Howdy, Stranger!

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

Given Hancock’s likely election fate who can blame him? – politicalbetting.com

245

Comments

  • malcolmg said:

    Sixth, like Anas Sarwar in the Next First Minister betting.

    What bookie was daft enough to make him that close.
    Hills have him at the ridiculously short 12/1.
    Ladbrokes best at 16/1.
    I’m sure I saw him at 18/1, but cannot remember where.

    The key problem with this market is not the pricing nor the presumably low liquidity, but when the market might be settled. PB is notoriously suspicious about tying capital up.
  • I fear Matt Hancock may be suffering from Greg Wallace syndrome: a well-known person’s belief that they are held in far greater esteem and affection by the public than they actually are.

    Hancock may well be cured of this affluction over the next few weeks.
  • Contrary to pretty much every opinion poll, the left wins the Danish general election by the slimmest possible margin. A genuine surprise.

    Hadn’t been following. What were the polls saying?

  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,719

    Contrary to pretty much every opinion poll, the left wins the Danish general election by the slimmest possible margin. A genuine surprise.

    Hadn’t been following. What were the polls saying?

    They were saying that the left wasn't going to win the Danish general election by the slimmest possible margin.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,709
    edited November 2022

    I fear Matt Hancock may be suffering from Greg Wallace syndrome: a well-known person’s belief that they are held in far greater esteem and affection by the public than they actually are.

    Hancock may well be cured of this affluction over the next few weeks.

    The main worry for the Conservative Party is what he might say on-screen. An awful lot of the viewers who watch these things don’t follow politics at all. The risk is high that:

    - he makes a total arsehole of himself (numerous examples, but George Galloway sticks in the mind)

    - he says something really damaging about Covid, his party or named politicians
  • felix said:

    felix said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/02/rishi-sunak-suella-braverman-british-politics-austerity-hostile-environment

    "Austerity in the Treasury; a hostile environment at the Home Office. After 12 years and four prime ministers, British politics has cycled back to where it started, but that much meaner and poorer. All for what? Where did the journey take us? To Brexit, to rage, to division and economic downgrade. A dozen years wasted. A crusade whipped up by nationalist zealots to a holy land that doesn’t exist to fight an enemy that was actually our friend, defeating no one but ourselves."

    Hmm. Becajuse there is no inflation or energy crisis in the EU. There are no EU countries with immigration policies like the UK. The EU central bank is not raising interest rates. There are no riots in France, or protests in Spain......No EU country has far right parties snapping at the heels of power.....
    First class whataboutery.
    Try reading the article. The point it is making isn't that the EU is better than us. It is that leaving the EU hasn't helped the UK in any way, while stoking division and distracting policymakers from our real problems - a point that voters seem to agree with.
    Brexit happened. You need to move on. As does the Guardian.
    Wait what, Brexit happened? Why did nobody tell me?
  • TimSTimS Posts: 3,625

    I fear Matt Hancock may be suffering from Greg Wallace syndrome: a well-known person’s belief that they are held in far greater esteem and affection by the public than they actually are.

    Hancock may well be cured of this affluction over the next few weeks.

    I think people may be surprised at the public response. Hancock may invite ridicule but I don’t see him as a particularly hated figure. In 1990s terms more of a David Mellor than a John Redwood.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 17,624

    I fear Matt Hancock may be suffering from Greg Wallace syndrome: a well-known person’s belief that they are held in far greater esteem and affection by the public than they actually are.

    Hancock may well be cured of this affluction over the next few weeks.

    Like sharing a space with a load of cockroaches?

    I think he's used t that one
  • Endillion said:

    Contrary to pretty much every opinion poll, the left wins the Danish general election by the slimmest possible margin. A genuine surprise.

    Hadn’t been following. What were the polls saying?

    They were saying that the left wasn't going to win the Danish general election by the slimmest possible margin.
    Ha! I did ask!! Were they predicting a bigger majority or defeat or a mess?

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 37,052
    edited November 2022

    Interesting thread:

    We’ve had numerous requests for data about Albanian asylum seekers following reports of an increase in the number of Albanian citizens crossing the English Channel over the summer.

    Here’s a thread with some data about what we do and don’t know.


    https://twitter.com/MigObs/status/1587551632530849827

    Great thread. Very interesting.

    Won't stop PB wetting its knickers about the Albanian menace ofc.

    Doesn't say anything about accompanying children because we still need to explain away @Leon's hordes of Albanian infants nicking kitkats from his local co op.
  • This intervention reads like special pleading from professionals who haven’t yet grappled with their role in failing children with gender dysphoria because they haven’t engaged with evidence.

    We have the independent Cass Review to adjudicate now.


    https://twitter.com/soniasodha/status/1587716909960667138
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,744
    Roger said:

    I fear Matt Hancock may be suffering from Greg Wallace syndrome: a well-known person’s belief that they are held in far greater esteem and affection by the public than they actually are.

    Hancock may well be cured of this affluction over the next few weeks.

    Like sharing a space with a load of cockroaches?

    I think he's used t that one
    I cannot stand "I am a Celebrity". I don't particularly mind the humiliation of the Z listers, but the routine animal cruelty is quite unnecessary.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,744
    TOPPING said:

    Interesting thread:

    We’ve had numerous requests for data about Albanian asylum seekers following reports of an increase in the number of Albanian citizens crossing the English Channel over the summer.

    Here’s a thread with some data about what we do and don’t know.


    https://twitter.com/MigObs/status/1587551632530849827

    Great thread. Very interesting.

    Won't stop PB wetting its knickers about the Albanian menace ofc.

    Doesn't say anything about accompanying children because we still need to explain away @Leon's hordes of Albanian infants nicking kitkats from his local co op.
    It might be because he doesn't tip his Albanian taxi drivers, so no pocket money for the nippers.
  • One thing I don't get with the Albanians claiming asylum line is why would they claim asylum if they are coming to commit crimes? Wouldn't they just melt into the black economy and get on with it, rather than give themselves up and start living under close supervision?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,605

    I fear Matt Hancock may be suffering from Greg Wallace syndrome: a well-known person’s belief that they are held in far greater esteem and affection by the public than they actually are.

    Hancock may well be cured of this affluction over the next few weeks.

    Of course, we don't know what his financial situation is right now. The former Mrs Hancock is presumably not in the mood to be generous in terms of divorce settlements and child support, and he is currently rather tainted in terms of public esteem so the directorships alluded to upthread may simply not be there. He must have upset quite a lot of people with his bungling of Covid contracts, for example.

    As an economist (not by all accounts a particularly notable one) his skills are lucrative but possibly not in high demand given, again, whom he's associated with.

    So he may simply be desperate for money.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,605
    Foxy said:

    Roger said:

    I fear Matt Hancock may be suffering from Greg Wallace syndrome: a well-known person’s belief that they are held in far greater esteem and affection by the public than they actually are.

    Hancock may well be cured of this affluction over the next few weeks.

    Like sharing a space with a load of cockroaches?

    I think he's used t that one
    I cannot stand "I am a Celebrity". I don't particularly mind the humiliation of the Z listers, but the routine animal cruelty is quite unnecessary.
    Does it bug you?
  • TimSTimS Posts: 3,625
    TOPPING said:

    Interesting thread:

    We’ve had numerous requests for data about Albanian asylum seekers following reports of an increase in the number of Albanian citizens crossing the English Channel over the summer.

    Here’s a thread with some data about what we do and don’t know.


    https://twitter.com/MigObs/status/1587551632530849827

    Great thread. Very interesting.

    Won't stop PB wetting its knickers about the Albanian menace ofc.

    Doesn't say anything about accompanying children because we still need to explain away @Leon's hordes of Albanian infants nicking kitkats from his local co op.
    Every time the asylum system gets into the headlines the actual issue seems the same: basic lack of resources. The home office trying to do border control, refugee policy and resettlement on the cheap.

    It doesn’t work for education, or healthcare, it doesn’t work for policing and it certainly doesn’t work here.

    The Tory (British? I see it in business all the time) belief that you can just sweat assets and starve the P&L so long as you talk a good game is a handicap for this country.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,605

    One thing I don't get with the Albanians claiming asylum line is why would they claim asylum if they are coming to commit crimes? Wouldn't they just melt into the black economy and get on with it, rather than give themselves up and start living under close supervision?

    Is it every Albanian who claims asylum, or just those who get caught?

    Further question - what if they are seeking asylum from the criminal gangs?
  • TOPPING said:

    Interesting thread:

    We’ve had numerous requests for data about Albanian asylum seekers following reports of an increase in the number of Albanian citizens crossing the English Channel over the summer.

    Here’s a thread with some data about what we do and don’t know.


    https://twitter.com/MigObs/status/1587551632530849827

    Great thread. Very interesting.

    Won't stop PB wetting its knickers about the Albanian menace ofc.

    Doesn't say anything about accompanying children because we still need to explain away @Leon's hordes of Albanian infants nicking kitkats from his local co op.
    Daaaarling Leon lives in Camden. Nothing as tatty as a Co-op owned by proles! He mentioned that the shop was Longdan, so they were probably nicking a nice pack of Matcha "Green Tea Cream Covered Biscuit Sticks"
  • One thing I don't get with the Albanians claiming asylum line is why would they claim asylum if they are coming to commit crimes? Wouldn't they just melt into the black economy and get on with it, rather than give themselves up and start living under close supervision?

    Don't ask stupid questions. They are here to steal all the jobs and claim all the benefits and get a free house. Won't you think about our poor hungry veterans for a minute? That they are poor and hungry and need is definitely the fault of Albanians and not an uncaring government.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,744
    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Roger said:

    I fear Matt Hancock may be suffering from Greg Wallace syndrome: a well-known person’s belief that they are held in far greater esteem and affection by the public than they actually are.

    Hancock may well be cured of this affluction over the next few weeks.

    Like sharing a space with a load of cockroaches?

    I think he's used t that one
    I cannot stand "I am a Celebrity". I don't particularly mind the humiliation of the Z listers, but the routine animal cruelty is quite unnecessary.
    Does it bug you?
    Yes, this worm has turned.
  • TimS said:

    TOPPING said:

    Interesting thread:

    We’ve had numerous requests for data about Albanian asylum seekers following reports of an increase in the number of Albanian citizens crossing the English Channel over the summer.

    Here’s a thread with some data about what we do and don’t know.


    https://twitter.com/MigObs/status/1587551632530849827

    Great thread. Very interesting.

    Won't stop PB wetting its knickers about the Albanian menace ofc.

    Doesn't say anything about accompanying children because we still need to explain away @Leon's hordes of Albanian infants nicking kitkats from his local co op.
    Every time the asylum system gets into the headlines the actual issue seems the same: basic lack of resources. The home office trying to do border control, refugee policy and resettlement on the cheap.

    It doesn’t work for education, or healthcare, it doesn’t work for policing and it certainly doesn’t work here.

    The Tory (British? I see it in business all the time) belief that you can just sweat assets and starve the P&L so long as you talk a good game is a handicap for this country.
    On the cheap - and for Daily Mail headlines. The only real investment this government has made is in the Rwanda deportation scheme, which has currently enjoyed zero success but created some potentially useful electoral dividing lines.

  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 24,621

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Provision for recall should be extended to include extended absence when parliament is sitting if the sitting MP's party deems the absence worthy of withdrawing the whip.

    What happens if someone is elected as an independent and doesn’t have a whip?

    I'd thought of that constructing my reply - a feature of extra protection for independent elected MPs, all too rare these days.
    I don’t see why independent MPs should be immune to a rule affecting other MPs.

    And if you are concerned about MPs being too partisan, making them even more beholden to the party whips doesn’t seem like a good idea.
    Speaker's disgression perhaps then.
    The point is there should be sanction for this behaviour. Hancock's constituents deserve better.
    Unusually, I disagree with you. I don't think he's doing anything worse than many MPs do. They are not employees, they are elected representatives. The people get to give their verdict every five years.
    Yes, quite a lot of MPs skive off. Being a backbencher is largely pointless with a government that has an eighty seet majority that flips policies regularly by means of fickle executive decisions.

    Once you have no prospects of joining the ministerial gravy train, and handed in your letter to the 1922, it becomes pretty pointless. The problem isn't skiving MPs so much as a system that elects a parliamentary executive with little restraint on their actions, making most legislators pointless apart from anointing a new leader occasionally.

    My view is, while MPs are encouraged to do second jobs working for the Government as ministers (or third jobs, Rishi is leader of the Conservative Party as well as PM and an MP) it would be rank hypocrisy to prevent them doing second jobs of other types.
    Those are not second jobs though, they are additional responsibilities connected with their role as MPs. Similarly HoC committee membership. Sure, ministers need, and no doubt get, additional help to service their constituencies but they are not taking employment outside parliament.

    Swanning off to I'm a Celeb, or running a lucrative legal practice from the Caribbean, is completely different. And should be banned.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,605
    Bad news for Bangladesh. They've got Rohit. Even though they tried their best to keep him in, he was playing so badly he eventually found a way to get out.
  • ydoethur said:

    One thing I don't get with the Albanians claiming asylum line is why would they claim asylum if they are coming to commit crimes? Wouldn't they just melt into the black economy and get on with it, rather than give themselves up and start living under close supervision?

    Is it every Albanian who claims asylum, or just those who get caught?

    Further question - what if they are seeking asylum from the criminal gangs?
    Don’t you have to claim asylum as soon as you enter the country? In aby case, as soon as you do it, you are making yourself known to the authorities and subject to close supervision. I don’t get why someone intent on criminal behaviour would do that. I’d have thought they’d want to sneak in under the radar.

  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 24,000

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Provision for recall should be extended to include extended absence when parliament is sitting if the sitting MP's party deems the absence worthy of withdrawing the whip.

    What happens if someone is elected as an independent and doesn’t have a whip?

    I'd thought of that constructing my reply - a feature of extra protection for independent elected MPs, all too rare these days.
    I don’t see why independent MPs should be immune to a rule affecting other MPs.

    And if you are concerned about MPs being too partisan, making them even more beholden to the party whips doesn’t seem like a good idea.
    Speaker's disgression perhaps then.
    The point is there should be sanction for this behaviour. Hancock's constituents deserve better.
    Unusually, I disagree with you. I don't think he's doing anything worse than many MPs do. They are not employees, they are elected representatives. The people get to give their verdict every five years.
    Yes, quite a lot of MPs skive off. Being a backbencher is largely pointless with a government that has an eighty seet majority that flips policies regularly by means of fickle executive decisions.

    Once you have no prospects of joining the ministerial gravy train, and handed in your letter to the 1922, it becomes pretty pointless. The problem isn't skiving MPs so much as a system that elects a parliamentary executive with little restraint on their actions, making most legislators pointless apart from anointing a new leader occasionally.

    My view is, while MPs are encouraged to do second jobs working for the Government as ministers (or third jobs, Rishi is leader of the Conservative Party as well as PM and an MP) it would be rank hypocrisy to prevent them doing second jobs of other types.
    Those are not second jobs though, they are additional responsibilities connected with their role as MPs. Similarly HoC committee membership. Sure, ministers need, and no doubt get, additional help to service their constituencies but they are not taking employment outside parliament.

    Swanning off to I'm a Celeb, or running a lucrative legal practice from the Caribbean, is completely different. And should be banned.
    Sigh. We seem to go through this every six months or so. Where do you draw the line? Starmer has done plenty of legal work since being an MP. But I'm guessing you think that's alright.
  • Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Provision for recall should be extended to include extended absence when parliament is sitting if the sitting MP's party deems the absence worthy of withdrawing the whip.

    What happens if someone is elected as an independent and doesn’t have a whip?

    I'd thought of that constructing my reply - a feature of extra protection for independent elected MPs, all too rare these days.
    I don’t see why independent MPs should be immune to a rule affecting other MPs.

    And if you are concerned about MPs being too partisan, making them even more beholden to the party whips doesn’t seem like a good idea.
    Speaker's disgression perhaps then.
    The point is there should be sanction for this behaviour. Hancock's constituents deserve better.
    Unusually, I disagree with you. I don't think he's doing anything worse than many MPs do. They are not employees, they are elected representatives. The people get to give their verdict every five years.
    Yes, quite a lot of MPs skive off. Being a backbencher is largely pointless with a government that has an eighty seet majority that flips policies regularly by means of fickle executive decisions.

    Once you have no prospects of joining the ministerial gravy train, and handed in your letter to the 1922, it becomes pretty pointless. The problem isn't skiving MPs so much as a system that elects a parliamentary executive with little restraint on their actions, making most legislators pointless apart from anointing a new leader occasionally.

    There are MPs who decide to become good constituency MPs. Tim Farron or Julian Smith, for instance. A pretty good and worthwhile option, I'd have thought.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,605

    ydoethur said:

    One thing I don't get with the Albanians claiming asylum line is why would they claim asylum if they are coming to commit crimes? Wouldn't they just melt into the black economy and get on with it, rather than give themselves up and start living under close supervision?

    Is it every Albanian who claims asylum, or just those who get caught?

    Further question - what if they are seeking asylum from the criminal gangs?
    Don’t you have to claim asylum as soon as you enter the country? In aby case, as soon as you do it, you are making yourself known to the authorities and subject to close supervision. I don’t get why someone intent on criminal behaviour would do that. I’d have thought they’d want to sneak in under the radar.

    Yes, but, how can I put this? That only applies if they get caught entering. If they are not, by definition, they are not known to be in the country and don't have to claim it.

    I'm not saying that is the case, just that it's one possible explanation.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,110
    tlg86 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Provision for recall should be extended to include extended absence when parliament is sitting if the sitting MP's party deems the absence worthy of withdrawing the whip.

    What happens if someone is elected as an independent and doesn’t have a whip?

    I'd thought of that constructing my reply - a feature of extra protection for independent elected MPs, all too rare these days.
    I don’t see why independent MPs should be immune to a rule affecting other MPs.

    And if you are concerned about MPs being too partisan, making them even more beholden to the party whips doesn’t seem like a good idea.
    Speaker's disgression perhaps then.
    The point is there should be sanction for this behaviour. Hancock's constituents deserve better.
    Unusually, I disagree with you. I don't think he's doing anything worse than many MPs do. They are not employees, they are elected representatives. The people get to give their verdict every five years.
    Yes, it's not for the Speaker to act, as they would give them powers which could be abused.
    But Hancock should resign if he won't do the job. And deserves every bit of opprobrium coming his way.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 24,000
    ydoethur said:

    One thing I don't get with the Albanians claiming asylum line is why would they claim asylum if they are coming to commit crimes? Wouldn't they just melt into the black economy and get on with it, rather than give themselves up and start living under close supervision?

    Is it every Albanian who claims asylum, or just those who get caught?

    Further question - what if they are seeking asylum from the criminal gangs?
    Reading that thread that Carlotta posted, it does sound a bit like female Albanians are getting asylum by definition of being here (i.e. the assumption being that they have been trafficked).
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,510
    TOPPING said:

    Interesting thread:

    We’ve had numerous requests for data about Albanian asylum seekers following reports of an increase in the number of Albanian citizens crossing the English Channel over the summer.

    Here’s a thread with some data about what we do and don’t know.


    https://twitter.com/MigObs/status/1587551632530849827

    Great thread. Very interesting.

    Won't stop PB wetting its knickers about the Albanian menace ofc.

    Doesn't say anything about accompanying children because we still need to explain away @Leon's hordes of Albanian infants nicking kitkats from his local co op.
    Yes, it’s all a delusion


    @‘Our town is emptying,’ he says. ‘We are losing our children, our lifeblood, as they go away.

    ‘This summer, boys of 15 or even younger, have disappeared because the boat crossings are cheap now.

    'The parents let them go. They think it will be a better life in your country for their child. It is an economic decision.’

    The exodus of Albania’s youth is under the spotlight because a military file leaked to The Mail on Sunday last weekend showed that nearly four in every ten migrants on traffickers’ boats from France to England over a recent period of six weeks hailed from this tiny Balkan country.

    On Thursday it emerged that they are determined to stay.

    More Albanians claim to have been trafficked or to have become victims of modern slavery once in the UK than any other nationality.

    Immigration officials suspect many make up the claims as a ruse to boost their asylum chances and avoid deportation back to Albania, which is deemed a safe country.

    None of this is stopping the exodus from Has. The mayor, a former schoolteacher, has four brothers who live in Leicester, but prays that his own three children, two girls and a boy aged between ten and 20, will not leave Has too.”

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11107271/Has-town-Albania-losing-hundreds-illegal-boat-migrants-UK.html
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 24,000
    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Provision for recall should be extended to include extended absence when parliament is sitting if the sitting MP's party deems the absence worthy of withdrawing the whip.

    What happens if someone is elected as an independent and doesn’t have a whip?

    I'd thought of that constructing my reply - a feature of extra protection for independent elected MPs, all too rare these days.
    I don’t see why independent MPs should be immune to a rule affecting other MPs.

    And if you are concerned about MPs being too partisan, making them even more beholden to the party whips doesn’t seem like a good idea.
    Speaker's disgression perhaps then.
    The point is there should be sanction for this behaviour. Hancock's constituents deserve better.
    Unusually, I disagree with you. I don't think he's doing anything worse than many MPs do. They are not employees, they are elected representatives. The people get to give their verdict every five years.
    Yes, it's not for the Speaker to act, as they would give them powers which could be abused.
    But Hancock should resign if he won't do the job. And deserves every bit of opprobrium coming his way.
    Out of curiosity, did you feel the same way about Mordaunt doing belly flops?
  • Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Provision for recall should be extended to include extended absence when parliament is sitting if the sitting MP's party deems the absence worthy of withdrawing the whip.

    What happens if someone is elected as an independent and doesn’t have a whip?

    I'd thought of that constructing my reply - a feature of extra protection for independent elected MPs, all too rare these days.
    I don’t see why independent MPs should be immune to a rule affecting other MPs.

    And if you are concerned about MPs being too partisan, making them even more beholden to the party whips doesn’t seem like a good idea.
    Speaker's disgression perhaps then.
    The point is there should be sanction for this behaviour. Hancock's constituents deserve better.
    Unusually, I disagree with you. I don't think he's doing anything worse than many MPs do. They are not employees, they are elected representatives. The people get to give their verdict every five years.
    Yes, quite a lot of MPs skive off. Being a backbencher is largely pointless with a government that has an eighty seet majority that flips policies regularly by means of fickle executive decisions.

    Once you have no prospects of joining the ministerial gravy train, and handed in your letter to the 1922, it becomes pretty pointless. The problem isn't skiving MPs so much as a system that elects a parliamentary executive with little restraint on their actions, making most legislators pointless apart from anointing a new leader occasionally.

    My view is, while MPs are encouraged to do second jobs working for the Government as ministers (or third jobs, Rishi is leader of the Conservative Party as well as PM and an MP) it would be rank hypocrisy to prevent them doing second jobs of other types.
    Those are not second jobs though, they are additional responsibilities connected with their role as MPs. Similarly HoC committee membership. Sure, ministers need, and no doubt get, additional help to service their constituencies but they are not taking employment outside parliament.

    Swanning off to I'm a Celeb, or running a lucrative legal practice from the Caribbean, is completely different. And should be banned.
    Tax second jobs for MPs at 80%. Might need an eight line whip to get that rule through parliament though.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,510
    Jonathan said:

    Hancocks bad press confuses me. There are far nastier, more corrupt and more useless Tories that escape this level of abuse. His biggest mistake was to appear human. Unforgivable.

    For a lot of people he is responsible for 200,000 deaths. Now that is utter nonsense of course - covid has killed throughout the world, and in the long run death stats in Western European countries are broadly similar, but logic and reason don't matter when your dad is dead and you think Hancock is to blame for not locking down sooner and forever.

    His appearing human - if you refer to the affair - an awful lot of people despise those who cheat on the their spouses. My old lift share could never vote for a known adulterer as if they are prepared to lie about that, what else will they lie about? He had a point.

    And now - as an MP I don't think you should be so obviously not doing your job when the house is sitting. Tough - the job is paid enough and there are enough breaks to fit in a holiday, especially as a back bencher.
  • Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Provision for recall should be extended to include extended absence when parliament is sitting if the sitting MP's party deems the absence worthy of withdrawing the whip.

    What happens if someone is elected as an independent and doesn’t have a whip?

    I'd thought of that constructing my reply - a feature of extra protection for independent elected MPs, all too rare these days.
    I don’t see why independent MPs should be immune to a rule affecting other MPs.

    And if you are concerned about MPs being too partisan, making them even more beholden to the party whips doesn’t seem like a good idea.
    Speaker's disgression perhaps then.
    The point is there should be sanction for this behaviour. Hancock's constituents deserve better.
    Unusually, I disagree with you. I don't think he's doing anything worse than many MPs do. They are not employees, they are elected representatives. The people get to give their verdict every five years.
    Yes, it's not for the Speaker to act, as they would give them powers which could be abused.
    But Hancock should resign if he won't do the job. And deserves every bit of opprobrium coming his way.
    This isn't an issue for the Speaker. It is an issue for the whip:
    Johnson: sods off to sunny climates for a holiday and to earn £££ doing a speech
    Hancock: sods off to sunnier climates for telly embarrassment to earn £

    Hancock loses the whip for absconding. Johnson does not lose the whip for absconding. In punishing only Mancock they make themselves look complicit.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,605
    tlg86 said:

    ydoethur said:

    One thing I don't get with the Albanians claiming asylum line is why would they claim asylum if they are coming to commit crimes? Wouldn't they just melt into the black economy and get on with it, rather than give themselves up and start living under close supervision?

    Is it every Albanian who claims asylum, or just those who get caught?

    Further question - what if they are seeking asylum from the criminal gangs?
    Reading that thread that Carlotta posted, it does sound a bit like female Albanians are getting asylum by definition of being here (i.e. the assumption being that they have been trafficked).
    Right, I didn't realise it was a reference to that thread.

    I suppose the logic there is if they have been trafficked, they had no opportunity to claim asylum before being rescued, but if returned to Albania their lives would be in danger from the gangmasters.

    Which would I think be fair enough logic.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,110
    felix said:

    felix said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/02/rishi-sunak-suella-braverman-british-politics-austerity-hostile-environment

    "Austerity in the Treasury; a hostile environment at the Home Office. After 12 years and four prime ministers, British politics has cycled back to where it started, but that much meaner and poorer. All for what? Where did the journey take us? To Brexit, to rage, to division and economic downgrade. A dozen years wasted. A crusade whipped up by nationalist zealots to a holy land that doesn’t exist to fight an enemy that was actually our friend, defeating no one but ourselves."

    Hmm. Becajuse there is no inflation or energy crisis in the EU. There are no EU countries with immigration policies like the UK. The EU central bank is not raising interest rates. There are no riots in France, or protests in Spain......No EU country has far right parties snapping at the heels of power.....
    First class whataboutery.
    Try reading the article. The point it is making isn't that the EU is better than us. It is that leaving the EU hasn't helped the UK in any way, while stoking division and distracting policymakers from our real problems - a point that voters seem to agree with.
    Brexit happened. You need to move on. As does the Guardian.
    We have.
    We've accepted it, and are reminding the folks who voted for it of the consequences.
    You need to move on with your counter arguments.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 11,194

    🧵 Sky News has an interview with Boris Johnson on Ukraine out today. It's a very interesting discussion. Despite being asked repeatedly, he keeps a laser-like focus on Ukraine rather than his own political implosion & ambitions. A few highlights from the interview below:

    https://twitter.com/shashj/status/1587542520086642691

    That's Interesting. Contrary to the caricature of him being entirely self-obsessed.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    TOPPING said:

    Interesting thread:

    We’ve had numerous requests for data about Albanian asylum seekers following reports of an increase in the number of Albanian citizens crossing the English Channel over the summer.

    Here’s a thread with some data about what we do and don’t know.


    https://twitter.com/MigObs/status/1587551632530849827

    Great thread. Very interesting.

    Won't stop PB wetting its knickers about the Albanian menace ofc.

    Doesn't say anything about accompanying children because we still need to explain away @Leon's hordes of Albanian infants nicking kitkats from his local co op.
    What in that lot makes you think we should be reassured by it? Why, you have to ask, is Albania full of trafficked women? Seems most likely to me that their escape to the welcoming arms of the UK is as @Anabobazina would put it, a feature not a bug of the traffickers' masterplan. Get them in here, put them to work.

    A country should have control of its borders. This antiracism by numbers stuff is just irrelevant, it's like sitting there in 1809 saying ooh look at you with your stereotyped memes about French garlic munching surrender monkeys.
  • tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Provision for recall should be extended to include extended absence when parliament is sitting if the sitting MP's party deems the absence worthy of withdrawing the whip.

    What happens if someone is elected as an independent and doesn’t have a whip?

    I'd thought of that constructing my reply - a feature of extra protection for independent elected MPs, all too rare these days.
    I don’t see why independent MPs should be immune to a rule affecting other MPs.

    And if you are concerned about MPs being too partisan, making them even more beholden to the party whips doesn’t seem like a good idea.
    Speaker's disgression perhaps then.
    The point is there should be sanction for this behaviour. Hancock's constituents deserve better.
    Unusually, I disagree with you. I don't think he's doing anything worse than many MPs do. They are not employees, they are elected representatives. The people get to give their verdict every five years.
    Yes, quite a lot of MPs skive off. Being a backbencher is largely pointless with a government that has an eighty seet majority that flips policies regularly by means of fickle executive decisions.

    Once you have no prospects of joining the ministerial gravy train, and handed in your letter to the 1922, it becomes pretty pointless. The problem isn't skiving MPs so much as a system that elects a parliamentary executive with little restraint on their actions, making most legislators pointless apart from anointing a new leader occasionally.

    My view is, while MPs are encouraged to do second jobs working for the Government as ministers (or third jobs, Rishi is leader of the Conservative Party as well as PM and an MP) it would be rank hypocrisy to prevent them doing second jobs of other types.
    Those are not second jobs though, they are additional responsibilities connected with their role as MPs. Similarly HoC committee membership. Sure, ministers need, and no doubt get, additional help to service their constituencies but they are not taking employment outside parliament.

    Swanning off to I'm a Celeb, or running a lucrative legal practice from the Caribbean, is completely different. And should be banned.
    Sigh. We seem to go through this every six months or so. Where do you draw the line? Starmer has done plenty of legal work since being an MP. But I'm guessing you think that's alright.
    The line is "Don't take the piss." Swanning off on holiday or doing a TV show crosses it, especially as MPs have plenty of time off when they can do such things.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 43,622
    TimS said:

    I fear Matt Hancock may be suffering from Greg Wallace syndrome: a well-known person’s belief that they are held in far greater esteem and affection by the public than they actually are.

    Hancock may well be cured of this affluction over the next few weeks.

    I think people may be surprised at the public response. Hancock may invite ridicule but I don’t see him as a particularly hated figure. In 1990s terms more of a David Mellor than a John Redwood.
    Yes, despised or pitied is probably closer than hated
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,510
    felix said:

    Scott_xP said:

    felix said:

    After all when will they have a woman/ethnic minority PM?

    Truss did them a HUGE favour there...
    Hardly. Her problem had sfa to do with her sex.
    It does prove however that just having a woman doesn't mean they won't be utterly shit.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,510

    ydoethur said:

    One thing I don't get with the Albanians claiming asylum line is why would they claim asylum if they are coming to commit crimes? Wouldn't they just melt into the black economy and get on with it, rather than give themselves up and start living under close supervision?

    Is it every Albanian who claims asylum, or just those who get caught?

    Further question - what if they are seeking asylum from the criminal gangs?
    Don’t you have to claim asylum as soon as you enter the country? In aby case, as soon as you do it, you are making yourself known to the authorities and subject to close supervision. I don’t get why someone intent on criminal behaviour would do that. I’d have thought they’d want to sneak in under the radar.

    They are not “subject to close supervision”


    “Albanian migrants working on cannabis farms just days after arriving in the UK
    Young men describe being released from detention into hotels where they are recruited by gangs to cultivate cannabis in makeshift farms”

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/10/16/albanian-migrants-working-cannabis-farms-just-days-arriving/

    I sometimes get the feeling PB-ers don’t read anything but PB and their own Facebook feeds
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,510

    Question: Tories withdraw the whip from an MP swanning off to sunnier parts to earn a load of cash on the side. So why did they not do the same to Boris Johnson?

    New PM.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,605
    Ishmael_Z said:

    TOPPING said:

    Interesting thread:

    We’ve had numerous requests for data about Albanian asylum seekers following reports of an increase in the number of Albanian citizens crossing the English Channel over the summer.

    Here’s a thread with some data about what we do and don’t know.


    https://twitter.com/MigObs/status/1587551632530849827

    Great thread. Very interesting.

    Won't stop PB wetting its knickers about the Albanian menace ofc.

    Doesn't say anything about accompanying children because we still need to explain away @Leon's hordes of Albanian infants nicking kitkats from his local co op.
    What in that lot makes you think we should be reassured by it? Why, you have to ask, is Albania full of trafficked women? Seems most likely to me that their escape to the welcoming arms of the UK is as @Anabobazina would put it, a feature not a bug of the traffickers' masterplan. Get them in here, put them to work.

    A country should have control of its borders. This antiracism by numbers stuff is just irrelevant, it's like sitting there in 1809 saying ooh look at you with your stereotyped memes about French garlic munching surrender monkeys.
    Don't be silly.

    Everyone knows the French are snail eating surrender monkeys.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    ydoethur said:

    tlg86 said:

    ydoethur said:

    One thing I don't get with the Albanians claiming asylum line is why would they claim asylum if they are coming to commit crimes? Wouldn't they just melt into the black economy and get on with it, rather than give themselves up and start living under close supervision?

    Is it every Albanian who claims asylum, or just those who get caught?

    Further question - what if they are seeking asylum from the criminal gangs?
    Reading that thread that Carlotta posted, it does sound a bit like female Albanians are getting asylum by definition of being here (i.e. the assumption being that they have been trafficked).
    Right, I didn't realise it was a reference to that thread.

    I suppose the logic there is if they have been trafficked, they had no opportunity to claim asylum before being rescued, but if returned to Albania their lives would be in danger from the gangmasters.

    Which would I think be fair enough logic.
    So, where were they being trafficked from and to?
  • ydoethur said:

    I fear Matt Hancock may be suffering from Greg Wallace syndrome: a well-known person’s belief that they are held in far greater esteem and affection by the public than they actually are.

    Hancock may well be cured of this affluction over the next few weeks.

    Of course, we don't know what his financial situation is right now. The former Mrs Hancock is presumably not in the mood to be generous in terms of divorce settlements and child support, and he is currently rather tainted in terms of public esteem so the directorships alluded to upthread may simply not be there. He must have upset quite a lot of people with his bungling of Covid contracts, for example.

    As an economist (not by all accounts a particularly notable one) his skills are lucrative but possibly not in high demand given, again, whom he's associated with.

    So he may simply be desperate for money.
    Not just money but time is no longer on Matt Hancock's side. Politics has moved past the 2010 generation of Hancock and LizT. Both Keir Starmer and Rishi Sunak entered Parliament in 2015. Likewise, the Home and Foreign Secretaries. The jungle may be Hancock's last throw of the dice; his last chance to show the Great British Public that he is still relevant and not a washed-up has-been. Since I've never watched IACGMOOH, I cannot comment on the chances of campfire debate around Hancock's triumphant role in defeating Covid.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 2,644

    Pulpstar said:

    Provision for recall should be extended to include extended absence when parliament is sitting if the sitting MP's party deems the absence worthy of withdrawing the whip.

    That's a dangerous road IMO. What constitutes 'extended absence' ? Would it cover illness? Wasn't there an MP who took an extended absence because he got called up in reserves? Would it cover MPs like the late Stuart Bell, who could not even be ar*sed holding constituency surgeries and spent lots of time at his home in ?France?.

    More interesting would be the concept of 'minimum standards' that MPs were expected to achieve, e.g. number of surgeries held, votes attended etc. But I'm unsure that's a wise idea, especially as the role of an MP is poorly-defined.
    We would need to start by defining what the role of an MP is. A job? they cannot resign, and cannot have pay withdrawn for non-attendance. And how many hours is expected of an MP when they can be appointed to a ministry which is another job with another pay packet.

    Anything statutory would be difficult. But the whip is in the gift of the parties. Public non-attendance is a whip-withdrawal offence if you are Matt Hancock but not if you are Boris Johnson...
    The Sinn Fein MPs would presumably be constantly under threat of recall under such a plan. I don’t think this would be good for the Good Friday Agreement.
  • RunDeep said:

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Provision for recall should be extended to include extended absence when parliament is sitting if the sitting MP's party deems the absence worthy of withdrawing the whip.

    What happens if someone is elected as an independent and doesn’t have a whip?

    I'd thought of that constructing my reply - a feature of extra protection for independent elected MPs, all too rare these days.
    I don’t see why independent MPs should be immune to a rule affecting other MPs.

    And if you are concerned about MPs being too partisan, making them even more beholden to the party whips doesn’t seem like a good idea.
    Speaker's disgression perhaps then.
    The point is there should be sanction for this behaviour. Hancock's constituents deserve better.
    Unusually, I disagree with you. I don't think he's doing anything worse than many MPs do. They are not employees, they are elected representatives. The people get to give their verdict every five years.
    Yes, quite a lot of MPs skive off. Being a backbencher is largely pointless with a government that has an eighty seet majority that flips policies regularly by means of fickle executive decisions.

    Once you have no prospects of joining the ministerial gravy train, and handed in your letter to the 1922, it becomes pretty pointless. The problem isn't skiving MPs so much as a system that elects a parliamentary executive with little restraint on their actions, making most legislators pointless apart from anointing a new leader occasionally.

    My view is, while MPs are encouraged to do second jobs working for the Government as ministers (or third jobs, Rishi is leader of the Conservative Party as well as PM and an MP) it would be rank hypocrisy to prevent them doing second jobs of other types.
    Those are not second jobs though, they are additional responsibilities connected with their role as MPs. Similarly HoC committee membership. Sure, ministers need, and no doubt get, additional help to service their constituencies but they are not taking employment outside parliament.

    Swanning off to I'm a Celeb, or running a lucrative legal practice from the Caribbean, is completely different. And should be banned.
    Sigh. We seem to go through this every six months or so. Where do you draw the line? Starmer has done plenty of legal work since being an MP. But I'm guessing you think that's alright.
    The line is "Don't take the piss." Swanning off on holiday or doing a TV show crosses it, especially as MPs have plenty of time off when they can do such things.
    Surely the line is don't get caught taking the piss?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,185
    UK Trade Secretary Kemi Badenoch's comments on the OBR not going down well this morning.

    Here's RBC Capital Markets (@rbccm) David Parkinson's morning note, titled 'Badenoch face-palm':

    https://twitter.com/lizzzburden/status/1587726251262988291/photo/1
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,820

    ydoethur said:

    One thing I don't get with the Albanians claiming asylum line is why would they claim asylum if they are coming to commit crimes? Wouldn't they just melt into the black economy and get on with it, rather than give themselves up and start living under close supervision?

    Is it every Albanian who claims asylum, or just those who get caught?

    Further question - what if they are seeking asylum from the criminal gangs?
    Don’t you have to claim asylum as soon as you enter the country? In aby case, as soon as you do it, you are making yourself known to the authorities and subject to close supervision. I don’t get why someone intent on criminal behaviour would do that. I’d have thought they’d want to sneak in under the radar.

    There are a number of assumptions built into that argument which are at least questionable. Firstly, the idea that potential asylum seekers are "subject to close supervision". They are not. All too often we do not know where they are or what they are doing and the dirty truth is we don't much care unless it ends up in the Daily Mail. After asylum seekers abscond little to no effort is made in tracing them. They tend to end up in custody when the police are looking into something else, often criminal because of the restrictions on getting an above board job with an uncertain status and the problems in getting somewhere lawful to live. If they do this for long enough they can make a fresh application based upon change of circumstances.

    The sad truth is that having wasted thousands of pounds deciding we do not believe their claims and rejecting asylum we again tend to do nothing about it unless they cause further trouble in which case they will be detained and then, potentially, sent back assuming it is safe to return people to the country they have come from.

    The entire system is broken beyond repair. There are lots of problems with amnesties but if we were at all serious about making the system operational we would accept the many hundreds of thousands who are living here illegally and start a much quicker, more robust system for those coming from now. But that is politically unacceptable.
  • Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Interesting thread:

    We’ve had numerous requests for data about Albanian asylum seekers following reports of an increase in the number of Albanian citizens crossing the English Channel over the summer.

    Here’s a thread with some data about what we do and don’t know.


    https://twitter.com/MigObs/status/1587551632530849827

    Great thread. Very interesting.

    Won't stop PB wetting its knickers about the Albanian menace ofc.

    Doesn't say anything about accompanying children because we still need to explain away @Leon's hordes of Albanian infants nicking kitkats from his local co op.
    Yes, it’s all a delusion


    @‘Our town is emptying,’ he says. ‘We are losing our children, our lifeblood, as they go away.

    ‘This summer, boys of 15 or even younger, have disappeared because the boat crossings are cheap now.

    'The parents let them go. They think it will be a better life in your country for their child. It is an economic decision.’

    The exodus of Albania’s youth is under the spotlight because a military file leaked to The Mail on Sunday last weekend showed that nearly four in every ten migrants on traffickers’ boats from France to England over a recent period of six weeks hailed from this tiny Balkan country.

    On Thursday it emerged that they are determined to stay.

    More Albanians claim to have been trafficked or to have become victims of modern slavery once in the UK than any other nationality.

    Immigration officials suspect many make up the claims as a ruse to boost their asylum chances and avoid deportation back to Albania, which is deemed a safe country.

    None of this is stopping the exodus from Has. The mayor, a former schoolteacher, has four brothers who live in Leicester, but prays that his own three children, two girls and a boy aged between ten and 20, will not leave Has too.”

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11107271/Has-town-Albania-losing-hundreds-illegal-boat-migrants-UK.html
    So, radical idea, lets do an agreement with the Albanian government to return their wayward kiddies. If (a) we don't want them and (b) they want to keep them, why not agree their return?

    This is the true embarrassment for this government. Even where there is a clear path to do a deal with a foreign government - and in this case talks happen under Patel - they can't actually get *anything* done. And you still support their ineptitude!
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,110
    tlg86 said:

    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Provision for recall should be extended to include extended absence when parliament is sitting if the sitting MP's party deems the absence worthy of withdrawing the whip.

    What happens if someone is elected as an independent and doesn’t have a whip?

    I'd thought of that constructing my reply - a feature of extra protection for independent elected MPs, all too rare these days.
    I don’t see why independent MPs should be immune to a rule affecting other MPs.

    And if you are concerned about MPs being too partisan, making them even more beholden to the party whips doesn’t seem like a good idea.
    Speaker's disgression perhaps then.
    The point is there should be sanction for this behaviour. Hancock's constituents deserve better.
    Unusually, I disagree with you. I don't think he's doing anything worse than many MPs do. They are not employees, they are elected representatives. The people get to give their verdict every five years.
    Yes, it's not for the Speaker to act, as they would give them powers which could be abused.
    But Hancock should resign if he won't do the job. And deserves every bit of opprobrium coming his way.
    Out of curiosity, did you feel the same way about Mordaunt doing belly flops?
    Any MP who takes the best part of an entire month out of Parliamentary time to pursue paid work elsewhere should consider their position.
    I'm not an absolutist on MPs having second jobs, but this is taking the piss.

  • DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    One thing I don't get with the Albanians claiming asylum line is why would they claim asylum if they are coming to commit crimes? Wouldn't they just melt into the black economy and get on with it, rather than give themselves up and start living under close supervision?

    Is it every Albanian who claims asylum, or just those who get caught?

    Further question - what if they are seeking asylum from the criminal gangs?
    Don’t you have to claim asylum as soon as you enter the country? In aby case, as soon as you do it, you are making yourself known to the authorities and subject to close supervision. I don’t get why someone intent on criminal behaviour would do that. I’d have thought they’d want to sneak in under the radar.

    There are a number of assumptions built into that argument which are at least questionable. Firstly, the idea that potential asylum seekers are "subject to close supervision". They are not. All too often we do not know where they are or what they are doing and the dirty truth is we don't much care unless it ends up in the Daily Mail. After asylum seekers abscond little to no effort is made in tracing them. They tend to end up in custody when the police are looking into something else, often criminal because of the restrictions on getting an above board job with an uncertain status and the problems in getting somewhere lawful to live. If they do this for long enough they can make a fresh application based upon change of circumstances.

    The sad truth is that having wasted thousands of pounds deciding we do not believe their claims and rejecting asylum we again tend to do nothing about it unless they cause further trouble in which case they will be detained and then, potentially, sent back assuming it is safe to return people to the country they have come from.

    The entire system is broken beyond repair. There are lots of problems with amnesties but if we were at all serious about making the system operational we would accept the many hundreds of thousands who are living here illegally and start a much quicker, more robust system for those coming from now. But that is politically unacceptable.
    So, basically, this is total government failure. If newspapers can find these people, the government can too.

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,783

    Pulpstar said:

    Provision for recall should be extended to include extended absence when parliament is sitting if the sitting MP's party deems the absence worthy of withdrawing the whip.

    That's a dangerous road IMO. What constitutes 'extended absence' ? Would it cover illness? Wasn't there an MP who took an extended absence because he got called up in reserves? Would it cover MPs like the late Stuart Bell, who could not even be ar*sed holding constituency surgeries and spent lots of time at his home in ?France?.

    More interesting would be the concept of 'minimum standards' that MPs were expected to achieve, e.g. number of surgeries held, votes attended etc. But I'm unsure that's a wise idea, especially as the role of an MP is poorly-defined.
    We would need to start by defining what the role of an MP is. A job? they cannot resign, and cannot have pay withdrawn for non-attendance. And how many hours is expected of an MP when they can be appointed to a ministry which is another job with another pay packet.

    Anything statutory would be difficult. But the whip is in the gift of the parties. Public non-attendance is a whip-withdrawal offence if you are Matt Hancock but not if you are Boris Johnson...
    The Sinn Fein MPs would presumably be constantly under threat of recall under such a plan. I don’t think this would be good for the Good Friday Agreement.
    I think there would be more immediate problems within the Tory Party's own, very rocky, ceasefire agreement if certain MPs were taken out.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,605
    Anyway, in important news:

    What do we reckon Starmer will lead on at PMQs today?

    I'm working so will miss it, but any thoughts? Will he keep up the pressure on Braverman or demand answers on the postponed Special Fiscal Event?
  • DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    One thing I don't get with the Albanians claiming asylum line is why would they claim asylum if they are coming to commit crimes? Wouldn't they just melt into the black economy and get on with it, rather than give themselves up and start living under close supervision?

    Is it every Albanian who claims asylum, or just those who get caught?

    Further question - what if they are seeking asylum from the criminal gangs?
    Don’t you have to claim asylum as soon as you enter the country? In aby case, as soon as you do it, you are making yourself known to the authorities and subject to close supervision. I don’t get why someone intent on criminal behaviour would do that. I’d have thought they’d want to sneak in under the radar.

    There are a number of assumptions built into that argument which are at least questionable. Firstly, the idea that potential asylum seekers are "subject to close supervision". They are not. All too often we do not know where they are or what they are doing and the dirty truth is we don't much care unless it ends up in the Daily Mail. After asylum seekers abscond little to no effort is made in tracing them. They tend to end up in custody when the police are looking into something else, often criminal because of the restrictions on getting an above board job with an uncertain status and the problems in getting somewhere lawful to live. If they do this for long enough they can make a fresh application based upon change of circumstances.

    The sad truth is that having wasted thousands of pounds deciding we do not believe their claims and rejecting asylum we again tend to do nothing about it unless they cause further trouble in which case they will be detained and then, potentially, sent back assuming it is safe to return people to the country they have come from.

    The entire system is broken beyond repair. There are lots of problems with amnesties but if we were at all serious about making the system operational we would accept the many hundreds of thousands who are living here illegally and start a much quicker, more robust system for those coming from now. But that is politically unacceptable.
    It is not so much that creating an efficient processing system is politically unacceptable, it is more that Home Secretaries love the existence of a problem that annoys over half the country and promotes them as a champion willing to fight for the country if they were not held back by those pesky lefties, lawyers, foreigners and judges. Why would a Home Secretary want to fix the problem that gives them their national platform?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 37,985

    malcolmg said:

    Sixth, like Anas Sarwar in the Next First Minister betting.

    What bookie was daft enough to make him that close.
    Hills have him at the ridiculously short 12/1.
    Ladbrokes best at 16/1.
    I’m sure I saw him at 18/1, but cannot remember where.

    The key problem with this market is not the pricing nor the presumably low liquidity, but when the market might be settled. PB is notoriously suspicious about tying capital up.
    Bettinbg on him would be certain you are never getting your money back. Easier to just throw it down a drain.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,185
    NEW: Tory MP Roger Gale has warned Braverman against changing part of Manston to non-detention camp

    'I was asked by the Home Sec, who rang me last Thursday in a pre-arranged phonecall, "How would you feel about it?"

    'I said "Over my dead body. Manston is not suited to that"'


    https://twitter.com/LOS_Fisher/status/1587710417291337728
  • Heathener said:

    Spot on, Mike.

    When there's a sea change in politics it takes time for the reality to sink home and we are seeing that in some people's disbelief and refusal to face the facts. And they are facts. You simply do not come back from poll deficits like this.

    The question is not whether Labour can win. It's by how much?

    So you keep insisting, but the Tories did just that in the 1990s. In April 1990 Labour were 25%+ ahead in the polls. The Tories won in 1992. Of course, they were even further behind in 1997 with Labour hovering around a 30% lead just a month before the election. In actual votes cast, Labour only managed a 12.5% lead and the Conservatives ended up with 165 seats - rather more than a handful.

    Maybe the Conservatives will be wiped out at the next general election and end up with only a handful of seats, as you clearly want, but it is far from a certainty.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 17,624
    felix said:

    IanB2 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    It's West Suffolk, has a 23k majority and was held in 97.
    I think Hancock will probably lose it in a GE, probably in a BE.
    His wife (ex?) might hold the seat though.

    Yes, West Suffolk, sorry. Newmarket, Haverhill and Mildenhall. With the ageing of the population and decline in agricultural workforce, it has probably trended Tory beneath the short term political swings, although around Newmarket is possibly getting some Cambridge overspill more recently. I’d say it’s a stretch for the Tories to lose it even in a bad year, especially with Labour as the challenger.
    Extrrapalating from the recent or even current polls is easy to do and a Tory wipeout could result. But the polls are already in a state of flux and the Sunak/Hunt combo is very capable of keeping that process moving to a degree sufficient for a more respectable GE result, maybe even more. Of course it's really impossible to say. The big problem for Labour remains the failure to seal the deal beyond 'we're not them'. They still show many signs of not really understanding the voters and their concerns and do present as stale, dull and resentful. After all when will they have a woman/ethnic minority PM?
    The funny thing is that thanks to the Tory Shenanigans the electorate are getting quite used to people reaching high office by being "NOT THEM". We've gone from 'He's not her' to 'She's not him' to 'he's not her' and there was no enthusiasm for any of them
  • Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    One thing I don't get with the Albanians claiming asylum line is why would they claim asylum if they are coming to commit crimes? Wouldn't they just melt into the black economy and get on with it, rather than give themselves up and start living under close supervision?

    Is it every Albanian who claims asylum, or just those who get caught?

    Further question - what if they are seeking asylum from the criminal gangs?
    Don’t you have to claim asylum as soon as you enter the country? In aby case, as soon as you do it, you are making yourself known to the authorities and subject to close supervision. I don’t get why someone intent on criminal behaviour would do that. I’d have thought they’d want to sneak in under the radar.

    They are not “subject to close supervision”


    “Albanian migrants working on cannabis farms just days after arriving in the UK
    Young men describe being released from detention into hotels where they are recruited by gangs to cultivate cannabis in makeshift farms”

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/10/16/albanian-migrants-working-cannabis-farms-just-days-arriving/

    I sometimes get the feeling PB-ers don’t read anything but PB and their own Facebook feeds
    Surely the answer here is to send in Liam Neeson?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,783
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Roger said:

    I fear Matt Hancock may be suffering from Greg Wallace syndrome: a well-known person’s belief that they are held in far greater esteem and affection by the public than they actually are.

    Hancock may well be cured of this affluction over the next few weeks.

    Like sharing a space with a load of cockroaches?

    I think he's used t that one
    I cannot stand "I am a Celebrity". I don't particularly mind the humiliation of the Z listers, but the routine animal cruelty is quite unnecessary.
    Does it bug you?
    Yes, this worm has turned.
    I'm also unhappy about the risk of alien and potential pest species here, there and anywhere the producers think would be a laugh.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/nov/24/welsh-police-investigate-im-a-celebrity-non-native-species-aoe
  • Foxy said:

    Interesting thread:

    We’ve had numerous requests for data about Albanian asylum seekers following reports of an increase in the number of Albanian citizens crossing the English Channel over the summer.

    Here’s a thread with some data about what we do and don’t know.


    https://twitter.com/MigObs/status/1587551632530849827

    It is: It seems that the high success rate of asylum applications is down to women being protected from traffickers. That sounds an appropriate use of an asylum system to me.
    It is a good thread that puts the Albanian so called 'threat' into perspective.

    That said, looking purely from a coherence point of view the thread doesn't seem to make sense in terms of the contradictory numbers it quotes.

    "Over the past two years the share of Albanian asylum applicants who were men has increased, from 70% of adult applicants in Q2 2019 to 91% in Q2 2022."

    "Of all the positive decisions on adult Albanians’ asylum applications in the year ending 30 June 2022, 86% were for women, and 14% for men."

    These two stats make sense and can be reconciled. But they also say:

    "In the first half of 2022, 55% of adult Albanian applicants were successful at the initial decision."

    This cannot be reconciled with the two previous claims. If only 9% of applicants are women and 55% of all applications (male and female) are successful, then it simply cannot be that 86% of successful applications were by women.

    It makes no difference to the overall narrative of the piece, but such discrepancies muddy the water and are annoying.

    One positive from that thread is that successful applications in the system overall (not just Albanians) has increased from 33% in 2018 to 72% in 2021.
  • Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    One thing I don't get with the Albanians claiming asylum line is why would they claim asylum if they are coming to commit crimes? Wouldn't they just melt into the black economy and get on with it, rather than give themselves up and start living under close supervision?

    Is it every Albanian who claims asylum, or just those who get caught?

    Further question - what if they are seeking asylum from the criminal gangs?
    Don’t you have to claim asylum as soon as you enter the country? In aby case, as soon as you do it, you are making yourself known to the authorities and subject to close supervision. I don’t get why someone intent on criminal behaviour would do that. I’d have thought they’d want to sneak in under the radar.

    They are not “subject to close supervision”


    “Albanian migrants working on cannabis farms just days after arriving in the UK
    Young men describe being released from detention into hotels where they are recruited by gangs to cultivate cannabis in makeshift farms”

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/10/16/albanian-migrants-working-cannabis-farms-just-days-arriving/

    I sometimes get the feeling PB-ers don’t read anything but PB and their own Facebook feeds
    If the Daily Telegraph can find Albanian asylum seekers working in cannabis farms, it’s clear the issue here is an entirely dysfunctional system overseen by entirely useless politicians who are focused on getting headlines, not solving problems. You have to be known to authorities if you claim asylum. If the authorities then fail to ensure you are not catching the bus to the local, illegal, cannabis farm they have messed up.
  • Endillion said:

    Contrary to pretty much every opinion poll, the left wins the Danish general election by the slimmest possible margin. A genuine surprise.

    Hadn’t been following. What were the polls saying?

    They were saying that the left wasn't going to win the Danish general election by the slimmest possible margin.
    Ha! I did ask!! Were they predicting a bigger majority or defeat or a mess?

    A mess, with the new Moderates being the keyholder determining which bloc won. Didn’t happen.
  • Leon said:

    The Channel migrants story has the potential to bring down both main parties

    Wtf happens after that then? I assume not a surgent LD party.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,783

    Endillion said:

    Contrary to pretty much every opinion poll, the left wins the Danish general election by the slimmest possible margin. A genuine surprise.

    Hadn’t been following. What were the polls saying?

    They were saying that the left wasn't going to win the Danish general election by the slimmest possible margin.
    Ha! I did ask!! Were they predicting a bigger majority or defeat or a mess?

    A mess, with the new Moderates being the keyholder determining which bloc won. Didn’t happen.
    Had to check the thread to make sure you weren't discussing the Disruption-era politics of the Kirk Assembly two centuries ago.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,783
    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    Sixth, like Anas Sarwar in the Next First Minister betting.

    What bookie was daft enough to make him that close.
    Hills have him at the ridiculously short 12/1.
    Ladbrokes best at 16/1.
    I’m sure I saw him at 18/1, but cannot remember where.

    The key problem with this market is not the pricing nor the presumably low liquidity, but when the market might be settled. PB is notoriously suspicious about tying capital up.
    Bettinbg on him would be certain you are never getting your money back. Easier to just throw it down a drain.
    The current rate of inflation means that if you wait a year or five you're losing to the bookies anyway.
  • Scott_xP said:

    NEW: Tory MP Roger Gale has warned Braverman against changing part of Manston to non-detention camp

    'I was asked by the Home Sec, who rang me last Thursday in a pre-arranged phonecall, "How would you feel about it?"

    'I said "Over my dead body. Manston is not suited to that"'


    https://twitter.com/LOS_Fisher/status/1587710417291337728

    Manston is a prison camp - crush loaded with people it cannot safely handle. Throwing open the gates does what - lets supposedly criminal Albanians run off into the underworld? Why bother intercepting the boats at all?

    This does several things - all bad:
    1. Enrages a local populace already wound up by these "invaders" taking their jobs / benefits and breaking into their homes. Risk of more vigilante action
    2. Makes the entire boat processing system look absurd. Farage will lap this up which pushes up the Refuk / Tories are soft vote which prompts sociopaths like Braverman to propose harder action
    3. Encourages the traffickers - "see how easy it is? A few days locked up then they release you into the open"
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 2,644
    .
    Ishmael_Z said:

    TOPPING said:

    Interesting thread:

    We’ve had numerous requests for data about Albanian asylum seekers following reports of an increase in the number of Albanian citizens crossing the English Channel over the summer.

    Here’s a thread with some data about what we do and don’t know.


    https://twitter.com/MigObs/status/1587551632530849827

    Great thread. Very interesting.

    Won't stop PB wetting its knickers about the Albanian menace ofc.

    Doesn't say anything about accompanying children because we still need to explain away @Leon's hordes of Albanian infants nicking kitkats from his local co op.
    What in that lot makes you think we should be reassured by it? Why, you have to ask, is Albania full of trafficked women? Seems most likely to me that their escape to the welcoming arms of the UK is as @Anabobazina would put it, a feature not a bug of the traffickers' masterplan. Get them in here, put them to work.

    A country should have control of its borders. This antiracism by numbers stuff is just irrelevant, it's like sitting there in 1809 saying ooh look at you with your stereotyped memes about French garlic munching surrender monkeys.
    If the UK gives them legal right to remain, then what power do the traffickers have over them?

    A country should have control of its borders. If a country is failing to do that, I suggest voting out the Government in charge and voting in a more competent lot.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 42,433

    .

    Ishmael_Z said:

    TOPPING said:

    Interesting thread:

    We’ve had numerous requests for data about Albanian asylum seekers following reports of an increase in the number of Albanian citizens crossing the English Channel over the summer.

    Here’s a thread with some data about what we do and don’t know.


    https://twitter.com/MigObs/status/1587551632530849827

    Great thread. Very interesting.

    Won't stop PB wetting its knickers about the Albanian menace ofc.

    Doesn't say anything about accompanying children because we still need to explain away @Leon's hordes of Albanian infants nicking kitkats from his local co op.
    What in that lot makes you think we should be reassured by it? Why, you have to ask, is Albania full of trafficked women? Seems most likely to me that their escape to the welcoming arms of the UK is as @Anabobazina would put it, a feature not a bug of the traffickers' masterplan. Get them in here, put them to work.

    A country should have control of its borders. This antiracism by numbers stuff is just irrelevant, it's like sitting there in 1809 saying ooh look at you with your stereotyped memes about French garlic munching surrender monkeys.
    If the UK gives them legal right to remain, then what power do the traffickers have over them?

    A country should have control of its borders. If a country is failing to do that, I suggest voting out the Government in charge and voting in a more competent lot.
    Nigel Farage for PM then?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 43,622
    Roger said:

    felix said:

    IanB2 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    It's West Suffolk, has a 23k majority and was held in 97.
    I think Hancock will probably lose it in a GE, probably in a BE.
    His wife (ex?) might hold the seat though.

    Yes, West Suffolk, sorry. Newmarket, Haverhill and Mildenhall. With the ageing of the population and decline in agricultural workforce, it has probably trended Tory beneath the short term political swings, although around Newmarket is possibly getting some Cambridge overspill more recently. I’d say it’s a stretch for the Tories to lose it even in a bad year, especially with Labour as the challenger.
    Extrrapalating from the recent or even current polls is easy to do and a Tory wipeout could result. But the polls are already in a state of flux and the Sunak/Hunt combo is very capable of keeping that process moving to a degree sufficient for a more respectable GE result, maybe even more. Of course it's really impossible to say. The big problem for Labour remains the failure to seal the deal beyond 'we're not them'. They still show many signs of not really understanding the voters and their concerns and do present as stale, dull and resentful. After all when will they have a woman/ethnic minority PM?
    The funny thing is that thanks to the Tory Shenanigans the electorate are getting quite used to people reaching high office by being "NOT THEM". We've gone from 'He's not her' to 'She's not him' to 'he's not her' and there was no enthusiasm for any of them
    Up until Sunak at least, it's enabled them to get away with giving us someone worse each time, dating back to John Major, the last to have been better than his predecessor at time of replacement.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,510

    Foxy said:

    Interesting thread:

    We’ve had numerous requests for data about Albanian asylum seekers following reports of an increase in the number of Albanian citizens crossing the English Channel over the summer.

    Here’s a thread with some data about what we do and don’t know.


    https://twitter.com/MigObs/status/1587551632530849827

    It is: It seems that the high success rate of asylum applications is down to women being protected from traffickers. That sounds an appropriate use of an asylum system to me.
    It is a good thread that puts the Albanian so called 'threat' into perspective.

    That said, looking purely from a coherence point of view the thread doesn't seem to make sense in terms of the contradictory numbers it quotes.

    "Over the past two years the share of Albanian asylum applicants who were men has increased, from 70% of adult applicants in Q2 2019 to 91% in Q2 2022."

    "Of all the positive decisions on adult Albanians’ asylum applications in the year ending 30 June 2022, 86% were for women, and 14% for men."

    These two stats make sense and can be reconciled. But they also say:

    "In the first half of 2022, 55% of adult Albanian applicants were successful at the initial decision."

    This cannot be reconciled with the two previous claims. If only 9% of applicants are women and 55% of all applications (male and female) are successful, then it simply cannot be that 86% of successful applications were by women.

    It makes no difference to the overall narrative of the piece, but such discrepancies muddy the water and are annoying.

    One positive from that thread is that successful applications in the system overall (not just Albanians) has increased from 33% in 2018 to 72% in 2021.
    The thread is, in places, strangely innumerate

    Nor does it square with the clear reports of the Home Office in recent months
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 17,933
    edited November 2022
    ydoethur said:

    Anyway, in important news:

    What do we reckon Starmer will lead on at PMQs today?

    I'm working so will miss it, but any thoughts? Will he keep up the pressure on Braverman or demand answers on the postponed Special Fiscal Event?

    Labour has opened a new front against Suella Braverman; the FCA has been asked to look at whether her emails would facilitate insider trading.
    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/suella-braverman-referred-financial-watchdog-28386123

    ETA imo Starmer should ask why the double standard in withdrawing the whip from Hancock but not Boris.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 15,152
    Carnyx said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Roger said:

    I fear Matt Hancock may be suffering from Greg Wallace syndrome: a well-known person’s belief that they are held in far greater esteem and affection by the public than they actually are.

    Hancock may well be cured of this affluction over the next few weeks.

    Like sharing a space with a load of cockroaches?

    I think he's used t that one
    I cannot stand "I am a Celebrity". I don't particularly mind the humiliation of the Z listers, but the routine animal cruelty is quite unnecessary.
    Does it bug you?
    Yes, this worm has turned.
    I'm also unhappy about the risk of alien and potential pest species here, there and anywhere the producers think would be a laugh.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/nov/24/welsh-police-investigate-im-a-celebrity-non-native-species-aoe
    I did not know that this was filmed in Wales.

    This is now one step from Hancock starring in a new series of The Prisoner.

    Give the man an Ordinary bicycle, or exit stage left on an electric unicycle, pursued by a big bubble.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,783
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/nov/02/albania-criticises-uks-lack-of-cooperation-over-channel-crossings

    "An alleged failure by the Home Office to share with the Albanian government the routes taken by those arriving in Britain is being blamed for holding back efforts to stop the Channel crossings.

    Government sources in Tirana said that repeated attempts to get information from the UK about those travelling on the small boats had come to nothing, leaving them operating in the dark."
  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    One thing I don't get with the Albanians claiming asylum line is why would they claim asylum if they are coming to commit crimes? Wouldn't they just melt into the black economy and get on with it, rather than give themselves up and start living under close supervision?

    Is it every Albanian who claims asylum, or just those who get caught?

    Further question - what if they are seeking asylum from the criminal gangs?
    Don’t you have to claim asylum as soon as you enter the country? In aby case, as soon as you do it, you are making yourself known to the authorities and subject to close supervision. I don’t get why someone intent on criminal behaviour would do that. I’d have thought they’d want to sneak in under the radar.

    Yes, but, how can I put this? That only applies if they get caught entering. If they are not, by definition, they are not known to be in the country and don't have to claim it.

    I'm not saying that is the case, just that it's one possible explanation.

    Yes, I think that’s a much more likely explanation. I have no doubt that a lot of Albanian criminals are getting into the country. I am just not sure why they’d use the asylum system to do it when it immediately puts them on the radar. Why not just sneak in?

  • MattWMattW Posts: 15,152
    edited November 2022

    .

    Ishmael_Z said:

    TOPPING said:

    Interesting thread:

    We’ve had numerous requests for data about Albanian asylum seekers following reports of an increase in the number of Albanian citizens crossing the English Channel over the summer.

    Here’s a thread with some data about what we do and don’t know.


    https://twitter.com/MigObs/status/1587551632530849827

    Great thread. Very interesting.

    Won't stop PB wetting its knickers about the Albanian menace ofc.

    Doesn't say anything about accompanying children because we still need to explain away @Leon's hordes of Albanian infants nicking kitkats from his local co op.
    What in that lot makes you think we should be reassured by it? Why, you have to ask, is Albania full of trafficked women? Seems most likely to me that their escape to the welcoming arms of the UK is as @Anabobazina would put it, a feature not a bug of the traffickers' masterplan. Get them in here, put them to work.

    A country should have control of its borders. This antiracism by numbers stuff is just irrelevant, it's like sitting there in 1809 saying ooh look at you with your stereotyped memes about French garlic munching surrender monkeys.
    If the UK gives them legal right to remain, then what power do the traffickers have over them?

    A country should have control of its borders. If a country is failing to do that, I suggest voting out the Government in charge and voting in a more competent lot.
    One aspect of the Albania situation I don't get (beyond perhaps a gummed up system and Home Office mess here), is that seem to be helpful on returns, and are on afaics a whitelist in some European countries.

    It's was June 2021 when Priti Patel signed a special return agreement.
    https://emerging-europe.com/news/uk-signs-deportation-agreement-with-albania/
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,257
    If I may interrupt the politics for a moment, I'd like to ask for some advice about adding batteries to solar panels.

    I installed a 4kw solar panel system about 11 years ago and it's been a good investment. I don't claim any financial expertise but I'd just retired with a small lump sum and annuity rates were low at the time.

    Recently, I received a letter from Steve Rotheram, our metro mayor, who's heading a group aiming to negotiate better deals for new solar panel systems and battery systems for those with panels. Unfortunately, the help-line is never answered, but if there's anyone with expertise/knowlege, it would be much appreciated.

    Would batteries affect the Fit payments? Is it just a matter of pay-back time?

    I'm being a little cheeky but thanks in advance for any advice.
  • Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    One thing I don't get with the Albanians claiming asylum line is why would they claim asylum if they are coming to commit crimes? Wouldn't they just melt into the black economy and get on with it, rather than give themselves up and start living under close supervision?

    Is it every Albanian who claims asylum, or just those who get caught?

    Further question - what if they are seeking asylum from the criminal gangs?
    Don’t you have to claim asylum as soon as you enter the country? In aby case, as soon as you do it, you are making yourself known to the authorities and subject to close supervision. I don’t get why someone intent on criminal behaviour would do that. I’d have thought they’d want to sneak in under the radar.

    They are not “subject to close supervision”


    “Albanian migrants working on cannabis farms just days after arriving in the UK
    Young men describe being released from detention into hotels where they are recruited by gangs to cultivate cannabis in makeshift farms”

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/10/16/albanian-migrants-working-cannabis-farms-just-days-arriving/

    I sometimes get the feeling PB-ers don’t read anything but PB and their own Facebook feeds
    Surely the answer here is to send in Liam Neeson?
    About time pensioners did their bit!
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    One thing I don't get with the Albanians claiming asylum line is why would they claim asylum if they are coming to commit crimes? Wouldn't they just melt into the black economy and get on with it, rather than give themselves up and start living under close supervision?

    Is it every Albanian who claims asylum, or just those who get caught?

    Further question - what if they are seeking asylum from the criminal gangs?
    Don’t you have to claim asylum as soon as you enter the country? In aby case, as soon as you do it, you are making yourself known to the authorities and subject to close supervision. I don’t get why someone intent on criminal behaviour would do that. I’d have thought they’d want to sneak in under the radar.

    Yes, but, how can I put this? That only applies if they get caught entering. If they are not, by definition, they are not known to be in the country and don't have to claim it.

    I'm not saying that is the case, just that it's one possible explanation.

    Yes, I think that’s a much more likely explanation. I have no doubt that a lot of Albanian criminals are getting into the country. I am just not sure why they’d use the asylum system to do it when it immediately puts them on the radar. Why not just sneak in?

    That is what they do. Plan A is to make it to the beach and disperse immediately into the countryside. It's the ones that get caught that apply for asylum.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,746

    Heathener said:

    Spot on, Mike.

    When there's a sea change in politics it takes time for the reality to sink home and we are seeing that in some people's disbelief and refusal to face the facts. And they are facts. You simply do not come back from poll deficits like this.

    The question is not whether Labour can win. It's by how much?

    So you keep insisting, but the Tories did just that in the 1990s. In April 1990 Labour were 25%+ ahead in the polls. The Tories won in 1992. Of course, they were even further behind in 1997 with Labour hovering around a 30% lead just a month before the election. In actual votes cast, Labour only managed a 12.5% lead and the Conservatives ended up with 165 seats - rather more than a handful.

    Maybe the Conservatives will be wiped out at the next general election and end up with only a handful of seats, as you clearly want, but it is far from a certainty.
    Yes. Nothing is in the bank yet. But there are real differences with 1992: The Tories won on Kinnock, the Sun and the using the tactic of the Labour threat of tax rises. No-one will be able to use the 'other side will increase tax, we won't' line. And SKS isn't Kinnock. And the Sun is not where it was in any respect.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,746
    edit
  • felixfelix Posts: 14,495
    Nigelb said:

    felix said:

    felix said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/02/rishi-sunak-suella-braverman-british-politics-austerity-hostile-environment

    "Austerity in the Treasury; a hostile environment at the Home Office. After 12 years and four prime ministers, British politics has cycled back to where it started, but that much meaner and poorer. All for what? Where did the journey take us? To Brexit, to rage, to division and economic downgrade. A dozen years wasted. A crusade whipped up by nationalist zealots to a holy land that doesn’t exist to fight an enemy that was actually our friend, defeating no one but ourselves."

    Hmm. Becajuse there is no inflation or energy crisis in the EU. There are no EU countries with immigration policies like the UK. The EU central bank is not raising interest rates. There are no riots in France, or protests in Spain......No EU country has far right parties snapping at the heels of power.....
    First class whataboutery.
    Try reading the article. The point it is making isn't that the EU is better than us. It is that leaving the EU hasn't helped the UK in any way, while stoking division and distracting policymakers from our real problems - a point that voters seem to agree with.
    Brexit happened. You need to move on. As does the Guardian.
    We have.
    We've accepted it, and are reminding the folks who voted for it of the consequences.
    You need to move on with your counter arguments.
    Lol. I voted remain and I live in the literally sunlit uplands of SE Spain. Bitterness is such an ugly trait though. :smiley:
  • tlg86 said:

    ydoethur said:

    One thing I don't get with the Albanians claiming asylum line is why would they claim asylum if they are coming to commit crimes? Wouldn't they just melt into the black economy and get on with it, rather than give themselves up and start living under close supervision?

    Is it every Albanian who claims asylum, or just those who get caught?

    Further question - what if they are seeking asylum from the criminal gangs?
    Reading that thread that Carlotta posted, it does sound a bit like female Albanians are getting asylum by definition of being here (i.e. the assumption being that they have been trafficked).
    Problem is if we follow that logic, we have a wet foot, dry foot policy. IE, you make it to our shore, you can stay by benefit of getting here and how you get here.

    The question is three fold

    1) Can we even control immigration
    2) Should we control immigration.
    3) What is the link between asylum and immigration, or are they now actually the same thing,

    Politicians on both sides are not being straight with the public on what both can happen, and what should happen,
  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    One thing I don't get with the Albanians claiming asylum line is why would they claim asylum if they are coming to commit crimes? Wouldn't they just melt into the black economy and get on with it, rather than give themselves up and start living under close supervision?

    Is it every Albanian who claims asylum, or just those who get caught?

    Further question - what if they are seeking asylum from the criminal gangs?
    Don’t you have to claim asylum as soon as you enter the country? In aby case, as soon as you do it, you are making yourself known to the authorities and subject to close supervision. I don’t get why someone intent on criminal behaviour would do that. I’d have thought they’d want to sneak in under the radar.

    Yes, but, how can I put this? That only applies if they get caught entering. If they are not, by definition, they are not known to be in the country and don't have to claim it.

    I'm not saying that is the case, just that it's one possible explanation.

    Yes, I think that’s a much more likely explanation. I have no doubt that a lot of Albanian criminals are getting into the country. I am just not sure why they’d use the asylum system to do it when it immediately puts them on the radar. Why not just sneak in?

    Well they do. If you're on a boat you don't get to shore and wave your hands in the air for the authorities to pick you up.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,783
    MattW said:

    Carnyx said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Roger said:

    I fear Matt Hancock may be suffering from Greg Wallace syndrome: a well-known person’s belief that they are held in far greater esteem and affection by the public than they actually are.

    Hancock may well be cured of this affluction over the next few weeks.

    Like sharing a space with a load of cockroaches?

    I think he's used t that one
    I cannot stand "I am a Celebrity". I don't particularly mind the humiliation of the Z listers, but the routine animal cruelty is quite unnecessary.
    Does it bug you?
    Yes, this worm has turned.
    I'm also unhappy about the risk of alien and potential pest species here, there and anywhere the producers think would be a laugh.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/nov/24/welsh-police-investigate-im-a-celebrity-non-native-species-aoe
    I did not know that this was filmed in Wales.

    This is now one step from Hancock starring in a new series of The Prisoner.

    Give the man an Ordinary bicycle, or exit stage left on an electric unicycle, pursued by a big bubble.
    I suspect he's rather hoping for somewhere more exotic than the Great Orme (though nothing wrong with the latter, I hasten to add).
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 2,644
    .

    Foxy said:

    Interesting thread:

    We’ve had numerous requests for data about Albanian asylum seekers following reports of an increase in the number of Albanian citizens crossing the English Channel over the summer.

    Here’s a thread with some data about what we do and don’t know.


    https://twitter.com/MigObs/status/1587551632530849827

    It is: It seems that the high success rate of asylum applications is down to women being protected from traffickers. That sounds an appropriate use of an asylum system to me.
    It is a good thread that puts the Albanian so called 'threat' into perspective.

    That said, looking purely from a coherence point of view the thread doesn't seem to make sense in terms of the contradictory numbers it quotes.

    "Over the past two years the share of Albanian asylum applicants who were men has increased, from 70% of adult applicants in Q2 2019 to 91% in Q2 2022."

    "Of all the positive decisions on adult Albanians’ asylum applications in the year ending 30 June 2022, 86% were for women, and 14% for men."

    These two stats make sense and can be reconciled. But they also say:

    "In the first half of 2022, 55% of adult Albanian applicants were successful at the initial decision."

    This cannot be reconciled with the two previous claims. If only 9% of applicants are women and 55% of all applications (male and female) are successful, then it simply cannot be that 86% of successful applications were by women.

    It makes no difference to the overall narrative of the piece, but such discrepancies muddy the water and are annoying.

    One positive from that thread is that successful applications in the system overall (not just Albanians) has increased from 33% in 2018 to 72% in 2021.
    The numbers are reconciliable, I believe, because they cover different time periods: “past two years”, “year ending 30 June 2022” (i.e. 1 July 2021-30 June 2022) and “first half of 2022” (i.e. 1 January 2022-30 June 2022).
  • Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    Interesting thread:

    We’ve had numerous requests for data about Albanian asylum seekers following reports of an increase in the number of Albanian citizens crossing the English Channel over the summer.

    Here’s a thread with some data about what we do and don’t know.


    https://twitter.com/MigObs/status/1587551632530849827

    It is: It seems that the high success rate of asylum applications is down to women being protected from traffickers. That sounds an appropriate use of an asylum system to me.
    It is a good thread that puts the Albanian so called 'threat' into perspective.

    That said, looking purely from a coherence point of view the thread doesn't seem to make sense in terms of the contradictory numbers it quotes.

    "Over the past two years the share of Albanian asylum applicants who were men has increased, from 70% of adult applicants in Q2 2019 to 91% in Q2 2022."

    "Of all the positive decisions on adult Albanians’ asylum applications in the year ending 30 June 2022, 86% were for women, and 14% for men."

    These two stats make sense and can be reconciled. But they also say:

    "In the first half of 2022, 55% of adult Albanian applicants were successful at the initial decision."

    This cannot be reconciled with the two previous claims. If only 9% of applicants are women and 55% of all applications (male and female) are successful, then it simply cannot be that 86% of successful applications were by women.

    It makes no difference to the overall narrative of the piece, but such discrepancies muddy the water and are annoying.

    One positive from that thread is that successful applications in the system overall (not just Albanians) has increased from 33% in 2018 to 72% in 2021.
    The thread is, in places, strangely innumerate

    Nor does it square with the clear reports of the Home Office in recent months
    Did the Home Office reports in recent months have clear numbers attached to them? The thread does - and its all Home Office data. Several things are possible - there has been a sudden and rapid shift which the stats haven't yet captured, the rapid turnover in ministers has disrupted their ability to communicate accurately, or they're just lying for political reasons.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 37,052
    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Interesting thread:

    We’ve had numerous requests for data about Albanian asylum seekers following reports of an increase in the number of Albanian citizens crossing the English Channel over the summer.

    Here’s a thread with some data about what we do and don’t know.


    https://twitter.com/MigObs/status/1587551632530849827

    Great thread. Very interesting.

    Won't stop PB wetting its knickers about the Albanian menace ofc.

    Doesn't say anything about accompanying children because we still need to explain away @Leon's hordes of Albanian infants nicking kitkats from his local co op.
    Yes, it’s all a delusion


    @‘Our town is emptying,’ he says. ‘We are losing our children, our lifeblood, as they go away.

    ‘This summer, boys of 15 or even younger, have disappeared because the boat crossings are cheap now.

    'The parents let them go. They think it will be a better life in your country for their child. It is an economic decision.’

    The exodus of Albania’s youth is under the spotlight because a military file leaked to The Mail on Sunday last weekend showed that nearly four in every ten migrants on traffickers’ boats from France to England over a recent period of six weeks hailed from this tiny Balkan country.

    On Thursday it emerged that they are determined to stay.

    More Albanians claim to have been trafficked or to have become victims of modern slavery once in the UK than any other nationality.

    Immigration officials suspect many make up the claims as a ruse to boost their asylum chances and avoid deportation back to Albania, which is deemed a safe country.

    None of this is stopping the exodus from Has. The mayor, a former schoolteacher, has four brothers who live in Leicester, but prays that his own three children, two girls and a boy aged between ten and 20, will not leave Has too.”

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11107271/Has-town-Albania-losing-hundreds-illegal-boat-migrants-UK.html
    Yes and read the thread. It is precisely the recognition of trafficking by the UK authorities that has lead to increased acceptance rates of (especially female) asylum seekers. No one is saying it isn't happening but we can see first, the numbers involved, and secondly why it is happening. And those very same immigration officials suspicions account for, I imagine, the very low relative acceptance rate for male asylum seekers.

    The question, that has already been asked, and is the valid one, is what numbers are coming in, not claiming asylum and just disappearing into the economy. I don't know I'm sure someone does.

    Plus getting your information from the Daily Mail. I didn't even think it was allowed in north west London.

    You utter, utter twat.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 42,433
    algarkirk said:

    Heathener said:

    Spot on, Mike.

    When there's a sea change in politics it takes time for the reality to sink home and we are seeing that in some people's disbelief and refusal to face the facts. And they are facts. You simply do not come back from poll deficits like this.

    The question is not whether Labour can win. It's by how much?

    So you keep insisting, but the Tories did just that in the 1990s. In April 1990 Labour were 25%+ ahead in the polls. The Tories won in 1992. Of course, they were even further behind in 1997 with Labour hovering around a 30% lead just a month before the election. In actual votes cast, Labour only managed a 12.5% lead and the Conservatives ended up with 165 seats - rather more than a handful.

    Maybe the Conservatives will be wiped out at the next general election and end up with only a handful of seats, as you clearly want, but it is far from a certainty.
    Yes. Nothing is in the bank yet. But there are real differences with 1992: The Tories won on Kinnock, the Sun and the using the tactic of the Labour threat of tax rises. No-one will be able to use the 'other side will increase tax, we won't' line. And SKS isn't Kinnock. And the Sun is not where it was in any respect.
    That’s what happens when Conservatives raise income taxes, having very publicly refused to support their own new leader on tax cuts.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 2,644
    Sandpit said:

    .

    Ishmael_Z said:

    TOPPING said:

    Interesting thread:

    We’ve had numerous requests for data about Albanian asylum seekers following reports of an increase in the number of Albanian citizens crossing the English Channel over the summer.

    Here’s a thread with some data about what we do and don’t know.


    https://twitter.com/MigObs/status/1587551632530849827

    Great thread. Very interesting.

    Won't stop PB wetting its knickers about the Albanian menace ofc.

    Doesn't say anything about accompanying children because we still need to explain away @Leon's hordes of Albanian infants nicking kitkats from his local co op.
    What in that lot makes you think we should be reassured by it? Why, you have to ask, is Albania full of trafficked women? Seems most likely to me that their escape to the welcoming arms of the UK is as @Anabobazina would put it, a feature not a bug of the traffickers' masterplan. Get them in here, put them to work.

    A country should have control of its borders. This antiracism by numbers stuff is just irrelevant, it's like sitting there in 1809 saying ooh look at you with your stereotyped memes about French garlic munching surrender monkeys.
    If the UK gives them legal right to remain, then what power do the traffickers have over them?

    A country should have control of its borders. If a country is failing to do that, I suggest voting out the Government in charge and voting in a more competent lot.
    Nigel Farage for PM then?
    Wouldn’t be my first choice. Or second. Or third. Or fourth. Or fifth. Or… how many parties are there in the UK?
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 37,531
    edited November 2022

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    One thing I don't get with the Albanians claiming asylum line is why would they claim asylum if they are coming to commit crimes? Wouldn't they just melt into the black economy and get on with it, rather than give themselves up and start living under close supervision?

    Is it every Albanian who claims asylum, or just those who get caught?

    Further question - what if they are seeking asylum from the criminal gangs?
    Don’t you have to claim asylum as soon as you enter the country? In aby case, as soon as you do it, you are making yourself known to the authorities and subject to close supervision. I don’t get why someone intent on criminal behaviour would do that. I’d have thought they’d want to sneak in under the radar.

    Yes, but, how can I put this? That only applies if they get caught entering. If they are not, by definition, they are not known to be in the country and don't have to claim it.

    I'm not saying that is the case, just that it's one possible explanation.

    Yes, I think that’s a much more likely explanation. I have no doubt that a lot of Albanian criminals are getting into the country. I am just not sure why they’d use the asylum system to do it when it immediately puts them on the radar. Why not just sneak in?
    Well they do. If you're on a boat you don't get to shore and wave your hands in the air for the authorities to pick you up.
    You do if you’re claiming asylum. Pulling out of the ECHR, for example, is not going to stop anyone sneaking into the UK on a boat or via any other means. Neither is sending asylum seekers to Rwanda.

  • CD13 said:

    If I may interrupt the politics for a moment, I'd like to ask for some advice about adding batteries to solar panels.

    I installed a 4kw solar panel system about 11 years ago and it's been a good investment. I don't claim any financial expertise but I'd just retired with a small lump sum and annuity rates were low at the time.

    Recently, I received a letter from Steve Rotheram, our metro mayor, who's heading a group aiming to negotiate better deals for new solar panel systems and battery systems for those with panels. Unfortunately, the help-line is never answered, but if there's anyone with expertise/knowlege, it would be much appreciated.

    Would batteries affect the Fit payments? Is it just a matter of pay-back time?

    I'm being a little cheeky but thanks in advance for any advice.

    Considering the lengthy blackouts which the government are wargaming for this winter, I would be very happy with panels and a battery - I have neither. Considering buying a portable power bank and solar panels as emergency cover...
  • The three 'norths' combine over Britain for the first time in history! True north, magnetic north and grid north will line up near Swanage this month - and stay in the UK for 3.5 YEARS
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-11378187/True-north-magnetic-north-grid-north-combine-Britain-time-history.html
This discussion has been closed.