you daft sod.
    So your big play is that we can trust Truss because she has been lying for weeks? Great!
    No, you're the only one who's been lying.

    She literally said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget, but it can't "just" be support.

    You dishonestly said that meant no support.

    If there's support forthcoming in the Emergency Budget, like she said there would be, then she hasn't lied.
    That's a "no, your mum" answer.

    That all you got left?
    No I've got what she said. She said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget. You said there won't be.

    If there is, she's told the truth, you haven't.
    She said the support will be tax cuts and cutting the green crap you dimwit. Listen to what she is saying rather than what you want her to be saying.
    "Such as" doesn't mean "only" or "exclusively".

    Try again, where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim. Full quote or it didn't happen.
    Where have I claimed she will provide "no support"?

    Just in the quote chain above I have posted: "they will have to act but it will be too little too late" and "Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. "

    Do read what is written, not what you want to have been written.
    Re-read what I wrote.

    Where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim.


    Not you, when has she ever said that?
    But I am not claiming that am I? Its your usual twatty strawman bullshit. You're only missing the arsehole shrug emoji for the full house. The stuff she posted in the Mail and has said eleventy times through the campaigns - tax cuts, green levy cuts etc - are support. Just "too little" as I noted above.
    But she never said they would be the limits of her support did she? 🤷‍♂️
    She said no bungs.
  • AlistairMAlistairM Posts: 1,587
    Anyone who thinks we should appease Putin please reflect on this:

    The U.S. State Department and Yale identify 21 detention/deportation sites in Russian-controlled territory.
    *Satellite images show signs of mass graves.

    https://twitter.com/nycjim/status/1563120506156462080
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,844
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    From all the comments here today, you’d think that the government hadn’t already announced a £37,000,000,000 package of support measures for this winter, and that the likely next PM has already committed to remove VAT and green levies from energy bills before the winter.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/energy-bills-support-scheme-explainer

    The Energy Bills Support Scheme will deliver a £400 non-repayable discount to eligible households to help with energy bills from October

    Households most in need will be eligible for further support in addition to the Energy Bills discount. This includes:
    1. a £650 one-off Cost of Living Payment for around 8 million households on means tested benefits
    2. a one-off £300 Pensioner Cost of Living Payment for over 8 million pensioner households to be paid alongside the Winter Fuel Payment
    3. a payment of £150 for around 6 million people across the UK who receive certain disability benefits
    4. a £500 million increase and extension of the Household Support Fund

    The point is, it's all been piecemeal and has had no effect on inflation. If you're going to spend £37bn why not use it to reduce the price cap, and inflation?

    People will say it's targeted but the poorest spend the highest proportion of their income on fuel, so freezing the cap would be helping them the most.

    I also question how much these piecemeal initiatives will cost in administration. Volunteering for Citizens Advice, we are getting a lot of queries from people who are confused or need help applying (e.g. for the HSF).
    Interesting. From looking at it, the scheme appears designed to minimise the administration costs. The £400 payment is being administered by the suppliers through bills, and the various top-ups are linked to other existing state benefits.

    Watching this from afar, there appears to be poor communication about what has already been announced by the government, and how the price cap actually works in practice. Not helped by scaremongering and government-bashing from certain sections of the media.

    There also needs to be a public information campaign in the autumn, reminding people of how best they can reduce their energy consumption. Many people will not have thought to wear a jumper indoors, replace old light bulbs with LEDs, and not boil a full kettle for one cup of tea.
    People are calculating the price of a shower per minute, how much energy different meals cost to cook, whether to use the oven or microwave. And this isn't just the poor but middle classes. I don't normally like the "ex-pat so must be out of touch" arguments often repeated on here, but on this you are out of touch.
    What do you disagree with, that I wrote? It’s good that people are thinking about how to reduce their energy consumption.

    Here in expat-land, we are in the middle of a the hot summer, and last month’s air conditioning bill was more than £200, for a two bed apartment. My wife and I, on middle incomes, have been making a conscious decision to reduce usage this month, by switching off a/c in unoccupied zones, ditching the duvet and sleeping in sheets, wearing t-shirt and shorts indoors, switching everything off when the apartment is unoccupied, etc.

    For a lot of people, energy bills were not anything that was consciously thought about before, but they will need to be this winter - as they have been for me this summer!
    "Many people will not have thought to wear a jumper indoors, replace old light bulbs with LEDs, and not boil a full kettle for one cup of tea."

    This is general chit chat in regular everyday conversation, in August with nice summer days, not something that requires a public information campaign over the winter. People are already worried and seriously planning ahead - everyone bar the rich enough regardless have thought of wearing an extra jumper or three.
    If a public information campaign can make a small difference, then it’s worth doing.

    There will be people who genuinely aren’t paying attention until the bill comes in, and many more who don’t realise just how much bills will rise. Maybe today’s announcement by OFGEM will help nudge people in the right direction. We all have anecdotes about people overheating their homes and wearing shorts, there will be people who won’t make the connection between the house temperature and the size of the bill, until it’s pointed out to them.
    And when a 6 grand cap comes in next April ?
    How does winter 2023 work in your plans ?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,817
    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    Dunno why, but I've really got a thing against old people now. I might start a political party (before I get too old) to attack them

    Definition of old will be kind of like the definition of rich, won't it:

    "Me plus "

    At sixty, you'll insist 70 is old. At seventy, it'll become clear that actually eighty is "old"
    As you approach eighty, you'll realise that advances in medical science mean that "old" really starts at ninety.
    And at 165, you will confidently declare *really* old people start at about 200.
    Who does @JackW regard as old?
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,719

    Alex Wickham
    @alexwickham
    ·
    1h
    Some Truss backing MPs are getting jittery

    - one worries there will be civil disobedience or even riots if she gets it wrong
    - another says they don't want her govt to be an experiment on whether the Laffer curve can solve a cost of living crisis

    https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1563105981906661377

    ===

    It's like watching a slow motion car crash that you can do nothing about. Leadership election next summer.

    We have not got the tiniest idea what Mrs T will do once elected. It's like trying to guess what SKS's Brexit policy is now on the basis of the 2019 election campaign.

    Mrs T is doing what she thinks necessary to be elected by a dim set of self interested extremists. (Much like SKS had to do).

    This is not to support her. I don't. No-one tainted by this government since Patersongate should be allowed to be entertained in polite society.

    Prediction: Yes she will dish out vast amounts of our great -grandchildren's money. The children's and grandchildren's has already gone.

  • I am finding it very tough to believe that the Rwandan government will allow the UK to send Albanian gangsters to its country.
  • Taz said:

    Taz said:

    I don't understand why Truss can't say "this is what I would do on mitigating energy prices if I were elected Conservative leader and became PM". Sunak has done it, Starmer has done it. The only reason not to do it is because she does not yet know. Given how far in advance the rises have been signalled, that is not good enough.

    Because she doesn't care! We've got @williamglenn and to a gentler extent @Big_G_NorthWales claiming Truss will intervene and some of us are just attacking her / the Tories. Based on what? That they believe she is a Massive Liar?

    She cannot be clearer. On a "here's what I would do as Prime Minister" tour for a month and a half, meetings all across the country saying the same thing over and over and over. Hope that she already has a plan up her sleeve, or that she will pick a plan supposedly being drawn up by the Treasury is to hope she is a massive liar saying "no handouts" whilst planning handouts.

    "You can trust her to act because she's a massive liar" is hardly a political position that will hold. So I believe the opposite is true - she isn't lying. I don't doubt that she will be forced to do *something*. But unlike the previous government whose belief only in Boris allowed the massive u-turn into furlough, this one has zeal behind it.

    When the pile of pensioner corpses grows too high and the "you've already had a handout" excuses just provoke actual riots, they will have to act. But it will be way too late, far too little, and aimed at the people who don't need it to ameliorate the horror of handouts.
    She may be changing tack, if this is to be believed.

    I hold her in the same high regard as you do. However she has succeeded in politics by having principles that can be adopted or jetisoned as often as practical.

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/truss-changes-tack-over-energy-bills-after-previously-saying-she-favours-tax-cuts-over-handouts/ar-AA116LWV?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=88d6f65729d64888f1fdf599ec5e27e5
    Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. She doesn't want handouts to the workshy. Repeated again last night. So when they put this together it won't be targeted. It will be universal to ensure her lot get theirs and so that she isn't rewarding failure. And it will be a loan.

    Which defers rather than resolves the problem of unpayable debt.
    You're lying, that's not what she said.

    What she said actually is that support is on the way, but her priority is fixing the problem.

    You're tilting at windmills.
    I *directly quoted* her. " “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”

    Reading your pro-Truss posts is like watching a toddler throw a tantrum. You want your tax cut and people die so what. That the country is reacting in horror rather than agreeing with you has you with your arms crossed scowling and stamping the floor.
    Yes, to "just" bung more money into the system "isn't right".

    But she also explicitly said that support is on the way and you're lying by saying she said it isn't. Outright lie.

    Support is on the way, but it shouldn't just be that.
    If support is on the way she has had a somewhat Damascene conversion then. It remains to be seen what it is and how effective it is.

    Her only promises so far reward the wealthiest in society and do nothing for the poorest.

    There are two issues here. The short term pain and the medium to long term energy security of the nation. She needs to tackle both. Fixing on the medium to long term at the expense of the short term simply means she won't be around to implement anything post the next election.
    She literally said she'd do both.

    She specifically said there'd be support in the emergency budget.

    Rochdale dishonestly cut out her saying that and took the follow up the but where she would not "just" do what she'd just literally said she'd do, and twisted it to mean that she wouldn't do what she literally just said she would do.

    Taking half a sentence out of context to make it mean the opposite of what was said is lying.
    Daft sod. I quoted verbatim line after line after line from her article. Two whole paragraphs:

    "To those of you feeling the squeeze, my message is clear: I will ensure support is on its way and we get through these tough times. My immediate priority will be to put more money back in people’s pockets by cutting taxes, such as reversing the rise in national insurance.

    I would also suspend the green levy on energy bills, bringing down average energy bills by £153. This will build on the work already underway, such as the Energy Bills Support Scheme, which will see a £400 discount paid to consumers from October, and the £1,200 package of support for the most vulnerable."
    "such as" means it will be part of the Emergency Budget, not exclusively all of it, you daft sod.
    So your big play is that we can trust Truss because she has been lying for weeks? Great!
    No, you're the only one who's been lying.

    She literally said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget, but it can't "just" be support.

    You dishonestly said that meant no support.

    If there's support forthcoming in the Emergency Budget, like she said there would be, then she hasn't lied.
    That's a "no, your mum" answer.

    That all you got left?
    No I've got what she said. She said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget. You said there won't be.

    If there is, she's told the truth, you haven't.
    She said the support will be tax cuts and cutting the green crap you dimwit. Listen to what she is saying rather than what you want her to be saying.
    "Such as" doesn't mean "only" or "exclusively".

    Try again, where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim. Full quote or it didn't happen.
    Where have I claimed she will provide "no support"?

    Just in the quote chain above I have posted: "they will have to act but it will be too little too late" and "Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. "

    Do read what is written, not what you want to have been written.
    Re-read what I wrote.

    Where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim.


    Not you, when has she ever said that?
    But I am not claiming that am I? Its your usual twatty strawman bullshit. You're only missing the arsehole shrug emoji for the full house. The stuff she posted in the Mail and has said eleventy times through the campaigns - tax cuts, green levy cuts etc - are support. Just "too little" as I noted above.
    But she never said they would be the limits of her support did she? 🤷‍♂️
    She said no bungs.
    No, she didn't.

    She said not just bungs.

    Don't just take paracetamol != don't take paracetamol.
  • TazTaz Posts: 6,545

    Alex Wickham
    @alexwickham
    ·
    1h
    Some Truss backing MPs are getting jittery

    - one worries there will be civil disobedience or even riots if she gets it wrong
    - another says they don't want her govt to be an experiment on whether the Laffer curve can solve a cost of living crisis

    https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1563105981906661377

    ===

    It's like watching a slow motion car crash that you can do nothing about. Leadership election next summer.

    They made their bed.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    From all the comments here today, you’d think that the government hadn’t already announced a £37,000,000,000 package of support measures for this winter, and that the likely next PM has already committed to remove VAT and green levies from energy bills before the winter.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/energy-bills-support-scheme-explainer

    The Energy Bills Support Scheme will deliver a £400 non-repayable discount to eligible households to help with energy bills from October

    Households most in need will be eligible for further support in addition to the Energy Bills discount. This includes:
    1. a £650 one-off Cost of Living Payment for around 8 million households on means tested benefits
    2. a one-off £300 Pensioner Cost of Living Payment for over 8 million pensioner households to be paid alongside the Winter Fuel Payment
    3. a payment of £150 for around 6 million people across the UK who receive certain disability benefits
    4. a £500 million increase and extension of the Household Support Fund

    The point is, it's all been piecemeal and has had no effect on inflation. If you're going to spend £37bn why not use it to reduce the price cap, and inflation?

    People will say it's targeted but the poorest spend the highest proportion of their income on fuel, so freezing the cap would be helping them the most.

    I also question how much these piecemeal initiatives will cost in administration. Volunteering for Citizens Advice, we are getting a lot of queries from people who are confused or need help applying (e.g. for the HSF).
    Interesting. From looking at it, the scheme appears designed to minimise the administration costs. The £400 payment is being administered by the suppliers through bills, and the various top-ups are linked to other existing state benefits.

    Watching this from afar, there appears to be poor communication about what has already been announced by the government, and how the price cap actually works in practice. Not helped by scaremongering and government-bashing from certain sections of the media.

    There also needs to be a public information campaign in the autumn, reminding people of how best they can reduce their energy consumption. Many people will not have thought to wear a jumper indoors, replace old light bulbs with LEDs, and not boil a full kettle for one cup of tea.
    People are calculating the price of a shower per minute, how much energy different meals cost to cook, whether to use the oven or microwave. And this isn't just the poor but middle classes. I don't normally like the "ex-pat so must be out of touch" arguments often repeated on here, but on this you are out of touch.
    What do you disagree with, that I wrote? It’s good that people are thinking about how to reduce their energy consumption.

    Here in expat-land, we are in the middle of a the hot summer, and last month’s air conditioning bill was more than £200, for a two bed apartment. My wife and I, on middle incomes, have been making a conscious decision to reduce usage this month, by switching off a/c in unoccupied zones, ditching the duvet and sleeping in sheets, wearing t-shirt and shorts indoors, switching everything off when the apartment is unoccupied, etc.

    For a lot of people, energy bills were not anything that was consciously thought about before, but they will need to be this winter - as they have been for me this summer!
    "Many people will not have thought to wear a jumper indoors, replace old light bulbs with LEDs, and not boil a full kettle for one cup of tea."

    This is general chit chat in regular everyday conversation, in August with nice summer days, not something that requires a public information campaign over the winter. People are already worried and seriously planning ahead - everyone bar the rich enough regardless have thought of wearing an extra jumper or three.
    If a public information campaign can make a small difference, then it’s worth doing.

    There will be people who genuinely aren’t paying attention until the bill comes in, and many more who don’t realise just how much bills will rise. Maybe today’s announcement by OFGEM will help nudge people in the right direction. We all have anecdotes about people overheating their homes and wearing shorts, there will be people who won’t make the connection between the house temperature and the size of the bill, until it’s pointed out to them.
    And when a 6 grand cap comes in next April ?
    How does winter 2023 work in your plans ?
    We're all being charged at the rate of the most expensive joule of energy needed.

    The shape of the graph means that smallish reductions in consumption could bring the unit cost down a lot.

    (It's a 15% reduction in consumption that's needed, isn't it? The price mechanism will do that eventually, but in a brutal way that causes some energy producers to make out like bandits until things settle.)
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,704
    IshmaelZ said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    So PB Brains Trust. Do we agree that the forecast fuel bills levels are unsustainable politically for the government? What options do they have since they cannot magic new generation capacity or gas supply sources in time for the coming winter? Short term actions: Price capping per unit with the difference paid by government borrowing? Force majeure stopping North Sea gas exports from the UK? Long term actions: Orders in council to start mass fracking pilots with protesting made illegal? Ordering micro nuke pilot plants? Building Swansea Bay tidal lagoons?

    What would you do?

    Encourage all the oldies to spend the winter in another country.

    Knock all the decrepit oldies on the head - thus solving NHS and care crises as well.

    Ban / tax outside Christmas illuminations.
    In 1960 5% of UK homes had central heating vs 95% now. The oldies will be fine. And I am a lot happier to Freeze For Ukraine than I ever was to Clap For Carers.
    Or double glazing.

    I remember the condensation puddles on window sills every winter morning.
    For me it was frozen condensation on the window panes in the morning.
    I remember those days well and getting dressed under the bed blankets (we did not have duvets in those days)
    Southern softies - we just got out of bed and on with the pullovers.
    I was no southern softie

    I lived in Berwick and then Edinburgh at the time
    "And you try and tell the young people of today that... they won't believe you"
    They won't believe I was only a few hundred yards away from being killed with my mother, father, and sister when living in Manchester in 1944 when one of Hitler's bombs stopped above our house and fell nearby killing 6 neighbours
    It was quote from the Four Yorkshireman sketch, a eternal classic of which I'm often put in mind when lurking on here.
    Well you might be, but the stats for central heating in the 1960s are pretty solid, as are the meteorological data. Hard freeze plus unheated bedroom - do the math.
    For much of mu childhood, the main foul downpipe outside bore the blackened marks of the blowtorch my father had to apply to unblock the toilet outflow one day in 1963.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 2,644
    Pulpstar said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    WILL NO ONE THINK OF THE DINGHY ALBANIANS

    Even as we lucky Brits contemplate a winter of gnawing cold pigeon, served on a bed of toxic seaweed, there are hard-pressed wealthy Albanian drug dealers who are being basically FORCED by themselves to climb into air-conditioned Mercedes minibuses, in which they are basically TRAFFICKED by themselves through several agreeable European spa-towns, with scenic lunch-stops, until they reach the Channel where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they have no money, dropping their Rolexes at Deauville, so they can cross ten minutes of water where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they are asylum seekers, which we are happy to accept despite it being ludicrous, thus allowing them to live on our money as they then go out and deal lethal drugs to our kids. And maybe do a couple of violent burglaries

    Thank God THEY will be warm this winter. In a British home YOU pay for

    Leon, the only person thinking about these Albanians is you. In fact, they won't need any kind of accommodation or heating as they live in your head rent-free, warmed by the glowing embers of your perpetual outrage.
    Remember when you told me it was all Eritreans. I think that was about two days ago?


    "Official data released on Thursday has confirmed suspicions that Albanians are now a prominent national group among the asylum seekers travelling across the Channel."

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/25/rise-in-albanian-asylum-seekers-may-be-down-to-criminal-gangs

    "Speculation has fallen upon dominant organised criminal gangs known to have previously trafficked sex workers and gang members into the UK, and which now control large parts of the marijuana and cocaine markets.

    "Albanian gang activity is “rising up the security services’ list” of priorities because of the surge in arrivals from the Balkan state, it is understood.

    Evidence of a growing market offering Albanians a route across the Channel to the UK can be found on TikTok"


    Soft-headed liberal dullards like you are still weeping about Rwanda. Get a grip

    It's a recent surge, who knows if it will be sustained. Hopefully intelligence led law enforcement can deal with the issue. The Rwandan scheme won't deter any Albanians as they will simply elect to go back to Albania if they are caught. They are not seeking asylum in the UK and are unlikely to be granted it if they did, their goal is to enter undetected and enter the black economy.
    Historically about 90% of those arriving by boat come from a handful of wartorn countries and more than half are granted leave to stay as they are genuine refugees.
    I've said this before, try to be civil when you post on here.
    But you are a softheaded liberal dullard. As this exchange conclusively proves. You don't like difficult truths, you are Woke liberal, and you're not very bright.

    Admitting this fact is not incivility, that's statin' the bleedin' obvious

    And, by the way, Rwanda really WOULD deter Albanians from crossing. If these drug lords think there is a 5% chance they will be sent to Africa, not back to Albania, they would all stop coming tomorrow
    They wouldn't be prisoners in Rwanda, and free to go to Albania if they chose.

    Albanians are pretty certain to be rejected for an asylum claim. They should be be taken straight to one of our own immigration centres for deportation. Indeed I think all arrivals should go straight to camps so that they can get an express assessment of any asylum claim on site. It needs a bit of investment in camps and legal system, but is far more likely to work than the Rwandan scheme, which has been a total failure.

    But then they will just come back on the next chauffeured minibus from Tirana. This is already happening. We deport them, they come back a week later, on a dinghy

    Fuck this, why should we tolerate it? Life is getting harder, Brits could die of cold this winter, the UKG needs to toughen up on those who would prey on our generosity, and kill our kids with drugs

    Send these fuckers to Rwanda. They won't try again after THAT
    Hold on, first things first has anyone actually been deported to anywhere in the last few years ?
    I don’t think they were to Rwanda, but in the year to March 2022, there were 2761 enforced returns, 6747 voluntary returns and 18416 port returns (they’re not let in at a port and go straight back). Details at https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-statistics-year-ending-march-2022/how-many-people-are-detained-or-returned Numbers are well down on recent years, partially because of COVID, but there also seems to be a broader decline — presumably underfunding in the system?
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 10,904
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    WILL NO ONE THINK OF THE DINGHY ALBANIANS

    Even as we lucky Brits contemplate a winter of gnawing cold pigeon, served on a bed of toxic seaweed, there are hard-pressed wealthy Albanian drug dealers who are being basically FORCED by themselves to climb into air-conditioned Mercedes minibuses, in which they are basically TRAFFICKED by themselves through several agreeable European spa-towns, with scenic lunch-stops, until they reach the Channel where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they have no money, dropping their Rolexes at Deauville, so they can cross ten minutes of water where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they are asylum seekers, which we are happy to accept despite it being ludicrous, thus allowing them to live on our money as they then go out and deal lethal drugs to our kids. And maybe do a couple of violent burglaries

    Thank God THEY will be warm this winter. In a British home YOU pay for

    Leon, the only person thinking about these Albanians is you. In fact, they won't need any kind of accommodation or heating as they live in your head rent-free, warmed by the glowing embers of your perpetual outrage.
    Remember when you told me it was all Eritreans. I think that was about two days ago?


    "Official data released on Thursday has confirmed suspicions that Albanians are now a prominent national group among the asylum seekers travelling across the Channel."

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/25/rise-in-albanian-asylum-seekers-may-be-down-to-criminal-gangs

    "Speculation has fallen upon dominant organised criminal gangs known to have previously trafficked sex workers and gang members into the UK, and which now control large parts of the marijuana and cocaine markets.

    "Albanian gang activity is “rising up the security services’ list” of priorities because of the surge in arrivals from the Balkan state, it is understood.

    Evidence of a growing market offering Albanians a route across the Channel to the UK can be found on TikTok"


    Soft-headed liberal dullards like you are still weeping about Rwanda. Get a grip

    It's a recent surge, who knows if it will be sustained. Hopefully intelligence led law enforcement can deal with the issue. The Rwandan scheme won't deter any Albanians as they will simply elect to go back to Albania if they are caught. They are not seeking asylum in the UK and are unlikely to be granted it if they did, their goal is to enter undetected and enter the black economy.
    Historically about 90% of those arriving by boat come from a handful of wartorn countries and more than half are granted leave to stay as they are genuine refugees.
    I've said this before, try to be civil when you post on here.
    But you are a softheaded liberal dullard. As this exchange conclusively proves. You don't like difficult truths, you are Woke liberal, and you're not very bright.

    Admitting this fact is not incivility, that's statin' the bleedin' obvious

    And, by the way, Rwanda really WOULD deter Albanians from crossing. If these drug lords think there is a 5% chance they will be sent to Africa, not back to Albania, they would all stop coming tomorrow
    There is a 0% chance that the UK would send anyone to Rwanda who they can send back to where they came from. The Rwandan scheme is designed for those who won't/can't go back to their country of origin. Although of course it's really designed to give people like you a semi, and it's unlikely to ever be used.
    People who call other people thick are usually thick themselves.
    I didn't say you were thick, I said you were "not very bright". Which is surely indisputable. Indeed I suspect you know this and are content with it. You are not tortured by your intellectual mediocrity. That's a good thing. I have a friend who is like you - decidedly middlebrow in every way - who is less self-aware than you, and thinks he is super clever

    It can be agonising as he opines
    Being called not very bright by someone who can't use full stops is something I can live with.
    It's funny isn't it, we are all somewhat lacking in self awareness I suppose - Burns puts it so well in To a Louse. Perhaps I am really stupid, and if I was I guess I wouldn't know. I look for objective markers of intelligence, like academic record, or career trajectory, or friendship group, and it all looks okay. I understand the Monty Hall problem. For the time being I will stick with my prior that I am not stupid, but I am an empiricist so if evidence arises that points the other way (I suppose wasting my time arguing with you is one entry on the other side of the ledger) I will certainly be open to revising that view.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,704
    edited August 2022

    Dura_Ace said:

    Leon said:

    WILL NO ONE THINK OF THE DINGHY ALBANIANS

    Even as we lucky Brits contemplate a winter of gnawing cold pigeon, served on a bed of toxic seaweed, there are hard-pressed wealthy Albanian drug dealers who are being basically FORCED by themselves to climb into air-conditioned Mercedes minibuses, in which they are basically TRAFFICKED by themselves through several agreeable European spa-towns, with scenic lunch-stops, until they reach the Channel where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they have no money, dropping their Rolexes at Deauville, so they can cross ten minutes of water where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they are asylum seekers, which we are happy to accept despite it being ludicrous, thus allowing them to live on our money as they then go out and deal lethal drugs to our kids. And maybe do a couple of violent burglaries

    Thank God THEY will be warm this winter. In a British home YOU pay for

    Is this post produced by Dalle2, an alien or a real human?
    It was produced by John TynDalle-2.
    It’s better than your SMO-sturbating in our faces
    Someone* applying to work on MailOnline? Presumably Dalle-2 does the Sidebar of Shame, too.

    *Edit: the original poster, sorry.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    WILL NO ONE THINK OF THE DINGHY ALBANIANS

    Even as we lucky Brits contemplate a winter of gnawing cold pigeon, served on a bed of toxic seaweed, there are hard-pressed wealthy Albanian drug dealers who are being basically FORCED by themselves to climb into air-conditioned Mercedes minibuses, in which they are basically TRAFFICKED by themselves through several agreeable European spa-towns, with scenic lunch-stops, until they reach the Channel where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they have no money, dropping their Rolexes at Deauville, so they can cross ten minutes of water where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they are asylum seekers, which we are happy to accept despite it being ludicrous, thus allowing them to live on our money as they then go out and deal lethal drugs to our kids. And maybe do a couple of violent burglaries

    Thank God THEY will be warm this winter. In a British home YOU pay for

    Leon, the only person thinking about these Albanians is you. In fact, they won't need any kind of accommodation or heating as they live in your head rent-free, warmed by the glowing embers of your perpetual outrage.
    Remember when you told me it was all Eritreans. I think that was about two days ago?


    "Official data released on Thursday has confirmed suspicions that Albanians are now a prominent national group among the asylum seekers travelling across the Channel."

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/25/rise-in-albanian-asylum-seekers-may-be-down-to-criminal-gangs

    "Speculation has fallen upon dominant organised criminal gangs known to have previously trafficked sex workers and gang members into the UK, and which now control large parts of the marijuana and cocaine markets.

    "Albanian gang activity is “rising up the security services’ list” of priorities because of the surge in arrivals from the Balkan state, it is understood.

    Evidence of a growing market offering Albanians a route across the Channel to the UK can be found on TikTok"


    Soft-headed liberal dullards like you are still weeping about Rwanda. Get a grip

    It's a recent surge, who knows if it will be sustained. Hopefully intelligence led law enforcement can deal with the issue. The Rwandan scheme won't deter any Albanians as they will simply elect to go back to Albania if they are caught. They are not seeking asylum in the UK and are unlikely to be granted it if they did, their goal is to enter undetected and enter the black economy.
    Historically about 90% of those arriving by boat come from a handful of wartorn countries and more than half are granted leave to stay as they are genuine refugees.
    I've said this before, try to be civil when you post on here.
    But you are a softheaded liberal dullard. As this exchange conclusively proves. You don't like difficult truths, you are Woke liberal, and you're not very bright.

    Admitting this fact is not incivility, that's statin' the bleedin' obvious

    And, by the way, Rwanda really WOULD deter Albanians from crossing. If these drug lords think there is a 5% chance they will be sent to Africa, not back to Albania, they would all stop coming tomorrow
    They wouldn't be prisoners in Rwanda, and free to go to Albania if they chose.

    Albanians are pretty certain to be rejected for an asylum claim. They should be be taken straight to one of our own immigration centres for deportation. Indeed I think all arrivals should go straight to camps so that they can get an express assessment of any asylum claim on site. It needs a bit of investment in camps and legal system, but is far more likely to work than the Rwandan scheme, which has been a total failure.

    But then they will just come back on the next chauffeured minibus from Tirana. This is already happening. We deport them, they come back a week later, on a dinghy

    Fuck this, why should we tolerate it? Life is getting harder, Brits could die of cold this winter, the UKG needs to toughen up on those who would prey on our generosity, and kill our kids with drugs

    Send these fuckers to Rwanda. They won't try again after THAT
    Hold on, first things first has anyone actually been deported to anywhere in the last few years ?
    I don’t think they were to Rwanda, but in the year to March 2022, there were 2761 enforced returns, 6747 voluntary returns and 18416 port returns (they’re not let in at a port and go straight back). Details at https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-statistics-year-ending-march-2022/how-many-people-are-detained-or-returned Numbers are well down on recent years, partially because of COVID, but there also seems to be a broader decline — presumably underfunding in the system?
    Indeed. That's why the Aussie system works: Go directly to Nauru/Rwanda, do not pass go, do not collect 200 lawyers.

    People choose voluntary returns instead. Or simply don't make the journey.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,704
    Taz said:

    Alex Wickham
    @alexwickham
    ·
    1h
    Some Truss backing MPs are getting jittery

    - one worries there will be civil disobedience or even riots if she gets it wrong
    - another says they don't want her govt to be an experiment on whether the Laffer curve can solve a cost of living crisis

    https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1563105981906661377

    ===

    It's like watching a slow motion car crash that you can do nothing about. Leadership election next summer.

    They made their bed.
    Very polite of you to put it that way, is my reaction. Definitely an upmarket PBer.
  • novanova Posts: 472

    Pulpstar said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    WILL NO ONE THINK OF THE DINGHY ALBANIANS

    Even as we lucky Brits contemplate a winter of gnawing cold pigeon, served on a bed of toxic seaweed, there are hard-pressed wealthy Albanian drug dealers who are being basically FORCED by themselves to climb into air-conditioned Mercedes minibuses, in which they are basically TRAFFICKED by themselves through several agreeable European spa-towns, with scenic lunch-stops, until they reach the Channel where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they have no money, dropping their Rolexes at Deauville, so they can cross ten minutes of water where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they are asylum seekers, which we are happy to accept despite it being ludicrous, thus allowing them to live on our money as they then go out and deal lethal drugs to our kids. And maybe do a couple of violent burglaries

    Thank God THEY will be warm this winter. In a British home YOU pay for

    Leon, the only person thinking about these Albanians is you. In fact, they won't need any kind of accommodation or heating as they live in your head rent-free, warmed by the glowing embers of your perpetual outrage.
    Remember when you told me it was all Eritreans. I think that was about two days ago?


    "Official data released on Thursday has confirmed suspicions that Albanians are now a prominent national group among the asylum seekers travelling across the Channel."

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/25/rise-in-albanian-asylum-seekers-may-be-down-to-criminal-gangs

    "Speculation has fallen upon dominant organised criminal gangs known to have previously trafficked sex workers and gang members into the UK, and which now control large parts of the marijuana and cocaine markets.

    "Albanian gang activity is “rising up the security services’ list” of priorities because of the surge in arrivals from the Balkan state, it is understood.

    Evidence of a growing market offering Albanians a route across the Channel to the UK can be found on TikTok"


    Soft-headed liberal dullards like you are still weeping about Rwanda. Get a grip

    It's a recent surge, who knows if it will be sustained. Hopefully intelligence led law enforcement can deal with the issue. The Rwandan scheme won't deter any Albanians as they will simply elect to go back to Albania if they are caught. They are not seeking asylum in the UK and are unlikely to be granted it if they did, their goal is to enter undetected and enter the black economy.
    Historically about 90% of those arriving by boat come from a handful of wartorn countries and more than half are granted leave to stay as they are genuine refugees.
    I've said this before, try to be civil when you post on here.
    But you are a softheaded liberal dullard. As this exchange conclusively proves. You don't like difficult truths, you are Woke liberal, and you're not very bright.

    Admitting this fact is not incivility, that's statin' the bleedin' obvious

    And, by the way, Rwanda really WOULD deter Albanians from crossing. If these drug lords think there is a 5% chance they will be sent to Africa, not back to Albania, they would all stop coming tomorrow
    They wouldn't be prisoners in Rwanda, and free to go to Albania if they chose.

    Albanians are pretty certain to be rejected for an asylum claim. They should be be taken straight to one of our own immigration centres for deportation. Indeed I think all arrivals should go straight to camps so that they can get an express assessment of any asylum claim on site. It needs a bit of investment in camps and legal system, but is far more likely to work than the Rwandan scheme, which has been a total failure.

    But then they will just come back on the next chauffeured minibus from Tirana. This is already happening. We deport them, they come back a week later, on a dinghy

    Fuck this, why should we tolerate it? Life is getting harder, Brits could die of cold this winter, the UKG needs to toughen up on those who would prey on our generosity, and kill our kids with drugs

    Send these fuckers to Rwanda. They won't try again after THAT
    Hold on, first things first has anyone actually been deported to anywhere in the last few years ?
    I don’t think they were to Rwanda, but in the year to March 2022, there were 2761 enforced returns, 6747 voluntary returns and 18416 port returns (they’re not let in at a port and go straight back). Details at https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-statistics-year-ending-march-2022/how-many-people-are-detained-or-returned Numbers are well down on recent years, partially because of COVID, but there also seems to be a broader decline — presumably underfunding in the system?
    Indeed. That's why the Aussie system works: Go directly to Nauru/Rwanda, do not pass go, do not collect 200 lawyers.

    People choose voluntary returns instead. Or simply don't make the journey.
    Surely the fact that Australia is 1500 miles from any other country prevents the majority of journeys?
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 2,644

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    I don't understand why Truss can't say "this is what I would do on mitigating energy prices if I were elected Conservative leader and became PM". Sunak has done it, Starmer has done it. The only reason not to do it is because she does not yet know. Given how far in advance the rises have been signalled, that is not good enough.

    Because she doesn't care! We've got @williamglenn and to a gentler extent @Big_G_NorthWales claiming Truss will intervene and some of us are just attacking her / the Tories. Based on what? That they believe she is a Massive Liar?

    She cannot be clearer. On a "here's what I would do as Prime Minister" tour for a month and a half, meetings all across the country saying the same thing over and over and over. Hope that she already has a plan up her sleeve, or that she will pick a plan supposedly being drawn up by the Treasury is to hope she is a massive liar saying "no handouts" whilst planning handouts.

    "You can trust her to act because she's a massive liar" is hardly a political position that will hold. So I believe the opposite is true - she isn't lying. I don't doubt that she will be forced to do *something*. But unlike the previous government whose belief only in Boris allowed the massive u-turn into furlough, this one has zeal behind it.

    When the pile of pensioner corpses grows too high and the "you've already had a handout" excuses just provoke actual riots, they will have to act. But it will be way too late, far too little, and aimed at the people who don't need it to ameliorate the horror of handouts.
    She may be changing tack, if this is to be believed.

    I hold her in the same high regard as you do. However she has succeeded in politics by having principles that can be adopted or jetisoned as often as practical.

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/truss-changes-tack-over-energy-bills-after-previously-saying-she-favours-tax-cuts-over-handouts/ar-AA116LWV?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=88d6f65729d64888f1fdf599ec5e27e5
    Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. She doesn't want handouts to the workshy. Repeated again last night. So when they put this together it won't be targeted. It will be universal to ensure her lot get theirs and so that she isn't rewarding failure. And it will be a loan.

    Which defers rather than resolves the problem of unpayable debt.
    You're lying, that's not what she said.

    What she said actually is that support is on the way, but her priority is fixing the problem.

    You're tilting at windmills.
    I *directly quoted* her. " “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”

    Reading your pro-Truss posts is like watching a toddler throw a tantrum. You want your tax cut and people die so what. That the country is reacting in horror rather than agreeing with you has you with your arms crossed scowling and stamping the floor.
    Yes, to "just" bung more money into the system "isn't right".

    But she also explicitly said that support is on the way and you're lying by saying she said it isn't. Outright lie.

    Support is on the way, but it shouldn't just be that.
    If support is on the way she has had a somewhat Damascene conversion then. It remains to be seen what it is and how effective it is.

    Her only promises so far reward the wealthiest in society and do nothing for the poorest.

    There are two issues here. The short term pain and the medium to long term energy security of the nation. She needs to tackle both. Fixing on the medium to long term at the expense of the short term simply means she won't be around to implement anything post the next election.
    She literally said she'd do both.

    She specifically said there'd be support in the emergency budget.

    Rochdale dishonestly cut out her saying that and took the follow up the but where she would not "just" do what she'd just literally said she'd do, and twisted it to mean that she wouldn't do what she literally just said she would do.

    Taking half a sentence out of context to make it mean the opposite of what was said is lying.
    Daft sod. I quoted verbatim line after line after line from her article. Two whole paragraphs:

    "To those of you feeling the squeeze, my message is clear: I will ensure support is on its way and we get through these tough times. My immediate priority will be to put more money back in people’s pockets by cutting taxes, such as reversing the rise in national insurance.

    I would also suspend the green levy on energy bills, bringing down average energy bills by £153. This will build on the work already underway, such as the Energy Bills Support Scheme, which will see a £400 discount paid to consumers from October, and the £1,200 package of support for the most vulnerable."
    "such as" means it will be part of the Emergency Budget, not exclusively all of it, you daft sod.
    So your big play is that we can trust Truss because she has been lying for weeks? Great!
    No, you're the only one who's been lying.

    She literally said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget, but it can't "just" be support.

    You dishonestly said that meant no support.

    If there's support forthcoming in the Emergency Budget, like she said there would be, then she hasn't lied.
    That's a "no, your mum" answer.

    That all you got left?
    No I've got what she said. She said there'd be support in the Emergency Budget. You said there won't be.

    If there is, she's told the truth, you haven't.
    She said the support will be tax cuts and cutting the green crap you dimwit. Listen to what she is saying rather than what you want her to be saying.
    "Such as" doesn't mean "only" or "exclusively".

    Try again, where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim. Full quote or it didn't happen.
    Where have I claimed she will provide "no support"?

    Just in the quote chain above I have posted: "they will have to act but it will be too little too late" and "Even I have said she will be forced to act. It is what they do, when, and with what tone that is under question. "

    Do read what is written, not what you want to have been written.
    Re-read what I wrote.

    Where has she ever said, without caveat, "no support" as you dishonestly claim.


    Not you, when has she ever said that?
    But I am not claiming that am I? Its your usual twatty strawman bullshit. You're only missing the arsehole shrug emoji for the full house. The stuff she posted in the Mail and has said eleventy times through the campaigns - tax cuts, green levy cuts etc - are support. Just "too little" as I noted above.
    But she never said they would be the limits of her support did she? 🤷‍♂️
    She said no bungs.
    No, she didn't.

    She said not just bungs.

    Don't just take paracetamol != don't take paracetamol.
    Truss: “What isn’t right is to just bung more money into the system, what we actually need to do is fix the supply of energy.”

    That’s a somewhat different usage of “just” than the analogue you offer. She has repeatedly failed to take up an opportunity to say something like, “My government will look at what additional short term support we can offer, but it isn’t right to just bung more money into the system.” No. It’s just the second half.

    If you’re right that Truss is actually planning a serious support package and she’s just communicating that poorly, then maybe she’ll be able to partially reverse the Conservatives’ 14 point polling deficit. I wouldn’t bet on it.

  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 18,684
    Sandpit said:

    Many people will not have thought to wear a jumper indoors

    Sorry, what?
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 2,644
    nova said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    WILL NO ONE THINK OF THE DINGHY ALBANIANS

    Even as we lucky Brits contemplate a winter of gnawing cold pigeon, served on a bed of toxic seaweed, there are hard-pressed wealthy Albanian drug dealers who are being basically FORCED by themselves to climb into air-conditioned Mercedes minibuses, in which they are basically TRAFFICKED by themselves through several agreeable European spa-towns, with scenic lunch-stops, until they reach the Channel where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they have no money, dropping their Rolexes at Deauville, so they can cross ten minutes of water where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they are asylum seekers, which we are happy to accept despite it being ludicrous, thus allowing them to live on our money as they then go out and deal lethal drugs to our kids. And maybe do a couple of violent burglaries

    Thank God THEY will be warm this winter. In a British home YOU pay for

    Leon, the only person thinking about these Albanians is you. In fact, they won't need any kind of accommodation or heating as they live in your head rent-free, warmed by the glowing embers of your perpetual outrage.
    Remember when you told me it was all Eritreans. I think that was about two days ago?


    "Official data released on Thursday has confirmed suspicions that Albanians are now a prominent national group among the asylum seekers travelling across the Channel."

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/25/rise-in-albanian-asylum-seekers-may-be-down-to-criminal-gangs

    "Speculation has fallen upon dominant organised criminal gangs known to have previously trafficked sex workers and gang members into the UK, and which now control large parts of the marijuana and cocaine markets.

    "Albanian gang activity is “rising up the security services’ list” of priorities because of the surge in arrivals from the Balkan state, it is understood.

    Evidence of a growing market offering Albanians a route across the Channel to the UK can be found on TikTok"


    Soft-headed liberal dullards like you are still weeping about Rwanda. Get a grip

    It's a recent surge, who knows if it will be sustained. Hopefully intelligence led law enforcement can deal with the issue. The Rwandan scheme won't deter any Albanians as they will simply elect to go back to Albania if they are caught. They are not seeking asylum in the UK and are unlikely to be granted it if they did, their goal is to enter undetected and enter the black economy.
    Historically about 90% of those arriving by boat come from a handful of wartorn countries and more than half are granted leave to stay as they are genuine refugees.
    I've said this before, try to be civil when you post on here.
    But you are a softheaded liberal dullard. As this exchange conclusively proves. You don't like difficult truths, you are Woke liberal, and you're not very bright.

    Admitting this fact is not incivility, that's statin' the bleedin' obvious

    And, by the way, Rwanda really WOULD deter Albanians from crossing. If these drug lords think there is a 5% chance they will be sent to Africa, not back to Albania, they would all stop coming tomorrow
    They wouldn't be prisoners in Rwanda, and free to go to Albania if they chose.

    Albanians are pretty certain to be rejected for an asylum claim. They should be be taken straight to one of our own immigration centres for deportation. Indeed I think all arrivals should go straight to camps so that they can get an express assessment of any asylum claim on site. It needs a bit of investment in camps and legal system, but is far more likely to work than the Rwandan scheme, which has been a total failure.

    But then they will just come back on the next chauffeured minibus from Tirana. This is already happening. We deport them, they come back a week later, on a dinghy

    Fuck this, why should we tolerate it? Life is getting harder, Brits could die of cold this winter, the UKG needs to toughen up on those who would prey on our generosity, and kill our kids with drugs

    Send these fuckers to Rwanda. They won't try again after THAT
    Hold on, first things first has anyone actually been deported to anywhere in the last few years ?
    I don’t think they were to Rwanda, but in the year to March 2022, there were 2761 enforced returns, 6747 voluntary returns and 18416 port returns (they’re not let in at a port and go straight back). Details at https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-statistics-year-ending-march-2022/how-many-people-are-detained-or-returned Numbers are well down on recent years, partially because of COVID, but there also seems to be a broader decline — presumably underfunding in the system?
    Indeed. That's why the Aussie system works: Go directly to Nauru/Rwanda, do not pass go, do not collect 200 lawyers.

    People choose voluntary returns instead. Or simply don't make the journey.
    Surely the fact that Australia is 1500 miles from any other country prevents the majority of journeys?
    Also, there’s still plenty of illegal immigration to Australia as most illegal immigrants overstay temporary visas, as is the case in the UK and US.
  • DynamoDynamo Posts: 651
    edited August 2022
    The PCP could remove Truss without a confidence vote, as they did with TMay and Johnson.

    Doesn't mean they're already plotting to, though. Pendulums swing, and leaders need respect. Truss will "establish" herself with éclat, within a week of appointment at most, possibly even on the first day. I wouldn't like to be a boat person in the Channel or a refugee in a detention camp right now. Or on welfare. Or an offender in the criminal justice system. There is probably going to be a "no messing about" message that will surpass the "hitting the ground running" orientation of any PM in living memory.

    Many internet types still going on about the "Red Wall" will be as surprised as anybody.

    That said, there's still a week and a bit to go, and a "Finland" play could be in the offing. Calendrical considerations seem appropriate :)
  • I am finding it very tough to believe that the Rwandan government will allow the UK to send Albanian gangsters to its country.

    Yeah. From memory, the mechanism is that the UK sends the Rwandans a list of people and the Rwandans decide who they will take.

    (Checks, yes, here we go:

    https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1515224870224896000)

    The Rwandan government may be many things, but they're not idiots.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 8,523

    Nigelb said:
    Idiotic.

    Macron is not a friend, he's the President of France but no friend. He's not a foe either.

    Why do muppets feel the need to pretend the President of France is our friend?
    Because we’re both western democracies in NATO and frankly the way things are going western democracies all need all the friends they can get.

  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,101

    Yeah. From memory, the mechanism is that the UK sends the Rwandans a list of people and the Rwandans decide who they will take.

    (Checks, yes, here we go:

    https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1515224870224896000)

    The Rwandan government may be many things, but they're not idiots.

    Which rather screws Sean's cunning plan...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 46,853

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    Dunno why, but I've really got a thing against old people now. I might start a political party (before I get too old) to attack them

    Definition of old will be kind of like the definition of rich, won't it:

    "Me plus "

    At sixty, you'll insist 70 is old. At seventy, it'll become clear that actually eighty is "old"
    As you approach eighty, you'll realise that advances in medical science mean that "old" really starts at ninety.
    And at 165, you will confidently declare *really* old people start at about 200.
    Who does @JackW regard as old?
    The Old English...
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,844
    edited August 2022

    Pulpstar said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    From all the comments here today, you’d think that the government hadn’t already announced a £37,000,000,000 package of support measures for this winter, and that the likely next PM has already committed to remove VAT and green levies from energy bills before the winter.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/energy-bills-support-scheme-explainer

    The Energy Bills Support Scheme will deliver a £400 non-repayable discount to eligible households to help with energy bills from October

    Households most in need will be eligible for further support in addition to the Energy Bills discount. This includes:
    1. a £650 one-off Cost of Living Payment for around 8 million households on means tested benefits
    2. a one-off £300 Pensioner Cost of Living Payment for over 8 million pensioner households to be paid alongside the Winter Fuel Payment
    3. a payment of £150 for around 6 million people across the UK who receive certain disability benefits
    4. a £500 million increase and extension of the Household Support Fund

    The point is, it's all been piecemeal and has had no effect on inflation. If you're going to spend £37bn why not use it to reduce the price cap, and inflation?

    People will say it's targeted but the poorest spend the highest proportion of their income on fuel, so freezing the cap would be helping them the most.

    I also question how much these piecemeal initiatives will cost in administration. Volunteering for Citizens Advice, we are getting a lot of queries from people who are confused or need help applying (e.g. for the HSF).
    Interesting. From looking at it, the scheme appears designed to minimise the administration costs. The £400 payment is being administered by the suppliers through bills, and the various top-ups are linked to other existing state benefits.

    Watching this from afar, there appears to be poor communication about what has already been announced by the government, and how the price cap actually works in practice. Not helped by scaremongering and government-bashing from certain sections of the media.

    There also needs to be a public information campaign in the autumn, reminding people of how best they can reduce their energy consumption. Many people will not have thought to wear a jumper indoors, replace old light bulbs with LEDs, and not boil a full kettle for one cup of tea.
    People are calculating the price of a shower per minute, how much energy different meals cost to cook, whether to use the oven or microwave. And this isn't just the poor but middle classes. I don't normally like the "ex-pat so must be out of touch" arguments often repeated on here, but on this you are out of touch.
    What do you disagree with, that I wrote? It’s good that people are thinking about how to reduce their energy consumption.

    Here in expat-land, we are in the middle of a the hot summer, and last month’s air conditioning bill was more than £200, for a two bed apartment. My wife and I, on middle incomes, have been making a conscious decision to reduce usage this month, by switching off a/c in unoccupied zones, ditching the duvet and sleeping in sheets, wearing t-shirt and shorts indoors, switching everything off when the apartment is unoccupied, etc.

    For a lot of people, energy bills were not anything that was consciously thought about before, but they will need to be this winter - as they have been for me this summer!
    "Many people will not have thought to wear a jumper indoors, replace old light bulbs with LEDs, and not boil a full kettle for one cup of tea."

    This is general chit chat in regular everyday conversation, in August with nice summer days, not something that requires a public information campaign over the winter. People are already worried and seriously planning ahead - everyone bar the rich enough regardless have thought of wearing an extra jumper or three.
    If a public information campaign can make a small difference, then it’s worth doing.

    There will be people who genuinely aren’t paying attention until the bill comes in, and many more who don’t realise just how much bills will rise. Maybe today’s announcement by OFGEM will help nudge people in the right direction. We all have anecdotes about people overheating their homes and wearing shorts, there will be people who won’t make the connection between the house temperature and the size of the bill, until it’s pointed out to them.
    And when a 6 grand cap comes in next April ?
    How does winter 2023 work in your plans ?
    We're all being charged at the rate of the most expensive joule of energy needed.

    The shape of the graph means that smallish reductions in consumption could bring the unit cost down a lot.

    (It's a 15% reduction in consumption that's needed, isn't it? The price mechanism will do that eventually, but in a brutal way that causes some energy producers to make out like bandits until things settle.)
    Well we need a furlough scheme for heavy industrial users, and punitive costs beyond a certain point for domestic. This is a tens of billions problem, employing a few engineers and mathematicians to devise such a scheme is surely rounding at the edges. Perhaps people are already working on it, but it's being kept quiet. It's a hope anyway.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 9,007
    edited August 2022
    Leon said:

    WILL NO ONE THINK OF THE DINGHY ALBANIANS

    Even as we lucky Brits contemplate a winter of gnawing cold pigeon, served on a bed of toxic seaweed, there are hard-pressed wealthy Albanian drug dealers who are being basically FORCED by themselves to climb into air-conditioned Mercedes minibuses, in which they are basically TRAFFICKED by themselves through several agreeable European spa-towns, with scenic lunch-stops, until they reach the Channel where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they have no money, dropping their Rolexes at Deauville, so they can cross ten minutes of water where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they are asylum seekers, which we are happy to accept despite it being ludicrous, thus allowing them to live on our money as they then go out and deal lethal drugs to our kids. And maybe do a couple of violent burglaries

    Thank God THEY will be warm this winter. In a British home YOU pay for

    As I was waving my skinny fist at Albanian criminals bused all from Albania to the channel and given a dinghy days before you, I do share your frustration, but you need to concede two things Leon

    Firstly this is not good news for genuine asylum seekers at all, amongst all this are genuine asylum seekers fleeing places where they were no longer safe to live and work. So we need to acknowledge a thought for them too.

    Secondly is it not obvious the root cause of the issue is how this Tory government takes an age to process anything? Passports, sewage, Ukrainian refugees and asylum seeker backlog that is up to what, 7 years? They would struggle to process a plant!

    So you and I Leon need to use some of our fist waving at the direction at the governments slow processing don’t we - for the sake of genuine asylum seekers in need as much as for the good of Britain?
  • nova said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    WILL NO ONE THINK OF THE DINGHY ALBANIANS

    Even as we lucky Brits contemplate a winter of gnawing cold pigeon, served on a bed of toxic seaweed, there are hard-pressed wealthy Albanian drug dealers who are being basically FORCED by themselves to climb into air-conditioned Mercedes minibuses, in which they are basically TRAFFICKED by themselves through several agreeable European spa-towns, with scenic lunch-stops, until they reach the Channel where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they have no money, dropping their Rolexes at Deauville, so they can cross ten minutes of water where they are FORCED by themselves to pretend they are asylum seekers, which we are happy to accept despite it being ludicrous, thus allowing them to live on our money as they then go out and deal lethal drugs to our kids. And maybe do a couple of violent burglaries

    Thank God THEY will be warm this winter. In a British home YOU pay for

    Leon, the only person thinking about these Albanians is you. In fact, they won't need any kind of accommodation or heating as they live in your head rent-free, warmed by the glowing embers of your perpetual outrage.
    Remember when you told me it was all Eritreans. I think that was about two days ago?


    "Official data released on Thursday has confirmed suspicions that Albanians are now a prominent national group among the asylum seekers travelling across the Channel."

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/25/rise-in-albanian-asylum-seekers-may-be-down-to-criminal-gangs

    "Speculation has fallen upon dominant organised criminal gangs known to have previously trafficked sex workers and gang members into the UK, and which now control large parts of the marijuana and cocaine markets.

    "Albanian gang activity is “rising up the security services’ list” of priorities because of the surge in arrivals from the Balkan state, it is understood.

    Evidence of a growing market offering Albanians a route across the Channel to the UK can be found on TikTok"


    Soft-headed liberal dullards like you are still weeping about Rwanda. Get a grip

    It's a recent surge, who knows if it will be sustained. Hopefully intelligence led law enforcement can deal with the issue. The Rwandan scheme won't deter any Albanians as they will simply elect to go back to Albania if they are caught. They are not seeking asylum in the UK and are unlikely to be granted it if they did, their goal is to enter undetected and enter the black economy.
    Historically about 90% of those arriving by boat come from a handful of wartorn countries and more than half are granted leave to stay as they are genuine refugees.
    I've said this before, try to be civil when you post on here.
    But you are a softheaded liberal dullard. As this exchange conclusively proves. You don't like difficult truths, you are Woke liberal, and you're not very bright.

    Admitting this fact is not incivility, that's statin' the bleedin' obvious

    And, by the way, Rwanda really WOULD deter Albanians from crossing. If these drug lords think there is a 5% chance they will be sent to Africa, not back to Albania, they would all stop coming tomorrow
    They wouldn't be prisoners in Rwanda, and free to go to Albania if they chose.

    Albanians are pretty certain to be rejected for an asylum claim. They should be be taken straight to one of our own immigration centres for deportation. Indeed I think all arrivals should go straight to camps so that they can get an express assessment of any asylum claim on site. It needs a bit of investment in camps and legal system, but is far more likely to work than the Rwandan scheme, which has been a total failure.

    But then they will just come back on the next chauffeured minibus from Tirana. This is already happening. We deport them, they come back a week later, on a dinghy

    Fuck this, why should we tolerate it? Life is getting harder, Brits could die of cold this winter, the UKG needs to toughen up on those who would prey on our generosity, and kill our kids with drugs

    Send these fuckers to Rwanda. They won't try again after THAT
    Hold on, first things first has anyone actually been deported to anywhere in the last few years ?
    I don’t think they were to Rwanda, but in the year to March 2022, there were 2761 enforced returns, 6747 voluntary returns and 18416 port returns (they’re not let in at a port and go straight back). Details at https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-statistics-year-ending-march-2022/how-many-people-are-detained-or-returned Numbers are well down on recent years, partially because of COVID, but there also seems to be a broader decline — presumably underfunding in the system?
    Indeed. That's why the Aussie system works: Go directly to Nauru/Rwanda, do not pass go, do not collect 200 lawyers.

    People choose voluntary returns instead. Or simply don't make the journey.
    Surely the fact that Australia is 1500 miles from any other country prevents the majority of journeys?
    QTWAIN.

    Look at the number of journeys in 2012 (pre-Nauru) and 2014 onwards (post).
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 2,644
    To understand the context of why people might want to leave Albania, I recommend Lea Ypi’s memoir “Free” about the end of communism in the country. It is a wonderfully written book, as well as providing insight into what life was like under the communist regime and what happened next.
This discussion has been closed.