Yes Keir will be moving into No 10 next year! I have no great enthusiasm for this but it's happening!
Probably with a small overall majority maybe around 30?
I'd place the majority nearer to single digits. Will be 1974 all over again and I'd expect the second half of the decade to me just as miserable as the second half of the 70s lol!
The second half the 70s saw the Bee Gees release How Deep is Your Love.
It saw government debt drop from around 50% of GDP to under 40%.
The seventies were great. Cool music, strong growth in real incomes, loads of cheap housing, I was born... What's not to like?
The decor. All those revolting browns.
The electrical kit. So many shorts you'd think you were on a beach in Bermuda.
The cars. Build quality was just embarrassing.
True, our politicians weren't as bad, and although the economy was in a mess it wasn't as great a mess as it is now. But in other ways...
On topic, I still think the most likely recent analogy for the next election is 2010. A tired government runs out of steam despite a decent majority, and is overturned at the ballot box - but the Opposition don’t make sufficient gains to take over without cobbling together a coalition of some sort.
One might actually say that Starmer’s chances got a little bit better with the recent Scotland polls. He’s not going to get a majority without a couple of dozen gains north of the border.
“The Pentagon is yet to recover debris from the three UFOs shot down this weekend over Alaska, Canada and Michigan and is yet to offer any kind of explanation as to what they are, how they were able to fly, or whether they pose a genuine threat to America.”
...so says that authoritative source the Daily Mail.
The White House however has just said "there is no evidence of aliens or extra terrestrial activity".
“so says that authoritative source the Daily Mail.“
The Mail’s front page today shows how badly they are losing it. That arch remainers will meet in a country house and go through a PowerPoint slide pack is not a news story - that arch brexiteers like Gove joined them is a news story, but not the angle the mail is reporting on - arch remainers plot against Brexit is how they splashing it you have to read down to find the incendiary facts Gove and other leader brexiteers were there. 😆
Brexit has really gone super-exclusive if Gove is no longer deemed a 'proper' Leaver.
Proper Leaverdom is very loosely correlated with reality. Remainer Truss is a Proper Leaver, passionate leaver Sunak is not.
I don't think we need such abstract concepts as personality/'connection to reality' (as defined by remainers naturally) to judge 'proper' leaverdom. Proper leavers wish us to use the flexibility afforded by Brexit for the benefit of the UK. That may involve actually repealing some EU laws, stepping away from some EU projects, tax cuts that were hitherto forbidden, institutional changes away from harmonised administration across the bloc etc. Some want all of those, some just some. A 'not-proper' leaver may speak through gritted teeth about 'the opportunities of Brexit' but will oppose any moves like those above that would make hiccoughs on the road to rejoining. That's why it is difficult to call Sunak or Gove 'proper leavers' at this time.
Claiming Gove is not a proper leaver just because he wants to try and make things work rather than Johnson and Rees Mogg's bull in a china shop approach is just plain dumb. He is one of the few Ministers who actually tried to start doing something positive around post Brexit reforms, particularly at DEFRA. The idea that the only 'pure and proper' Brexit is one that sweeps away every last vestige of EU law in as short a time as possible is really, really stupid.
I agree with you. I think it goes back to how the Mail were being so weird in how they covered the story. It’s not just the bull in a China shop Brexit that will satisfy all leave voters, to use your phrase, but it is the only Brexit that will satisfy the bull in the China shop brexiteers. Hence they build the story around Frosty the noman saying his Brexit deal is not a failure, it was never properly implemented is the failure. That’s the story the mail is pushing.
The actual story is leading brexiteers and remainers are talking to each other about next steps. Don’t get me wrong, we will probably never be in EU ever again to the extent we were - but the reason for Gove and Mandleson in a next steps seminar together is because the bull in the China shop Brexit favoured by the mail is dead, it was never going to deliver, it’s going to be consigned to the dustbin forever, because they only had the one chance to make bull in China shop Brexit work, they failed, and they will never have the power for a bull in a China shop Brexit ever again, that moment has sailed.
Hence the next steps seminar. The country moves on.
I can't find any element of this that reflects reality. Lord Frost is very critical of his own deal, which he blames on the lack of leverage because the country wasn't able to leave without a deal.
JRM's Retained EU law bill is actually quite carefully considered, and I cannot see any evidence for the sort of legal vacuum scenario that Richard mentions within the way the bill is planned. We have left the EU, why would we remain subject to EU law, and why would that law remain superior to parliamentary statute? That's not an extreme version of Brexit, it's the basic version as expected and understood by everyone on both sides of the Brexit debate.
Gove has undoubted merits, but has always been a slimy toad. It is zero surprise that nobody trusts him on Brexit - it would be daft to trust him with a sharp pair of scissors.
Ireland slipped into a bloody civil war over wether to accept a deal or not. Michael Collins led the yes to the deal faction. The labour movement split over Europe, Lord Jenkins led a labour MP faction voting for Europe membership in a crucial vote Tory Primeminister would have lost if they hadn’t. That faction become the SDP whilst Labour put Brexit into its election manifesto.
What do I mean? Sometime during the next parliament Gove leads a faction of Tory MPs into the Labour Government lobby in a big vote on tweaking the existing Brexit deal. The Tories become split and bloody civil war over it.
Anyone who thinks day after the next GE the cleansing is over and it’s all uphill for the Tories is utterly deluded.
You'll be relieved to learn that I have managed to plough through one of your medium length essays. To be fair there were a few points I couldn't disagree with. But don't you think the Conservatives are like cockroaches and they will survive Armageddon?
Maybe not a split over brexit.
To be fair to LuckyMan, he defines brexit as no role at all for EU law - Brexit means not being subject to EU law any more - so any brexit deal with even a teeny bit of a role for EU law is a sell out worthy of Michael Collins or Lord Jenkins?
Do you see what I mean? The Tory problems with Brexit are only just beginning, if you consider up to this time it was a vague Brexit means Brexit and will bring sunlit uplands. Now, like the split in Irish politics long ago, they have to define the basis of a Brexit deal that both honours what Brexit means and brings sunlit uplands, without splitting as a party and a voter base.
Yes this could be the end of the Conservative Party. When you have always been fearing the darkness, no longer embracing the light you go to the raptures.
If you want to get to heaven you first have to pass through hell...
Sorry but fantasies about the death of the Conservative Party will prove as reliable as they did from around 1995 to 2002 and fantasies about the death of the Labour Party around 1992 and 2019.
Sure, they're going to lose the next election but the Tories are like cockroaches... they will always survive!
Exactly, the only way the Conservative Party ever dies is if RefUK overtakes it as the main party of the right under FPTP
Not true HY.
The party and voter base could pretty neatly split - just like Labour did in my example, and IRA did to leave two parties, in my example.
Note how Labour tensions did not split the party until after the election loss.
Also note exactly how the Tory Party splits during the next parliament had been beautifully defined for us tonight by LuckyMan. Brexit means not being subject to EU law any more, so any brexit deal with even a teeny bit of a role for EU law is a sell out, versus, the best Brexit deal for UK can include some small EU legal involvement only over very limited areas of the deal.
A neat split, but a bloody one over a key point of Brexit principle. RefUK don’t even exist after this split, subsumed into the first group, yet two groups of the right and centre right fielding candidates against each other as centre left and left did in the 1980s.
May have happened had May stayed, not now Brexit has been delivered. In fact the Conservatives will become even more like RefUK if they lose.
In 1983 the SDP only prospered as the centre between the Thatcherite Conservative hard right and the Foot Labour hard left but under FPTP still came 3rd in 1983.
Starmer already occupiers the centre ground so no room really for a pro EU centrist Tory party, especially under FPTP. Indeed the LDs already occupy that ground now anyway
Totally agree with you there is no “room really for a pro EU centrist Tory party”. But that doesn’t stop splits over Europe happening does it, it didn’t in the eighties.
I can tell you exactly why you are wrong, I can easily prove it to you. “But now Brexit has been delivered”
Are you saying there will never be votes in House of Commons where Tory rebels join Labour in changes to the Johnson Frost Brexit deal? You are saying never? That’s where I say you have it wrong.
And the proof comes from putting you on the spot. Which one are you?
Brexit means not being subject to EU law any more, so any brexit deal with even a teeny bit of a role for EU law is a sell out, versus, the best Brexit deal for UK economy and business can include some small EU legal involvement only over very limited areas of the deal.
Which one are you, you have to be one or the other? Are you with Gove and the rebels voting with Starmer (like Jenkins and crew 1973) or punching and spitting at the sell out traitors (like the Irish Civil War?)
My guess is that Starmer will either very minimally tinker at the edges with Brexit or will do nothing at all (which in itself will present all sorts of problems for Labour as you just know so many remainers like @Scott_xP are hanging onto Labours coat tails hoping there will be a reversal of Brexit)
Labour will have enough problems governing with a tiny majority, no money to spend and the Unions in an increasingly hostile and militant mood to do much about Brexit...
BREXIT will become synonymous with STRIKES....INFLATION... Tory SLEAZE .....Covid ....War in Europe....MORE SLEAZE....JOHNSON....TRUSS ...BRAVERMAN......PATEL....J-R M...DORRIES....GOVE....FROST....ERG....
With a small majority he'll do the obvious. Steady the ship and call another election. Then on a wave of optimism and hope gain a huge majority with carte blanche to re-tie the knot with Europe.....
As a case in point, human intelligence evolved less as a tool for pursuing objective truth than as a tool for pursuing personal well-being, tribal belonging, social status, and sex, and this often required the adoption of what I call “Fashionably Irrational Beliefs” (FIBs), which the brain has come to excel at……
Some of these FIBs can now be found everywhere. A particularly prominent example is wokeism, a popularized academic worldview that’s half conspiracy theory and half moral panic. Wokeism seeks to portray racism, sexism, and transphobia as endemic to Western society, and to scapegoat these forms of discrimination on white people generally and straight white men specifically, who are believed to be secretly trying to enforce such bigotries to maintain their place at the top of a social hierarchy.
Naturally, woke intellectuals don’t consider themselves alarmists or conspiracy theorists; they believe their intelligence gives them the unique ability to glimpse a hidden world of prejudices. What they don’t know is that high IQ people and low IQ people display similar levels of prejudice, except toward different groups, and educated people actually display greater prejudice against those with different views.
PB herds towards lumping on Labour, and not just on Labour but on Starmer at 1/4. One answer to the implied question in the header is if the Tories keep their majority. They do that by bigging up immigration. If necessary they can ditch no.4 in a row of their own leaders. The last one who went of his own accord was David Cameron.
On election night 2015, Ed Miliband went to bed expecting to wake up as Prime Minister.
Did he?
The exit poll was clear that the Tories were on the cusp of being the largest party (if not having an overall majority) while Labour was a long way behind with the Lib-Dems facing meltdown and Labour facing total oblivion to the SNP in Scotland.
So at 10pm the writing was on the Edstone lol.
That said, I get what you're saying. We're a long way from the election and a lot can happen. Maybe we'll have an alien invasion... that would probably be regarded as "events dear boy" and change the narrative hahahaha!
Indeed. Or WW3. Or an economic catastrophe. Anyone who lumps on the favourite when things are so volatile is taking a bigger risk than they think.
I don't think immigration can save the Tories. Recent comment on Talk (No fans of Labour) do point out they used to send more people back.
Immigration is the albatross around the Tory neck.
Their own supporters would be very happy to see a country with no immigrants, with the "just drown them" rhetoric always simmering away.
Problem is that as they refuse to engage with solutions, drowning them is basically all they have left and the Royal Navy refused last time it was proposed.
Dead migrants may excite a few, but repulses anyone who isn't a total stard. The newspaper front pages with the dead toddler face down on the beach in Greece horrified people - if we had the same on the beach at Hythe as a result of government policy there would be absolute outrage. Doubly so from the stards who were demanding exactly this kind of policy.
There is No Way to stop the boats because the Tories refuse to co-operate internationally. And the libertarian wing of the party looks at the ever growing labour shortage, and the migrants brought in and housed in misery not allowed to work and thinks "exploitable labour pool". All Starmer has to do to win on this subject is propose what the Tories can't do - control our borders.
You are assuming that the French government will enthusiastically implement any agreement. They won't. Historically, they haven't - at least for the long term.
This is because the local French hate the immigrants. Hate. Any policy that stops them getting to the UK creates anger. Hence the police standing around as the pile in to boats in front of them.
If Paris tries to *enforce* such an agreement, then
a) This mean using force against the immigrants. Which upsets the more liberal French. b) This means the immigrants pileup at the camps in France. Which upsets the locals.
Action was taken before, when immigrants trying to access the Channel Tunnel interrupted operations. Which would have been seen, at national level as an unacceptable interference with state infrastructure.
Why should the French government (local or national) stop the immigrants?
As a case in point, human intelligence evolved less as a tool for pursuing objective truth than as a tool for pursuing personal well-being, tribal belonging, social status, and sex, and this often required the adoption of what I call “Fashionably Irrational Beliefs” (FIBs), which the brain has come to excel at……
Some of these FIBs can now be found everywhere. A particularly prominent example is wokeism, a popularized academic worldview that’s half conspiracy theory and half moral panic. Wokeism seeks to portray racism, sexism, and transphobia as endemic to Western society, and to scapegoat these forms of discrimination on white people generally and straight white men specifically, who are believed to be secretly trying to enforce such bigotries to maintain their place at the top of a social hierarchy.
Naturally, woke intellectuals don’t consider themselves alarmists or conspiracy theorists; they believe their intelligence gives them the unique ability to glimpse a hidden world of prejudices. What they don’t know is that high IQ people and low IQ people display similar levels of prejudice, except toward different groups, and educated people actually display greater prejudice against those with different views.
He is stymied hugely by the nimbys in his own party, to whom the government caved over housing targets – but his current focus is the quality of housing stock, including building safety and the state of social housing.
Last week, he was offered the opportunity in the mini-reshuffle to move to the helm of the new science department, but opted to stay at the DLUHC. If Gove’s optimism is misplaced, and he has just two years left in government, perhaps it is easier to secure a personal legacy with bricks and mortar than gene editing or AI.
Gove New Town has a certain ring to it.
Long tradition in Scotland of new towns to improve the fisheries etc, not always successfully. Sometimes they were even named after the chief mover. One thinks of Ullapool, Leverburgh, Fraserburgh (not Fraserhead, pace Mr Gove), and Pulteneytown (the fine fishertown of Wick).
As a case in point, human intelligence evolved less as a tool for pursuing objective truth than as a tool for pursuing personal well-being, tribal belonging, social status, and sex, and this often required the adoption of what I call “Fashionably Irrational Beliefs” (FIBs), which the brain has come to excel at……
Some of these FIBs can now be found everywhere. A particularly prominent example is wokeism, a popularized academic worldview that’s half conspiracy theory and half moral panic. Wokeism seeks to portray racism, sexism, and transphobia as endemic to Western society, and to scapegoat these forms of discrimination on white people generally and straight white men specifically, who are believed to be secretly trying to enforce such bigotries to maintain their place at the top of a social hierarchy.
Naturally, woke intellectuals don’t consider themselves alarmists or conspiracy theorists; they believe their intelligence gives them the unique ability to glimpse a hidden world of prejudices. What they don’t know is that high IQ people and low IQ people display similar levels of prejudice, except toward different groups, and educated people actually display greater prejudice against those with different views.
The master-debaters that emerge from these institutions go on to become tomorrow’s elites—politicians, entertainers, and intellectuals.
And this is why Stonewall/Sturgeon/Mermaids have come unstuck:
Labyrinthine sophistry like “sex is a spectrum” prevails among cognitively sophisticated cultural elites, including those who should know better such as biologists, but it’s rarer among the common people, who lack the capacity for mental gymnastics required to accept such elaborate delusions.
Well, I don't know about you lot, but I can easily envisage scenarios where Starmer does not become Prime Minister.
For example ?
Heart attack. War with Russia. Labour losing the election. Aliens taking control of the world. Global ebola pandemic.
That kind of thing.
Sometimes I think you guys really lack imagination.
I was just interested in what you’d come up with. “Labour losing the election” isn’t a very interesting scenario.
...and probably the least likely on his list
As ydoethur pointed out, a credible theory of how Labour loses the next election would be quite interesting.
1) Starmer tears off the person mask to reveal the inner lizard 2) He announces a the 2024 manifesto is a photocopy of the 1983 manifesto with some changes. 3) These changes are leaving NATO and staying out of the EU. 4) Instead joining a resurrected Warsaw Pact and COMECON.
For background, Michael Harris is the dad of Tom Hollis, who was formerly Deputy Council Leader still a double councillor currently serving a community sentence for dishonestly trying to get his neighbour arrested for a fabricated violent crime.
Michael Harris used to be a Labour Councillor, and the whole family was claimed to have gone went Lab > Lib Dem around 2011, but by 2015 mum was reported representing Labour.
Tom Hollis moved on to Ashfield Independents around 2015 with Jason Zadrozny. No idea what happened to Michael Harris.
Hollis (Tom) was JZ's partner; no idea about current status.
I have heard enough rumours wrt planning irregularities to leave room for all of them. Link to the recent arrests of AI Councillors wrt alleged fraud - no idea !
https://twitter.com/T_Krawchenko/status/1625285246861312002 Somehow, the notion of Russia 'civilizing' its colonies persists in many quarters. I took classes in Uni where profs argued this. The reality is however colonization and persistent social stratification. Take for example what happened in Kyrgyzstan...
As a case in point, human intelligence evolved less as a tool for pursuing objective truth than as a tool for pursuing personal well-being, tribal belonging, social status, and sex, and this often required the adoption of what I call “Fashionably Irrational Beliefs” (FIBs), which the brain has come to excel at……
Some of these FIBs can now be found everywhere. A particularly prominent example is wokeism, a popularized academic worldview that’s half conspiracy theory and half moral panic. Wokeism seeks to portray racism, sexism, and transphobia as endemic to Western society, and to scapegoat these forms of discrimination on white people generally and straight white men specifically, who are believed to be secretly trying to enforce such bigotries to maintain their place at the top of a social hierarchy.
Naturally, woke intellectuals don’t consider themselves alarmists or conspiracy theorists; they believe their intelligence gives them the unique ability to glimpse a hidden world of prejudices. What they don’t know is that high IQ people and low IQ people display similar levels of prejudice, except toward different groups, and educated people actually display greater prejudice against those with different views.
The master-debaters that emerge from these institutions go on to become tomorrow’s elites—politicians, entertainers, and intellectuals.
And this is why Stonewall/Sturgeon/Mermaids have come unstuck:
Labyrinthine sophistry like “sex is a spectrum” prevails among cognitively sophisticated cultural elites, including those who should know better such as biologists, but it’s rarer among the common people, who lack the capacity for mental gymnastics required to accept such elaborate delusions.
I'd forgotten Samuel Cartwright - a brilliant example of a clever man who was led by beliefs into an amazingly stupid conclusion.
Yes Keir will be moving into No 10 next year! I have no great enthusiasm for this but it's happening!
Probably with a small overall majority maybe around 30?
I'd place the majority nearer to single digits. Will be 1974 all over again and I'd expect the second half of the decade to me just as miserable as the second half of the 70s lol!
The second half the 70s saw the Bee Gees release How Deep is Your Love.
It saw government debt drop from around 50% of GDP to under 40%.
The seventies were great. Cool music, strong growth in real incomes, loads of cheap housing, I was born... What's not to like?
The bad part of the Seventies was 1971 to 1975. Rampant inflation, strikes, terrorism, and (on the face of it) victories for communism in South East Asia and Africa.
https://twitter.com/T_Krawchenko/status/1625285246861312002 Somehow, the notion of Russia 'civilizing' its colonies persists in many quarters. I took classes in Uni where profs argued this. The reality is however colonization and persistent social stratification. Take for example what happened in Kyrgyzstan...
Didn't you get the message? - Russian colonialism isn't colonialism because they weren't the Leading World Power at the time.
Said theory suggest the Belgian Congo wasn't colonialism, either. But hey....
Incidentally, why is Mad Vlad trying to stir things up in Moldova? I mean, he can't even control the fecking Donbas, what chance has he got of dealing with a country that he doesn't share a border with?
Russia put a lot of effort and money into getting Dodon re-elected but the pudgy criminal came up short against Sandu. Sandu feels the EU would be greatly adorned by the addition of a stoney broke, corrupt as fuck Eastern European shit tip and is judged to be more Russoskeptical than Dodon. She told the Russian to get their troops out of Transnistria but the reply was, "No. LOL. Do something."
So Sandu is a pain in the dick for the RF and they think that as Moldova isn't exactly a bastion of stability and good governance they might be able to collapse the government and get a more sympathetic president - Dodon or Shor.
PB herds towards lumping on Labour, and not just on Labour but on Starmer at 1/4. One answer to the implied question in the header is if the Tories keep their majority. They do that by bigging up immigration. If necessary they can ditch no.4 in a row of their own leaders. The last one who went of his own accord was David Cameron.
On election night 2015, Ed Miliband went to bed expecting to wake up as Prime Minister.
Did he?
The exit poll was clear that the Tories were on the cusp of being the largest party (if not having an overall majority) while Labour was a long way behind with the Lib-Dems facing meltdown and Labour facing total oblivion to the SNP in Scotland.
So at 10pm the writing was on the Edstone lol.
That said, I get what you're saying. We're a long way from the election and a lot can happen. Maybe we'll have an alien invasion... that would probably be regarded as "events dear boy" and change the narrative hahahaha!
Indeed. Or WW3. Or an economic catastrophe. Anyone who lumps on the favourite when things are so volatile is taking a bigger risk than they think.
I don't think immigration can save the Tories. Recent comment on Talk (No fans of Labour) do point out they used to send more people back.
Immigration is the albatross around the Tory neck.
Their own supporters would be very happy to see a country with no immigrants, with the "just drown them" rhetoric always simmering away.
Problem is that as they refuse to engage with solutions, drowning them is basically all they have left and the Royal Navy refused last time it was proposed.
Dead migrants may excite a few, but repulses anyone who isn't a total stard. The newspaper front pages with the dead toddler face down on the beach in Greece horrified people - if we had the same on the beach at Hythe as a result of government policy there would be absolute outrage. Doubly so from the stards who were demanding exactly this kind of policy.
There is No Way to stop the boats because the Tories refuse to co-operate internationally. And the libertarian wing of the party looks at the ever growing labour shortage, and the migrants brought in and housed in misery not allowed to work and thinks "exploitable labour pool". All Starmer has to do to win on this subject is propose what the Tories can't do - control our borders.
You are assuming that the French government will enthusiastically implement any agreement. They won't. Historically, they haven't - at least for the long term.
This is because the local French hate the immigrants. Hate. Any policy that stops them getting to the UK creates anger. Hence the police standing around as the pile in to boats in front of them.
If Paris tries to *enforce* such an agreement, then
a) This mean using force against the immigrants. Which upsets the more liberal French. b) This means the immigrants pileup at the camps in France. Which upsets the locals.
Action was taken before, when immigrants trying to access the Channel Tunnel interrupted operations. Which would have been seen, at national level as an unacceptable interference with state infrastructure.
Why should the French government (local or national) stop the immigrants?
Because they don't want vast camps in Pas de Calais. So we work together on stopping them arriving there at all. For starters we work with source nations like Albania. All the Albanians are coming via France and small boats because there is no legal route they can use. Same with Afghanistan. And there are various other examples - whither Braverman getting stumped at the select committee by a Tory backbencher.
Slow the flow into France and the French work with us. As they have said they want to do. As they have done in the past.
Yes Keir will be moving into No 10 next year! I have no great enthusiasm for this but it's happening!
Probably with a small overall majority maybe around 30?
I'd place the majority nearer to single digits. Will be 1974 all over again and I'd expect the second half of the decade to me just as miserable as the second half of the 70s lol!
The second half the 70s saw the Bee Gees release How Deep is Your Love.
It saw government debt drop from around 50% of GDP to under 40%.
The seventies were great. Cool music, strong growth in real incomes, loads of cheap housing, I was born... What's not to like?
The bad part of the Seventies was 1971 to 1975. Rampant inflation, strikes, terrorism, and (on the face of it) victories for communism in South East Asia and Africa.
For me the 70's were great, monthly pay rises , cheap beer , great music, though fashion was a bit dodgy to say the least.
PB herds towards lumping on Labour, and not just on Labour but on Starmer at 1/4. One answer to the implied question in the header is if the Tories keep their majority. They do that by bigging up immigration. If necessary they can ditch no.4 in a row of their own leaders. The last one who went of his own accord was David Cameron.
On election night 2015, Ed Miliband went to bed expecting to wake up as Prime Minister.
Did he?
The exit poll was clear that the Tories were on the cusp of being the largest party (if not having an overall majority) while Labour was a long way behind with the Lib-Dems facing meltdown and Labour facing total oblivion to the SNP in Scotland.
So at 10pm the writing was on the Edstone lol.
That said, I get what you're saying. We're a long way from the election and a lot can happen. Maybe we'll have an alien invasion... that would probably be regarded as "events dear boy" and change the narrative hahahaha!
Indeed. Or WW3. Or an economic catastrophe. Anyone who lumps on the favourite when things are so volatile is taking a bigger risk than they think.
I don't think immigration can save the Tories. Recent comment on Talk (No fans of Labour) do point out they used to send more people back.
Immigration is the albatross around the Tory neck.
Their own supporters would be very happy to see a country with no immigrants, with the "just drown them" rhetoric always simmering away.
Problem is that as they refuse to engage with solutions, drowning them is basically all they have left and the Royal Navy refused last time it was proposed.
Dead migrants may excite a few, but repulses anyone who isn't a total stard. The newspaper front pages with the dead toddler face down on the beach in Greece horrified people - if we had the same on the beach at Hythe as a result of government policy there would be absolute outrage. Doubly so from the stards who were demanding exactly this kind of policy.
There is No Way to stop the boats because the Tories refuse to co-operate internationally. And the libertarian wing of the party looks at the ever growing labour shortage, and the migrants brought in and housed in misery not allowed to work and thinks "exploitable labour pool". All Starmer has to do to win on this subject is propose what the Tories can't do - control our borders.
You are assuming that the French government will enthusiastically implement any agreement. They won't. Historically, they haven't - at least for the long term.
This is because the local French hate the immigrants. Hate. Any policy that stops them getting to the UK creates anger. Hence the police standing around as the pile in to boats in front of them.
If Paris tries to *enforce* such an agreement, then
a) This mean using force against the immigrants. Which upsets the more liberal French. b) This means the immigrants pileup at the camps in France. Which upsets the locals.
Action was taken before, when immigrants trying to access the Channel Tunnel interrupted operations. Which would have been seen, at national level as an unacceptable interference with state infrastructure.
Why should the French government (local or national) stop the immigrants?
Because they don't want vast camps in Pas de Calais. So we work together on stopping them arriving there at all. For starters we work with source nations like Albania. All the Albanians are coming via France and small boats because there is no legal route they can use. Same with Afghanistan. And there are various other examples - whither Braverman getting stumped at the select committee by a Tory backbencher.
Slow the flow into France and the French work with us. As they have said they want to do. As they have done in the past.
So you mean solve immigration for the the French. Which means solving the issue of why Albanians want out of Albania. And why they think that coming to the UK is a good idea.
He is stymied hugely by the nimbys in his own party, to whom the government caved over housing targets – but his current focus is the quality of housing stock, including building safety and the state of social housing.
Last week, he was offered the opportunity in the mini-reshuffle to move to the helm of the new science department, but opted to stay at the DLUHC. If Gove’s optimism is misplaced, and he has just two years left in government, perhaps it is easier to secure a personal legacy with bricks and mortar than gene editing or AI.
Gove New Town has a certain ring to it.
Long tradition in Scotland of new towns to improve the fisheries etc, not always successfully. Sometimes they were even named after the chief mover. One thinks of Ullapool, Leverburgh, Fraserburgh (not Fraserhead, pace Mr Gove), and Pulteneytown (the fine fishertown of Wick).
Mrs RP and I sat on the pier in Crovie on Sunday wondering what life must have been like in tiny isolated fishing communities. Of course we then saw the really small harbours close and the fleets consolidate into larger ones, several times over.
Fraserburgh saw its passenger rail station close in 1965. What gets missed is that right to the end it had its own branchline out to St Combs. This was built as a light railway to get fishermen living in Cairnbulg and St Combs to the new location of their fishing boats which was Fraserburgh.
So these new towns didn't just open for fishing. They literally acted as a magnet to draw in the fleets from their local predecessors.
PB herds towards lumping on Labour, and not just on Labour but on Starmer at 1/4. One answer to the implied question in the header is if the Tories keep their majority. They do that by bigging up immigration. If necessary they can ditch no.4 in a row of their own leaders. The last one who went of his own accord was David Cameron.
On election night 2015, Ed Miliband went to bed expecting to wake up as Prime Minister.
Did he?
The exit poll was clear that the Tories were on the cusp of being the largest party (if not having an overall majority) while Labour was a long way behind with the Lib-Dems facing meltdown and Labour facing total oblivion to the SNP in Scotland.
So at 10pm the writing was on the Edstone lol.
That said, I get what you're saying. We're a long way from the election and a lot can happen. Maybe we'll have an alien invasion... that would probably be regarded as "events dear boy" and change the narrative hahahaha!
Indeed. Or WW3. Or an economic catastrophe. Anyone who lumps on the favourite when things are so volatile is taking a bigger risk than they think.
I don't think immigration can save the Tories. Recent comment on Talk (No fans of Labour) do point out they used to send more people back.
Immigration is the albatross around the Tory neck.
Their own supporters would be very happy to see a country with no immigrants, with the "just drown them" rhetoric always simmering away.
Problem is that as they refuse to engage with solutions, drowning them is basically all they have left and the Royal Navy refused last time it was proposed.
Dead migrants may excite a few, but repulses anyone who isn't a total stard. The newspaper front pages with the dead toddler face down on the beach in Greece horrified people - if we had the same on the beach at Hythe as a result of government policy there would be absolute outrage. Doubly so from the stards who were demanding exactly this kind of policy.
There is No Way to stop the boats because the Tories refuse to co-operate internationally. And the libertarian wing of the party looks at the ever growing labour shortage, and the migrants brought in and housed in misery not allowed to work and thinks "exploitable labour pool". All Starmer has to do to win on this subject is propose what the Tories can't do - control our borders.
You are assuming that the French government will enthusiastically implement any agreement. They won't. Historically, they haven't - at least for the long term.
This is because the local French hate the immigrants. Hate. Any policy that stops them getting to the UK creates anger. Hence the police standing around as the pile in to boats in front of them.
If Paris tries to *enforce* such an agreement, then
a) This mean using force against the immigrants. Which upsets the more liberal French. b) This means the immigrants pileup at the camps in France. Which upsets the locals.
Action was taken before, when immigrants trying to access the Channel Tunnel interrupted operations. Which would have been seen, at national level as an unacceptable interference with state infrastructure.
Why should the French government (local or national) stop the immigrants?
Because they don't want vast camps in Pas de Calais. So we work together on stopping them arriving there at all. For starters we work with source nations like Albania. All the Albanians are coming via France and small boats because there is no legal route they can use. Same with Afghanistan. And there are various other examples - whither Braverman getting stumped at the select committee by a Tory backbencher.
Slow the flow into France and the French work with us. As they have said they want to do. As they have done in the past.
Slow the flow into France how?
The not-very-publicised EU policy of funding militias to keep them in North Africa was withdrawn 12 months (?) ago.
For background, Michael Harris is the dad of Tom Hollis, who was formerly Deputy Council Leader still a double councillor currently serving a community sentence for dishonestly trying to get his neighbour arrested for a fabricated violent crime.
Michael Harris used to be a Labour Councillor, and the whole family was claimed to have gone went Lab > Lib Dem around 2011, but by 2015 mum was reported representing Labour.
Tom Hollis moved on to Ashfield Independents around 2015 with Jason Zadrozny. No idea what happened to Michael Harris.
Hollis (Tom) was JZ's partner; no idea about current status.
I have heard enough rumours wrt planning irregularities to leave room for all of them. Link to the recent arrests of AI Councillors wrt alleged fraud - no idea !
I have heard a lot of "cash in brown envelopes" allegations made by one councillor against a political opponent. Which isn't just libelling the councillor accused, its libelling the council officers and likely the developer as well.
Perhaps as most of these outrageous allegations get ignored it becomes less risk to make them. Until "I'll sue you" becomes reality.
I've been threatened with libel action by another councillor. Pointing out that (a) what I said was factual and (b) I have the screenshots from his Facebook page to prove it shut him up.
Yes Keir will be moving into No 10 next year! I have no great enthusiasm for this but it's happening!
Probably with a small overall majority maybe around 30?
I'd place the majority nearer to single digits. Will be 1974 all over again and I'd expect the second half of the decade to me just as miserable as the second half of the 70s lol!
The second half the 70s saw the Bee Gees release How Deep is Your Love.
It saw government debt drop from around 50% of GDP to under 40%.
The seventies were great. Cool music, strong growth in real incomes, loads of cheap housing, I was born... What's not to like?
The decor. All those revolting browns.
The electrical kit. So many shorts you'd think you were on a beach in Bermuda.
The cars. Build quality was just embarrassing.
True, our politicians weren't as bad, and although the economy was in a mess it wasn't as great a mess as it is now. But in other ways...
It was the time to be young
What did you get up to? I know people say if you remember the sixties you weren't there... I reckon we might start to see a flowering of creativity among my kids' generation. They have no incentive to live the conventional 9 to 5 life, it doesn't pay anymore, it's not worth chasing, so they might as well enjoy themselves and fulfill their creative urges.
For background, Michael Harris is the dad of Tom Hollis, who was formerly Deputy Council Leader still a double councillor currently serving a community sentence for dishonestly trying to get his neighbour arrested for a fabricated violent crime.
Michael Harris used to be a Labour Councillor, and the whole family was claimed to have gone went Lab > Lib Dem around 2011, but by 2015 mum was reported representing Labour.
Tom Hollis moved on to Ashfield Independents around 2015 with Jason Zadrozny. No idea what happened to Michael Harris.
Hollis (Tom) was JZ's partner; no idea about current status.
I have heard enough rumours wrt planning irregularities to leave room for all of them. Link to the recent arrests of AI Councillors wrt alleged fraud - no idea !
I have heard a lot of "cash in brown envelopes" allegations made by one councillor against a political opponent. Which isn't just libelling the councillor accused, its libelling the council officers and likely the developer as well.
Perhaps as most of these outrageous allegations get ignored it becomes less risk to make them. Until "I'll sue you" becomes reality.
I've been threatened with libel action by another councillor. Pointing out that (a) what I said was factual and (b) I have the screenshots from his Facebook page to prove it shut him up.
That's the problem with overpromoting effective local government campaigners- whatever wing of whatever party they're from. Especially the ones who specialise in campaigning rather than governing.
There's stuff you can get away with in the lowish stakes, low scrutiny world of local politics that simply doesn't pass muster when it's done on a bigger stage.
PB herds towards lumping on Labour, and not just on Labour but on Starmer at 1/4. One answer to the implied question in the header is if the Tories keep their majority. They do that by bigging up immigration. If necessary they can ditch no.4 in a row of their own leaders. The last one who went of his own accord was David Cameron.
On election night 2015, Ed Miliband went to bed expecting to wake up as Prime Minister.
Did he?
The exit poll was clear that the Tories were on the cusp of being the largest party (if not having an overall majority) while Labour was a long way behind with the Lib-Dems facing meltdown and Labour facing total oblivion to the SNP in Scotland.
So at 10pm the writing was on the Edstone lol.
That said, I get what you're saying. We're a long way from the election and a lot can happen. Maybe we'll have an alien invasion... that would probably be regarded as "events dear boy" and change the narrative hahahaha!
Indeed. Or WW3. Or an economic catastrophe. Anyone who lumps on the favourite when things are so volatile is taking a bigger risk than they think.
I don't think immigration can save the Tories. Recent comment on Talk (No fans of Labour) do point out they used to send more people back.
Immigration is the albatross around the Tory neck.
Their own supporters would be very happy to see a country with no immigrants, with the "just drown them" rhetoric always simmering away.
Problem is that as they refuse to engage with solutions, drowning them is basically all they have left and the Royal Navy refused last time it was proposed.
Dead migrants may excite a few, but repulses anyone who isn't a total stard. The newspaper front pages with the dead toddler face down on the beach in Greece horrified people - if we had the same on the beach at Hythe as a result of government policy there would be absolute outrage. Doubly so from the stards who were demanding exactly this kind of policy.
There is No Way to stop the boats because the Tories refuse to co-operate internationally. And the libertarian wing of the party looks at the ever growing labour shortage, and the migrants brought in and housed in misery not allowed to work and thinks "exploitable labour pool". All Starmer has to do to win on this subject is propose what the Tories can't do - control our borders.
You are assuming that the French government will enthusiastically implement any agreement. They won't. Historically, they haven't - at least for the long term.
This is because the local French hate the immigrants. Hate. Any policy that stops them getting to the UK creates anger. Hence the police standing around as the pile in to boats in front of them.
If Paris tries to *enforce* such an agreement, then
a) This mean using force against the immigrants. Which upsets the more liberal French. b) This means the immigrants pileup at the camps in France. Which upsets the locals.
Action was taken before, when immigrants trying to access the Channel Tunnel interrupted operations. Which would have been seen, at national level as an unacceptable interference with state infrastructure.
Why should the French government (local or national) stop the immigrants?
Because they don't want vast camps in Pas de Calais. So we work together on stopping them arriving there at all. For starters we work with source nations like Albania. All the Albanians are coming via France and small boats because there is no legal route they can use. Same with Afghanistan. And there are various other examples - whither Braverman getting stumped at the select committee by a Tory backbencher.
Slow the flow into France and the French work with us. As they have said they want to do. As they have done in the past.
Slow the flow into France how?
The not-very-publicised EU policy of funding militias to keep them in North Africa was withdrawn 12 months (?) ago.
They readjusted policy, not withdrew the funding.
The Libyan Coastguard is still.. er.. proactively rescuing* migrants from their boats.
*Taking them off the boats at gun point, sinking the boats and incarcerating the migrants.
Yes Keir will be moving into No 10 next year! I have no great enthusiasm for this but it's happening!
Probably with a small overall majority maybe around 30?
I'd place the majority nearer to single digits. Will be 1974 all over again and I'd expect the second half of the decade to me just as miserable as the second half of the 70s lol!
The second half the 70s saw the Bee Gees release How Deep is Your Love.
It saw government debt drop from around 50% of GDP to under 40%.
The seventies were great. Cool music, strong growth in real incomes, loads of cheap housing, I was born... What's not to like?
The decor. All those revolting browns.
The electrical kit. So many shorts you'd think you were on a beach in Bermuda.
The cars. Build quality was just embarrassing.
True, our politicians weren't as bad, and although the economy was in a mess it wasn't as great a mess as it is now. But in other ways...
It was the time to be young
What did you get up to? I know people say if you remember the sixties you weren't there... I reckon we might start to see a flowering of creativity among my kids' generation. They have no incentive to live the conventional 9 to 5 life, it doesn't pay anymore, it's not worth chasing, so they might as well enjoy themselves and fulfill their creative urges.
Terry Valentine : Did you ever dream about a place you never really recall being to before? A place that maybe only exists in your imagination? Some place far away, half remembered when you wake up. When you were there, though, you knew the language. You knew your way around. *That* was the sixties. [pause] Terry Valentine : No. It wasn't that either. It was just '66 and early '67. That's all there was.
Yes Keir will be moving into No 10 next year! I have no great enthusiasm for this but it's happening!
Probably with a small overall majority maybe around 30?
I'd place the majority nearer to single digits. Will be 1974 all over again and I'd expect the second half of the decade to me just as miserable as the second half of the 70s lol!
The second half the 70s saw the Bee Gees release How Deep is Your Love.
It saw government debt drop from around 50% of GDP to under 40%.
The seventies were great. Cool music, strong growth in real incomes, loads of cheap housing, I was born... What's not to like?
The bad part of the Seventies was 1971 to 1975. Rampant inflation, strikes, terrorism, and (on the face of it) victories for communism in South East Asia and Africa.
All those candlelit dinners - thanks to the power cuts. Very romantic.
On topic- part of the question is how much do the Conservatives want to still be in government after 2024?
By 1997, there was a considerable chunk of the Conservative party who rather hoped to be in opposition next time, all the better to remake the party in their own image. Similarly, at least some Lib Dems gave the impression of not enjoying government by the time of the 2015 election. Whereas for Brown in 2010, the will was still there, even if the energy, ideas and personnel weren't.
Yes Keir will be moving into No 10 next year! I have no great enthusiasm for this but it's happening!
Probably with a small overall majority maybe around 30?
I'd place the majority nearer to single digits. Will be 1974 all over again and I'd expect the second half of the decade to me just as miserable as the second half of the 70s lol!
The second half the 70s saw the Bee Gees release How Deep is Your Love.
It saw government debt drop from around 50% of GDP to under 40%.
The seventies were great. Cool music, strong growth in real incomes, loads of cheap housing, I was born... What's not to like?
The bad part of the Seventies was 1971 to 1975. Rampant inflation, strikes, terrorism, and (on the face of it) victories for communism in South East Asia and Africa.
All those candlelit dinners - thanks to the power cuts. Very romantic.
Non-COVID excess deaths below 1,000 for the latest week. Interesting that COVID deaths are tracking the non-COVID deaths. I guess it could be that most of the COVID deaths are deaths with rather than from COVID, but perhaps it is also related to COVID and other nasty stuff spreading with people socialising in the run up to and during Christmas.
Week-ending | 5-year average | COVID deaths | non-COVID deaths | non-COVID deaths in excess of the 5-year average
He is stymied hugely by the nimbys in his own party, to whom the government caved over housing targets – but his current focus is the quality of housing stock, including building safety and the state of social housing.
Last week, he was offered the opportunity in the mini-reshuffle to move to the helm of the new science department, but opted to stay at the DLUHC. If Gove’s optimism is misplaced, and he has just two years left in government, perhaps it is easier to secure a personal legacy with bricks and mortar than gene editing or AI.
Gove New Town has a certain ring to it.
Long tradition in Scotland of new towns to improve the fisheries etc, not always successfully. Sometimes they were even named after the chief mover. One thinks of Ullapool, Leverburgh, Fraserburgh (not Fraserhead, pace Mr Gove), and Pulteneytown (the fine fishertown of Wick).
Mrs RP and I sat on the pier in Crovie on Sunday wondering what life must have been like in tiny isolated fishing communities. Of course we then saw the really small harbours close and the fleets consolidate into larger ones, several times over.
Fraserburgh saw its passenger rail station close in 1965. What gets missed is that right to the end it had its own branchline out to St Combs. This was built as a light railway to get fishermen living in Cairnbulg and St Combs to the new location of their fishing boats which was Fraserburgh.
So these new towns didn't just open for fishing. They literally acted as a magnet to draw in the fleets from their local predecessors.
Also a strong element of shove frsom the landowners, especially when the bottom fell out of the kelp market with the coming of peace in 1815. Simply dumping their peasantry on the seashore and telling them "We're not going to make the crofts big enough to survive on - there's the sea, get on and fish" wasn't enough.
Odd that Pulp never mentioned that in Sheffield: Sex City. (Definitely a contender for the greatest B side ever written. 8 minutes of South Yorkshire mysticism. In a just world it would be rightly revered as Sheffield's answer to Marquee Moon. What is Manchester's answer to this I wonder? Possibly the Chameleons' 'Swamp Thing'.)
Labour will have enough problems governing with a tiny majority, no money to spend and the Unions in an increasingly hostile and militant mood to do much about Brexit...
Starmer could engineer some favourable economic winds and the support of business by going back into the single market though so that must be tempting. He just has to ensure he doesn't enrage the blood and soil leavers too much before the election.
Yes, it's very clear that Starmer is lying about what be intends to do post election.
Why not as he lied about what he was going to do pre-election, jettisoning all the promises he made to the Labour Party members not to mention all his actions under Corbyn to get his current job?
The Tavistock calamity is a disgrace. But, thanks to whistleblowers and journalists determined to reveal the truth, it is at least a scandal subjected to the pitiless glare of scrutiny.
In Scotland, matters are arranged differently. Here it is considered scandalous to even raise these issues. The pretence that there is nothing to be examined must be maintained, no matter how ridiculous — and even wicked — that may be.
For Scotland has a Tavistock of its own. A decade ago, just 37 children were referred to the specialist Young People’s Gender Service at the Sandyford clinic in Glasgow. In 2021 that figure was 521. The Sandyford clinic operates on the same basis as the now discredited Tavistock clinic.
PB herds towards lumping on Labour, and not just on Labour but on Starmer at 1/4. One answer to the implied question in the header is if the Tories keep their majority. They do that by bigging up immigration. If necessary they can ditch no.4 in a row of their own leaders. The last one who went of his own accord was David Cameron.
On election night 2015, Ed Miliband went to bed expecting to wake up as Prime Minister.
Did he?
The exit poll was clear that the Tories were on the cusp of being the largest party (if not having an overall majority) while Labour was a long way behind with the Lib-Dems facing meltdown and Labour facing total oblivion to the SNP in Scotland.
So at 10pm the writing was on the Edstone lol.
That said, I get what you're saying. We're a long way from the election and a lot can happen. Maybe we'll have an alien invasion... that would probably be regarded as "events dear boy" and change the narrative hahahaha!
Indeed. Or WW3. Or an economic catastrophe. Anyone who lumps on the favourite when things are so volatile is taking a bigger risk than they think.
I don't think immigration can save the Tories. Recent comment on Talk (No fans of Labour) do point out they used to send more people back.
Immigration is the albatross around the Tory neck.
Their own supporters would be very happy to see a country with no immigrants, with the "just drown them" rhetoric always simmering away.
Problem is that as they refuse to engage with solutions, drowning them is basically all they have left and the Royal Navy refused last time it was proposed.
Dead migrants may excite a few, but repulses anyone who isn't a total stard. The newspaper front pages with the dead toddler face down on the beach in Greece horrified people - if we had the same on the beach at Hythe as a result of government policy there would be absolute outrage. Doubly so from the stards who were demanding exactly this kind of policy.
There is No Way to stop the boats because the Tories refuse to co-operate internationally. And the libertarian wing of the party looks at the ever growing labour shortage, and the migrants brought in and housed in misery not allowed to work and thinks "exploitable labour pool". All Starmer has to do to win on this subject is propose what the Tories can't do - control our borders.
You are assuming that the French government will enthusiastically implement any agreement. They won't. Historically, they haven't - at least for the long term.
This is because the local French hate the immigrants. Hate. Any policy that stops them getting to the UK creates anger. Hence the police standing around as the pile in to boats in front of them.
If Paris tries to *enforce* such an agreement, then
a) This mean using force against the immigrants. Which upsets the more liberal French. b) This means the immigrants pileup at the camps in France. Which upsets the locals.
Action was taken before, when immigrants trying to access the Channel Tunnel interrupted operations. Which would have been seen, at national level as an unacceptable interference with state infrastructure.
Why should the French government (local or national) stop the immigrants?
Because they don't want vast camps in Pas de Calais. So we work together on stopping them arriving there at all. For starters we work with source nations like Albania. All the Albanians are coming via France and small boats because there is no legal route they can use. Same with Afghanistan. And there are various other examples - whither Braverman getting stumped at the select committee by a Tory backbencher.
Slow the flow into France and the French work with us. As they have said they want to do. As they have done in the past.
Slow the flow into France how?
The not-very-publicised EU policy of funding militias to keep them in North Africa was withdrawn 12 months (?) ago.
A significant number are Albanians. Who cannot seek asylum in the UK via a legal route. Open one up and there is no need to enter france and get on a small boat.
Labour will have enough problems governing with a tiny majority, no money to spend and the Unions in an increasingly hostile and militant mood to do much about Brexit...
Starmer could engineer some favourable economic winds and the support of business by going back into the single market though so that must be tempting. He just has to ensure he doesn't enrage the blood and soil leavers too much before the election.
Yes, it's very clear that Starmer is lying about what be intends to do post election.
Why not as he lied about what he was going to do pre-election, jettisoning all the promises he made to the Labour Party members not to mention all his actions under Corbyn to get his current job?
PB herds towards lumping on Labour, and not just on Labour but on Starmer at 1/4. One answer to the implied question in the header is if the Tories keep their majority. They do that by bigging up immigration. If necessary they can ditch no.4 in a row of their own leaders. The last one who went of his own accord was David Cameron.
On election night 2015, Ed Miliband went to bed expecting to wake up as Prime Minister.
Did he?
The exit poll was clear that the Tories were on the cusp of being the largest party (if not having an overall majority) while Labour was a long way behind with the Lib-Dems facing meltdown and Labour facing total oblivion to the SNP in Scotland.
So at 10pm the writing was on the Edstone lol.
That said, I get what you're saying. We're a long way from the election and a lot can happen. Maybe we'll have an alien invasion... that would probably be regarded as "events dear boy" and change the narrative hahahaha!
Indeed. Or WW3. Or an economic catastrophe. Anyone who lumps on the favourite when things are so volatile is taking a bigger risk than they think.
I don't think immigration can save the Tories. Recent comment on Talk (No fans of Labour) do point out they used to send more people back.
Immigration is the albatross around the Tory neck.
Their own supporters would be very happy to see a country with no immigrants, with the "just drown them" rhetoric always simmering away.
Problem is that as they refuse to engage with solutions, drowning them is basically all they have left and the Royal Navy refused last time it was proposed.
Dead migrants may excite a few, but repulses anyone who isn't a total stard. The newspaper front pages with the dead toddler face down on the beach in Greece horrified people - if we had the same on the beach at Hythe as a result of government policy there would be absolute outrage. Doubly so from the stards who were demanding exactly this kind of policy.
There is No Way to stop the boats because the Tories refuse to co-operate internationally. And the libertarian wing of the party looks at the ever growing labour shortage, and the migrants brought in and housed in misery not allowed to work and thinks "exploitable labour pool". All Starmer has to do to win on this subject is propose what the Tories can't do - control our borders.
You are assuming that the French government will enthusiastically implement any agreement. They won't. Historically, they haven't - at least for the long term.
This is because the local French hate the immigrants. Hate. Any policy that stops them getting to the UK creates anger. Hence the police standing around as the pile in to boats in front of them.
If Paris tries to *enforce* such an agreement, then
a) This mean using force against the immigrants. Which upsets the more liberal French. b) This means the immigrants pileup at the camps in France. Which upsets the locals.
Action was taken before, when immigrants trying to access the Channel Tunnel interrupted operations. Which would have been seen, at national level as an unacceptable interference with state infrastructure.
Why should the French government (local or national) stop the immigrants?
Because they don't want vast camps in Pas de Calais. So we work together on stopping them arriving there at all. For starters we work with source nations like Albania. All the Albanians are coming via France and small boats because there is no legal route they can use. Same with Afghanistan. And there are various other examples - whither Braverman getting stumped at the select committee by a Tory backbencher.
Slow the flow into France and the French work with us. As they have said they want to do. As they have done in the past.
Slow the flow into France how?
The not-very-publicised EU policy of funding militias to keep them in North Africa was withdrawn 12 months (?) ago.
A significant number are Albanians. Who cannot seek asylum in the UK via a legal route. Open one up and there is no need to enter france and get on a small boat.
Why are Albanians seeking asylum in the UK? Should they be eligible?
Labour will have enough problems governing with a tiny majority, no money to spend and the Unions in an increasingly hostile and militant mood to do much about Brexit...
Starmer could engineer some favourable economic winds and the support of business by going back into the single market though so that must be tempting. He just has to ensure he doesn't enrage the blood and soil leavers too much before the election.
Yes, it's very clear that Starmer is lying about what be intends to do post election.
Why not as he lied about what he was going to do pre-election, jettisoning all the promises he made to the Labour Party members not to mention all his actions under Corbyn to get his current job?
The man is a serial liar.
He’s a lawyer!
I'm assuming all those Tories who voted for Boris and who are now bleating about Starmer being a liar are using the description as a compliment?
Quote Tweet MattinWoolwich @MattWWoolwich · 11 Feb UK is screwed. Can’t erect a garden shed, put a cafe on your farm, stick tables outside your bar, build a house, expand a life sciences lab, or erect a solar panel, without a clipboard-toting shadow industry (local govt, CPRE, MPs, busybodies) trying to stop you. twitter.com/tomwilliamsism… 2:43 pm · 12 Feb 2023"
"More 16-24-year-olds get jobs as living costs bite
The Office for National Statistics said a record number of people moved out of "economic inactivity", which is defined as people not looking for work, between July and December, as more got jobs.
It was driven by people in the 16-24 age group, as well as 50-64-year-olds.
One analyst suggested a "great unretirement" trend had emerged, with older people returning to work."
PB herds towards lumping on Labour, and not just on Labour but on Starmer at 1/4. One answer to the implied question in the header is if the Tories keep their majority. They do that by bigging up immigration. If necessary they can ditch no.4 in a row of their own leaders. The last one who went of his own accord was David Cameron.
On election night 2015, Ed Miliband went to bed expecting to wake up as Prime Minister.
Did he?
The exit poll was clear that the Tories were on the cusp of being the largest party (if not having an overall majority) while Labour was a long way behind with the Lib-Dems facing meltdown and Labour facing total oblivion to the SNP in Scotland.
So at 10pm the writing was on the Edstone lol.
That said, I get what you're saying. We're a long way from the election and a lot can happen. Maybe we'll have an alien invasion... that would probably be regarded as "events dear boy" and change the narrative hahahaha!
Indeed. Or WW3. Or an economic catastrophe. Anyone who lumps on the favourite when things are so volatile is taking a bigger risk than they think.
I don't think immigration can save the Tories. Recent comment on Talk (No fans of Labour) do point out they used to send more people back.
Immigration is the albatross around the Tory neck.
Their own supporters would be very happy to see a country with no immigrants, with the "just drown them" rhetoric always simmering away.
Problem is that as they refuse to engage with solutions, drowning them is basically all they have left and the Royal Navy refused last time it was proposed.
Dead migrants may excite a few, but repulses anyone who isn't a total stard. The newspaper front pages with the dead toddler face down on the beach in Greece horrified people - if we had the same on the beach at Hythe as a result of government policy there would be absolute outrage. Doubly so from the stards who were demanding exactly this kind of policy.
There is No Way to stop the boats because the Tories refuse to co-operate internationally. And the libertarian wing of the party looks at the ever growing labour shortage, and the migrants brought in and housed in misery not allowed to work and thinks "exploitable labour pool". All Starmer has to do to win on this subject is propose what the Tories can't do - control our borders.
You are assuming that the French government will enthusiastically implement any agreement. They won't. Historically, they haven't - at least for the long term.
This is because the local French hate the immigrants. Hate. Any policy that stops them getting to the UK creates anger. Hence the police standing around as the pile in to boats in front of them.
If Paris tries to *enforce* such an agreement, then
a) This mean using force against the immigrants. Which upsets the more liberal French. b) This means the immigrants pileup at the camps in France. Which upsets the locals.
Action was taken before, when immigrants trying to access the Channel Tunnel interrupted operations. Which would have been seen, at national level as an unacceptable interference with state infrastructure.
Why should the French government (local or national) stop the immigrants?
Because they don't want vast camps in Pas de Calais. So we work together on stopping them arriving there at all. For starters we work with source nations like Albania. All the Albanians are coming via France and small boats because there is no legal route they can use. Same with Afghanistan. And there are various other examples - whither Braverman getting stumped at the select committee by a Tory backbencher.
Slow the flow into France and the French work with us. As they have said they want to do. As they have done in the past.
Slow the flow into France how?
The not-very-publicised EU policy of funding militias to keep them in North Africa was withdrawn 12 months (?) ago.
A significant number are Albanians. Who cannot seek asylum in the UK via a legal route. Open one up and there is no need to enter france and get on a small boat.
Why are Albanians seeking asylum in the UK? Should they be eligible?
Well, I don't know about you lot, but I can easily envisage scenarios where Starmer does not become Prime Minister.
For example ?
Heart attack. War with Russia. Labour losing the election. Aliens taking control of the world. Global ebola pandemic.
That kind of thing.
Sometimes I think you guys really lack imagination.
I was just interested in what you’d come up with. “Labour losing the election” isn’t a very interesting scenario.
...and probably the least likely on his list
As ydoethur pointed out, a credible theory of how Labour loses the next election would be quite interesting.
1) Starmer tears off the person mask to reveal the inner lizard 2) He announces a the 2024 manifesto is a photocopy of the 1983 manifesto with some changes. 3) These changes are leaving NATO and staying out of the EU. 4) Instead joining a resurrected Warsaw Pact and COMECON.
That might just save the Tories.
Might.
I see the LDs surging through the middle in that scenario.
Quote Tweet MattinWoolwich @MattWWoolwich · 11 Feb UK is screwed. Can’t erect a garden shed, put a cafe on your farm, stick tables outside your bar, build a house, expand a life sciences lab, or erect a solar panel, without a clipboard-toting shadow industry (local govt, CPRE, MPs, busybodies) trying to stop you. twitter.com/tomwilliamsism… 2:43 pm · 12 Feb 2023"
PB herds towards lumping on Labour, and not just on Labour but on Starmer at 1/4. One answer to the implied question in the header is if the Tories keep their majority. They do that by bigging up immigration. If necessary they can ditch no.4 in a row of their own leaders. The last one who went of his own accord was David Cameron.
On election night 2015, Ed Miliband went to bed expecting to wake up as Prime Minister.
Did he?
The exit poll was clear that the Tories were on the cusp of being the largest party (if not having an overall majority) while Labour was a long way behind with the Lib-Dems facing meltdown and Labour facing total oblivion to the SNP in Scotland.
So at 10pm the writing was on the Edstone lol.
That said, I get what you're saying. We're a long way from the election and a lot can happen. Maybe we'll have an alien invasion... that would probably be regarded as "events dear boy" and change the narrative hahahaha!
Indeed. Or WW3. Or an economic catastrophe. Anyone who lumps on the favourite when things are so volatile is taking a bigger risk than they think.
I don't think immigration can save the Tories. Recent comment on Talk (No fans of Labour) do point out they used to send more people back.
Immigration is the albatross around the Tory neck.
Their own supporters would be very happy to see a country with no immigrants, with the "just drown them" rhetoric always simmering away.
Problem is that as they refuse to engage with solutions, drowning them is basically all they have left and the Royal Navy refused last time it was proposed.
Dead migrants may excite a few, but repulses anyone who isn't a total stard. The newspaper front pages with the dead toddler face down on the beach in Greece horrified people - if we had the same on the beach at Hythe as a result of government policy there would be absolute outrage. Doubly so from the stards who were demanding exactly this kind of policy.
There is No Way to stop the boats because the Tories refuse to co-operate internationally. And the libertarian wing of the party looks at the ever growing labour shortage, and the migrants brought in and housed in misery not allowed to work and thinks "exploitable labour pool". All Starmer has to do to win on this subject is propose what the Tories can't do - control our borders.
You are assuming that the French government will enthusiastically implement any agreement. They won't. Historically, they haven't - at least for the long term.
This is because the local French hate the immigrants. Hate. Any policy that stops them getting to the UK creates anger. Hence the police standing around as the pile in to boats in front of them.
If Paris tries to *enforce* such an agreement, then
a) This mean using force against the immigrants. Which upsets the more liberal French. b) This means the immigrants pileup at the camps in France. Which upsets the locals.
Action was taken before, when immigrants trying to access the Channel Tunnel interrupted operations. Which would have been seen, at national level as an unacceptable interference with state infrastructure.
Why should the French government (local or national) stop the immigrants?
Because they don't want vast camps in Pas de Calais. So we work together on stopping them arriving there at all. For starters we work with source nations like Albania. All the Albanians are coming via France and small boats because there is no legal route they can use. Same with Afghanistan. And there are various other examples - whither Braverman getting stumped at the select committee by a Tory backbencher.
Slow the flow into France and the French work with us. As they have said they want to do. As they have done in the past.
Slow the flow into France how?
The not-very-publicised EU policy of funding militias to keep them in North Africa was withdrawn 12 months (?) ago.
A significant number are Albanians. Who cannot seek asylum in the UK via a legal route. Open one up and there is no need to enter france and get on a small boat.
Under what status are they claiming asylum though? I didn't think Albania was that unsafe a country? They are, for the most part, economic migrants, with no genuine refugee claim.
PB herds towards lumping on Labour, and not just on Labour but on Starmer at 1/4. One answer to the implied question in the header is if the Tories keep their majority. They do that by bigging up immigration. If necessary they can ditch no.4 in a row of their own leaders. The last one who went of his own accord was David Cameron.
On election night 2015, Ed Miliband went to bed expecting to wake up as Prime Minister.
Did he?
The exit poll was clear that the Tories were on the cusp of being the largest party (if not having an overall majority) while Labour was a long way behind with the Lib-Dems facing meltdown and Labour facing total oblivion to the SNP in Scotland.
So at 10pm the writing was on the Edstone lol.
That said, I get what you're saying. We're a long way from the election and a lot can happen. Maybe we'll have an alien invasion... that would probably be regarded as "events dear boy" and change the narrative hahahaha!
Indeed. Or WW3. Or an economic catastrophe. Anyone who lumps on the favourite when things are so volatile is taking a bigger risk than they think.
I don't think immigration can save the Tories. Recent comment on Talk (No fans of Labour) do point out they used to send more people back.
Immigration is the albatross around the Tory neck.
Their own supporters would be very happy to see a country with no immigrants, with the "just drown them" rhetoric always simmering away.
Problem is that as they refuse to engage with solutions, drowning them is basically all they have left and the Royal Navy refused last time it was proposed.
Dead migrants may excite a few, but repulses anyone who isn't a total stard. The newspaper front pages with the dead toddler face down on the beach in Greece horrified people - if we had the same on the beach at Hythe as a result of government policy there would be absolute outrage. Doubly so from the stards who were demanding exactly this kind of policy.
There is No Way to stop the boats because the Tories refuse to co-operate internationally. And the libertarian wing of the party looks at the ever growing labour shortage, and the migrants brought in and housed in misery not allowed to work and thinks "exploitable labour pool". All Starmer has to do to win on this subject is propose what the Tories can't do - control our borders.
You are assuming that the French government will enthusiastically implement any agreement. They won't. Historically, they haven't - at least for the long term.
This is because the local French hate the immigrants. Hate. Any policy that stops them getting to the UK creates anger. Hence the police standing around as the pile in to boats in front of them.
If Paris tries to *enforce* such an agreement, then
a) This mean using force against the immigrants. Which upsets the more liberal French. b) This means the immigrants pileup at the camps in France. Which upsets the locals.
Action was taken before, when immigrants trying to access the Channel Tunnel interrupted operations. Which would have been seen, at national level as an unacceptable interference with state infrastructure.
Why should the French government (local or national) stop the immigrants?
Because they don't want vast camps in Pas de Calais. So we work together on stopping them arriving there at all. For starters we work with source nations like Albania. All the Albanians are coming via France and small boats because there is no legal route they can use. Same with Afghanistan. And there are various other examples - whither Braverman getting stumped at the select committee by a Tory backbencher.
Slow the flow into France and the French work with us. As they have said they want to do. As they have done in the past.
Slow the flow into France how?
The not-very-publicised EU policy of funding militias to keep them in North Africa was withdrawn 12 months (?) ago.
A significant number are Albanians. Who cannot seek asylum in the UK via a legal route. Open one up and there is no need to enter france and get on a small boat.
Why are Albanians seeking asylum in the UK? Should they be eligible?
PB herds towards lumping on Labour, and not just on Labour but on Starmer at 1/4. One answer to the implied question in the header is if the Tories keep their majority. They do that by bigging up immigration. If necessary they can ditch no.4 in a row of their own leaders. The last one who went of his own accord was David Cameron.
On election night 2015, Ed Miliband went to bed expecting to wake up as Prime Minister.
Did he?
The exit poll was clear that the Tories were on the cusp of being the largest party (if not having an overall majority) while Labour was a long way behind with the Lib-Dems facing meltdown and Labour facing total oblivion to the SNP in Scotland.
So at 10pm the writing was on the Edstone lol.
That said, I get what you're saying. We're a long way from the election and a lot can happen. Maybe we'll have an alien invasion... that would probably be regarded as "events dear boy" and change the narrative hahahaha!
Indeed. Or WW3. Or an economic catastrophe. Anyone who lumps on the favourite when things are so volatile is taking a bigger risk than they think.
I don't think immigration can save the Tories. Recent comment on Talk (No fans of Labour) do point out they used to send more people back.
Immigration is the albatross around the Tory neck.
Their own supporters would be very happy to see a country with no immigrants, with the "just drown them" rhetoric always simmering away.
Problem is that as they refuse to engage with solutions, drowning them is basically all they have left and the Royal Navy refused last time it was proposed.
Dead migrants may excite a few, but repulses anyone who isn't a total stard. The newspaper front pages with the dead toddler face down on the beach in Greece horrified people - if we had the same on the beach at Hythe as a result of government policy there would be absolute outrage. Doubly so from the stards who were demanding exactly this kind of policy.
There is No Way to stop the boats because the Tories refuse to co-operate internationally. And the libertarian wing of the party looks at the ever growing labour shortage, and the migrants brought in and housed in misery not allowed to work and thinks "exploitable labour pool". All Starmer has to do to win on this subject is propose what the Tories can't do - control our borders.
You are assuming that the French government will enthusiastically implement any agreement. They won't. Historically, they haven't - at least for the long term.
This is because the local French hate the immigrants. Hate. Any policy that stops them getting to the UK creates anger. Hence the police standing around as the pile in to boats in front of them.
If Paris tries to *enforce* such an agreement, then
a) This mean using force against the immigrants. Which upsets the more liberal French. b) This means the immigrants pileup at the camps in France. Which upsets the locals.
Action was taken before, when immigrants trying to access the Channel Tunnel interrupted operations. Which would have been seen, at national level as an unacceptable interference with state infrastructure.
Why should the French government (local or national) stop the immigrants?
Because they don't want vast camps in Pas de Calais. So we work together on stopping them arriving there at all. For starters we work with source nations like Albania. All the Albanians are coming via France and small boats because there is no legal route they can use. Same with Afghanistan. And there are various other examples - whither Braverman getting stumped at the select committee by a Tory backbencher.
Slow the flow into France and the French work with us. As they have said they want to do. As they have done in the past.
Slow the flow into France how?
The not-very-publicised EU policy of funding militias to keep them in North Africa was withdrawn 12 months (?) ago.
A significant number are Albanians. Who cannot seek asylum in the UK via a legal route. Open one up and there is no need to enter france and get on a small boat.
How many would actually qualify for refugee status, say at the UK embassy in Tirana? I'd argue hardly any. Refugee status is being abused.
PB herds towards lumping on Labour, and not just on Labour but on Starmer at 1/4. One answer to the implied question in the header is if the Tories keep their majority. They do that by bigging up immigration. If necessary they can ditch no.4 in a row of their own leaders. The last one who went of his own accord was David Cameron.
On election night 2015, Ed Miliband went to bed expecting to wake up as Prime Minister.
Did he?
The exit poll was clear that the Tories were on the cusp of being the largest party (if not having an overall majority) while Labour was a long way behind with the Lib-Dems facing meltdown and Labour facing total oblivion to the SNP in Scotland.
So at 10pm the writing was on the Edstone lol.
That said, I get what you're saying. We're a long way from the election and a lot can happen. Maybe we'll have an alien invasion... that would probably be regarded as "events dear boy" and change the narrative hahahaha!
Indeed. Or WW3. Or an economic catastrophe. Anyone who lumps on the favourite when things are so volatile is taking a bigger risk than they think.
I don't think immigration can save the Tories. Recent comment on Talk (No fans of Labour) do point out they used to send more people back.
Immigration is the albatross around the Tory neck.
Their own supporters would be very happy to see a country with no immigrants, with the "just drown them" rhetoric always simmering away.
Problem is that as they refuse to engage with solutions, drowning them is basically all they have left and the Royal Navy refused last time it was proposed.
Dead migrants may excite a few, but repulses anyone who isn't a total stard. The newspaper front pages with the dead toddler face down on the beach in Greece horrified people - if we had the same on the beach at Hythe as a result of government policy there would be absolute outrage. Doubly so from the stards who were demanding exactly this kind of policy.
There is No Way to stop the boats because the Tories refuse to co-operate internationally. And the libertarian wing of the party looks at the ever growing labour shortage, and the migrants brought in and housed in misery not allowed to work and thinks "exploitable labour pool". All Starmer has to do to win on this subject is propose what the Tories can't do - control our borders.
You are assuming that the French government will enthusiastically implement any agreement. They won't. Historically, they haven't - at least for the long term.
This is because the local French hate the immigrants. Hate. Any policy that stops them getting to the UK creates anger. Hence the police standing around as the pile in to boats in front of them.
If Paris tries to *enforce* such an agreement, then
a) This mean using force against the immigrants. Which upsets the more liberal French. b) This means the immigrants pileup at the camps in France. Which upsets the locals.
Action was taken before, when immigrants trying to access the Channel Tunnel interrupted operations. Which would have been seen, at national level as an unacceptable interference with state infrastructure.
Why should the French government (local or national) stop the immigrants?
Because they don't want vast camps in Pas de Calais. So we work together on stopping them arriving there at all. For starters we work with source nations like Albania. All the Albanians are coming via France and small boats because there is no legal route they can use. Same with Afghanistan. And there are various other examples - whither Braverman getting stumped at the select committee by a Tory backbencher.
Slow the flow into France and the French work with us. As they have said they want to do. As they have done in the past.
Slow the flow into France how?
The not-very-publicised EU policy of funding militias to keep them in North Africa was withdrawn 12 months (?) ago.
A significant number are Albanians. Who cannot seek asylum in the UK via a legal route. Open one up and there is no need to enter france and get on a small boat.
Under what status are they claiming asylum though? I didn't think Albania was that unsafe a country? They are, for the most part, economic migrants, with no genuine refugee claim.
I believe that a number of them claim to have been reduced to debt peonage by the smuggling gangs.
PB herds towards lumping on Labour, and not just on Labour but on Starmer at 1/4. One answer to the implied question in the header is if the Tories keep their majority. They do that by bigging up immigration. If necessary they can ditch no.4 in a row of their own leaders. The last one who went of his own accord was David Cameron.
On election night 2015, Ed Miliband went to bed expecting to wake up as Prime Minister.
Did he?
The exit poll was clear that the Tories were on the cusp of being the largest party (if not having an overall majority) while Labour was a long way behind with the Lib-Dems facing meltdown and Labour facing total oblivion to the SNP in Scotland.
So at 10pm the writing was on the Edstone lol.
That said, I get what you're saying. We're a long way from the election and a lot can happen. Maybe we'll have an alien invasion... that would probably be regarded as "events dear boy" and change the narrative hahahaha!
Indeed. Or WW3. Or an economic catastrophe. Anyone who lumps on the favourite when things are so volatile is taking a bigger risk than they think.
I don't think immigration can save the Tories. Recent comment on Talk (No fans of Labour) do point out they used to send more people back.
Immigration is the albatross around the Tory neck.
Their own supporters would be very happy to see a country with no immigrants, with the "just drown them" rhetoric always simmering away.
Problem is that as they refuse to engage with solutions, drowning them is basically all they have left and the Royal Navy refused last time it was proposed.
Dead migrants may excite a few, but repulses anyone who isn't a total stard. The newspaper front pages with the dead toddler face down on the beach in Greece horrified people - if we had the same on the beach at Hythe as a result of government policy there would be absolute outrage. Doubly so from the stards who were demanding exactly this kind of policy.
There is No Way to stop the boats because the Tories refuse to co-operate internationally. And the libertarian wing of the party looks at the ever growing labour shortage, and the migrants brought in and housed in misery not allowed to work and thinks "exploitable labour pool". All Starmer has to do to win on this subject is propose what the Tories can't do - control our borders.
You are assuming that the French government will enthusiastically implement any agreement. They won't. Historically, they haven't - at least for the long term.
This is because the local French hate the immigrants. Hate. Any policy that stops them getting to the UK creates anger. Hence the police standing around as the pile in to boats in front of them.
If Paris tries to *enforce* such an agreement, then
a) This mean using force against the immigrants. Which upsets the more liberal French. b) This means the immigrants pileup at the camps in France. Which upsets the locals.
Action was taken before, when immigrants trying to access the Channel Tunnel interrupted operations. Which would have been seen, at national level as an unacceptable interference with state infrastructure.
Why should the French government (local or national) stop the immigrants?
Because they don't want vast camps in Pas de Calais. So we work together on stopping them arriving there at all. For starters we work with source nations like Albania. All the Albanians are coming via France and small boats because there is no legal route they can use. Same with Afghanistan. And there are various other examples - whither Braverman getting stumped at the select committee by a Tory backbencher.
Slow the flow into France and the French work with us. As they have said they want to do. As they have done in the past.
Slow the flow into France how?
The not-very-publicised EU policy of funding militias to keep them in North Africa was withdrawn 12 months (?) ago.
A significant number are Albanians. Who cannot seek asylum in the UK via a legal route. Open one up and there is no need to enter france and get on a small boat.
Under what status are they claiming asylum though? I didn't think Albania was that unsafe a country? They are, for the most part, economic migrants, with no genuine refugee claim.
I believe that a number of them claim to have been reduced to debt peonage by the smuggling gangs.
So go back to Albania and report it to the police.
1) Omnibus/health 2) Personal scandal 3) Stalinist purge 4) Loses seat in election 5) Voluntarily hands over 6) Doesn't command 325 seats from Lab (+ other parties) - for which there could be loads of sub-reasons 7) Only does so on condition he retires and another leads
All unlikely - in the same way that at the time of the Hartlepool election it was unlikely Boris would not be PM after the next GE. Cumulatively they are more than trivial.
PB herds towards lumping on Labour, and not just on Labour but on Starmer at 1/4. One answer to the implied question in the header is if the Tories keep their majority. They do that by bigging up immigration. If necessary they can ditch no.4 in a row of their own leaders. The last one who went of his own accord was David Cameron.
On election night 2015, Ed Miliband went to bed expecting to wake up as Prime Minister.
Did he?
The exit poll was clear that the Tories were on the cusp of being the largest party (if not having an overall majority) while Labour was a long way behind with the Lib-Dems facing meltdown and Labour facing total oblivion to the SNP in Scotland.
So at 10pm the writing was on the Edstone lol.
That said, I get what you're saying. We're a long way from the election and a lot can happen. Maybe we'll have an alien invasion... that would probably be regarded as "events dear boy" and change the narrative hahahaha!
Indeed. Or WW3. Or an economic catastrophe. Anyone who lumps on the favourite when things are so volatile is taking a bigger risk than they think.
I don't think immigration can save the Tories. Recent comment on Talk (No fans of Labour) do point out they used to send more people back.
Immigration is the albatross around the Tory neck.
Their own supporters would be very happy to see a country with no immigrants, with the "just drown them" rhetoric always simmering away.
Problem is that as they refuse to engage with solutions, drowning them is basically all they have left and the Royal Navy refused last time it was proposed.
Dead migrants may excite a few, but repulses anyone who isn't a total stard. The newspaper front pages with the dead toddler face down on the beach in Greece horrified people - if we had the same on the beach at Hythe as a result of government policy there would be absolute outrage. Doubly so from the stards who were demanding exactly this kind of policy.
There is No Way to stop the boats because the Tories refuse to co-operate internationally. And the libertarian wing of the party looks at the ever growing labour shortage, and the migrants brought in and housed in misery not allowed to work and thinks "exploitable labour pool". All Starmer has to do to win on this subject is propose what the Tories can't do - control our borders.
You are assuming that the French government will enthusiastically implement any agreement. They won't. Historically, they haven't - at least for the long term.
This is because the local French hate the immigrants. Hate. Any policy that stops them getting to the UK creates anger. Hence the police standing around as the pile in to boats in front of them.
If Paris tries to *enforce* such an agreement, then
a) This mean using force against the immigrants. Which upsets the more liberal French. b) This means the immigrants pileup at the camps in France. Which upsets the locals.
Action was taken before, when immigrants trying to access the Channel Tunnel interrupted operations. Which would have been seen, at national level as an unacceptable interference with state infrastructure.
Why should the French government (local or national) stop the immigrants?
Because they don't want vast camps in Pas de Calais. So we work together on stopping them arriving there at all. For starters we work with source nations like Albania. All the Albanians are coming via France and small boats because there is no legal route they can use. Same with Afghanistan. And there are various other examples - whither Braverman getting stumped at the select committee by a Tory backbencher.
Slow the flow into France and the French work with us. As they have said they want to do. As they have done in the past.
Slow the flow into France how?
The not-very-publicised EU policy of funding militias to keep them in North Africa was withdrawn 12 months (?) ago.
A significant number are Albanians. Who cannot seek asylum in the UK via a legal route. Open one up and there is no need to enter france and get on a small boat.
Under what status are they claiming asylum though? I didn't think Albania was that unsafe a country? They are, for the most part, economic migrants, with no genuine refugee claim.
I believe that a number of them claim to have been reduced to debt peonage by the smuggling gangs.
So go back to Albania and report it to the police.
In Albania, that would mean
1) Report it to the allies of the smuggling gang
or
2) Report it to an opposing gang.
Neither are likely to end well for the reporting individual.
PB herds towards lumping on Labour, and not just on Labour but on Starmer at 1/4. One answer to the implied question in the header is if the Tories keep their majority. They do that by bigging up immigration. If necessary they can ditch no.4 in a row of their own leaders. The last one who went of his own accord was David Cameron.
On election night 2015, Ed Miliband went to bed expecting to wake up as Prime Minister.
Did he?
The exit poll was clear that the Tories were on the cusp of being the largest party (if not having an overall majority) while Labour was a long way behind with the Lib-Dems facing meltdown and Labour facing total oblivion to the SNP in Scotland.
So at 10pm the writing was on the Edstone lol.
That said, I get what you're saying. We're a long way from the election and a lot can happen. Maybe we'll have an alien invasion... that would probably be regarded as "events dear boy" and change the narrative hahahaha!
Indeed. Or WW3. Or an economic catastrophe. Anyone who lumps on the favourite when things are so volatile is taking a bigger risk than they think.
I don't think immigration can save the Tories. Recent comment on Talk (No fans of Labour) do point out they used to send more people back.
Immigration is the albatross around the Tory neck.
Their own supporters would be very happy to see a country with no immigrants, with the "just drown them" rhetoric always simmering away.
Problem is that as they refuse to engage with solutions, drowning them is basically all they have left and the Royal Navy refused last time it was proposed.
Dead migrants may excite a few, but repulses anyone who isn't a total stard. The newspaper front pages with the dead toddler face down on the beach in Greece horrified people - if we had the same on the beach at Hythe as a result of government policy there would be absolute outrage. Doubly so from the stards who were demanding exactly this kind of policy.
There is No Way to stop the boats because the Tories refuse to co-operate internationally. And the libertarian wing of the party looks at the ever growing labour shortage, and the migrants brought in and housed in misery not allowed to work and thinks "exploitable labour pool". All Starmer has to do to win on this subject is propose what the Tories can't do - control our borders.
You are assuming that the French government will enthusiastically implement any agreement. They won't. Historically, they haven't - at least for the long term.
This is because the local French hate the immigrants. Hate. Any policy that stops them getting to the UK creates anger. Hence the police standing around as the pile in to boats in front of them.
If Paris tries to *enforce* such an agreement, then
a) This mean using force against the immigrants. Which upsets the more liberal French. b) This means the immigrants pileup at the camps in France. Which upsets the locals.
Action was taken before, when immigrants trying to access the Channel Tunnel interrupted operations. Which would have been seen, at national level as an unacceptable interference with state infrastructure.
Why should the French government (local or national) stop the immigrants?
Because they don't want vast camps in Pas de Calais. So we work together on stopping them arriving there at all. For starters we work with source nations like Albania. All the Albanians are coming via France and small boats because there is no legal route they can use. Same with Afghanistan. And there are various other examples - whither Braverman getting stumped at the select committee by a Tory backbencher.
Slow the flow into France and the French work with us. As they have said they want to do. As they have done in the past.
Slow the flow into France how?
The not-very-publicised EU policy of funding militias to keep them in North Africa was withdrawn 12 months (?) ago.
A significant number are Albanians. Who cannot seek asylum in the UK via a legal route. Open one up and there is no need to enter france and get on a small boat.
Under what status are they claiming asylum though? I didn't think Albania was that unsafe a country? They are, for the most part, economic migrants, with no genuine refugee claim.
I believe that a number of them claim to have been reduced to debt peonage by the smuggling gangs.
So go back to Albania and report it to the police.
In Albania, that would mean
1) Report it to the allies of the smuggling gang
or
2) Report it to an opposing gang.
Neither are likely to end well for the reporting individual.
I'm a hard nosed bastard and just think that asylum is a being abused here.
1) Omnibus/health 2) Personal scandal 3) Stalinist purge 4) Loses seat in election 5) Voluntarily hands over 6) Doesn't command 325 seats from Lab (+ other parties) - for which there could be loads of sub-reasons 7) Only does so on condition he retires and another leads
All unlikely - in the same way that at the time of the Hartlepool election it was unlikely Boris would not be PM after the next GE. Cumulatively they are more than trivial.
80% or a little lower is about right.
3) is not possible why he commands the Labour party and it 20% ahead in the polls. 4) is not going to happen - see polls. 5) Could do
6) Labour is largest party after the next election - 95%+ - They will form the next government 7) Even the most arrogant other party leader wouldn't try to demand that they could only work with a different Labour leader.
Quote Tweet MattinWoolwich @MattWWoolwich · 11 Feb UK is screwed. Can’t erect a garden shed, put a cafe on your farm, stick tables outside your bar, build a house, expand a life sciences lab, or erect a solar panel, without a clipboard-toting shadow industry (local govt, CPRE, MPs, busybodies) trying to stop you. twitter.com/tomwilliamsism… 2:43 pm · 12 Feb 2023"
Quote Tweet MattinWoolwich @MattWWoolwich · 11 Feb UK is screwed. Can’t erect a garden shed, put a cafe on your farm, stick tables outside your bar, build a house, expand a life sciences lab, or erect a solar panel, without a clipboard-toting shadow industry (local govt, CPRE, MPs, busybodies) trying to stop you. twitter.com/tomwilliamsism… 2:43 pm · 12 Feb 2023"
Put a roof on a disused building - planning inspectors plus police roll up.
Funny story but...
a) I don't know anybody who has reported a crime and had no response, never mind repeatedly;
b) Planning laws are laws too. Don't like them? Vote for someone* who wants to change them.
(*Every farmer I know votes for the Tories religiously, the same Tories who run the government and control their local councils. They get what they vote for. No sympathy from me.)
PB herds towards lumping on Labour, and not just on Labour but on Starmer at 1/4. One answer to the implied question in the header is if the Tories keep their majority. They do that by bigging up immigration. If necessary they can ditch no.4 in a row of their own leaders. The last one who went of his own accord was David Cameron.
On election night 2015, Ed Miliband went to bed expecting to wake up as Prime Minister.
Did he?
The exit poll was clear that the Tories were on the cusp of being the largest party (if not having an overall majority) while Labour was a long way behind with the Lib-Dems facing meltdown and Labour facing total oblivion to the SNP in Scotland.
So at 10pm the writing was on the Edstone lol.
That said, I get what you're saying. We're a long way from the election and a lot can happen. Maybe we'll have an alien invasion... that would probably be regarded as "events dear boy" and change the narrative hahahaha!
Indeed. Or WW3. Or an economic catastrophe. Anyone who lumps on the favourite when things are so volatile is taking a bigger risk than they think.
I don't think immigration can save the Tories. Recent comment on Talk (No fans of Labour) do point out they used to send more people back.
Immigration is the albatross around the Tory neck.
Their own supporters would be very happy to see a country with no immigrants, with the "just drown them" rhetoric always simmering away.
Problem is that as they refuse to engage with solutions, drowning them is basically all they have left and the Royal Navy refused last time it was proposed.
Dead migrants may excite a few, but repulses anyone who isn't a total stard. The newspaper front pages with the dead toddler face down on the beach in Greece horrified people - if we had the same on the beach at Hythe as a result of government policy there would be absolute outrage. Doubly so from the stards who were demanding exactly this kind of policy.
There is No Way to stop the boats because the Tories refuse to co-operate internationally. And the libertarian wing of the party looks at the ever growing labour shortage, and the migrants brought in and housed in misery not allowed to work and thinks "exploitable labour pool". All Starmer has to do to win on this subject is propose what the Tories can't do - control our borders.
You are assuming that the French government will enthusiastically implement any agreement. They won't. Historically, they haven't - at least for the long term.
This is because the local French hate the immigrants. Hate. Any policy that stops them getting to the UK creates anger. Hence the police standing around as the pile in to boats in front of them.
If Paris tries to *enforce* such an agreement, then
a) This mean using force against the immigrants. Which upsets the more liberal French. b) This means the immigrants pileup at the camps in France. Which upsets the locals.
Action was taken before, when immigrants trying to access the Channel Tunnel interrupted operations. Which would have been seen, at national level as an unacceptable interference with state infrastructure.
Why should the French government (local or national) stop the immigrants?
Because they don't want vast camps in Pas de Calais. So we work together on stopping them arriving there at all. For starters we work with source nations like Albania. All the Albanians are coming via France and small boats because there is no legal route they can use. Same with Afghanistan. And there are various other examples - whither Braverman getting stumped at the select committee by a Tory backbencher.
Slow the flow into France and the French work with us. As they have said they want to do. As they have done in the past.
Slow the flow into France how?
The not-very-publicised EU policy of funding militias to keep them in North Africa was withdrawn 12 months (?) ago.
A significant number are Albanians. Who cannot seek asylum in the UK via a legal route. Open one up and there is no need to enter france and get on a small boat.
Your version of the asylum system amounts to de facto global free movement of people. All you have to do is pick a country and make a claim
Both the Times and the Telegraph refer to “the Queen” rather than “the Queen Consort” on their front pages.
Not good.
If this is the new official style, it’s a clumsy move by Charles.
Not really. It is the norm. The wife of the King has always been called Queen. There is nothing unusual about it at all.
Why then was Phillip not the "King"
Because the husband of the Queen Regnant has historically never been so, (save for William and Mary who reigned jointly in their own right). So Victoria’s husband was Prince Albert but George III’s wife was Queen Charlotte. It’s not fair or logical but this is a monarchy we’re talking about. It’s not about fairness or logic.
Well it is about fairness and misogyny, because it's due to male primogeniture, and the assumption that a wife would obey her husband and so a Queen could not rule in her own right when married.
So it was important for Philip II of Spain that he be titled King of England and made co-regnant with Mary I, and this was a major reason why Elizabeth I did not marry.
Consequently, it was important that Albert and Philip were a Prince and Duke respectively to make it clear that their wives were in charge.
Now that male primogeniture has been abolished for the British crown, and so Charlotte is above her younger brother Louis in the line of succession, it would perhaps be possible for the next Queen Regnant to have a King Consort. Particularly since this might well not happen until the 22nd century. It would seem to be a logical progression.
Quote Tweet MattinWoolwich @MattWWoolwich · 11 Feb UK is screwed. Can’t erect a garden shed, put a cafe on your farm, stick tables outside your bar, build a house, expand a life sciences lab, or erect a solar panel, without a clipboard-toting shadow industry (local govt, CPRE, MPs, busybodies) trying to stop you. twitter.com/tomwilliamsism… 2:43 pm · 12 Feb 2023"
Put a roof on a disused building - planning inspectors plus police roll up.
Only reason why the police would turn up with planning officials would be because the farmer has "form"..
We discussed this before. He was a very quiet character, really. Farmed on the same farm grandfather, father did etc.
One suggestion that makes sense is that he was firearms owner (shotgun) so the police got sent along.
He made everyone cups of tea and got on with the roofing. The planning types were a bit shocked he didn't stop for them - but why should he? It was legal.....
PB herds towards lumping on Labour, and not just on Labour but on Starmer at 1/4. One answer to the implied question in the header is if the Tories keep their majority. They do that by bigging up immigration. If necessary they can ditch no.4 in a row of their own leaders. The last one who went of his own accord was David Cameron.
On election night 2015, Ed Miliband went to bed expecting to wake up as Prime Minister.
Did he?
The exit poll was clear that the Tories were on the cusp of being the largest party (if not having an overall majority) while Labour was a long way behind with the Lib-Dems facing meltdown and Labour facing total oblivion to the SNP in Scotland.
So at 10pm the writing was on the Edstone lol.
That said, I get what you're saying. We're a long way from the election and a lot can happen. Maybe we'll have an alien invasion... that would probably be regarded as "events dear boy" and change the narrative hahahaha!
Indeed. Or WW3. Or an economic catastrophe. Anyone who lumps on the favourite when things are so volatile is taking a bigger risk than they think.
I don't think immigration can save the Tories. Recent comment on Talk (No fans of Labour) do point out they used to send more people back.
Immigration is the albatross around the Tory neck.
Their own supporters would be very happy to see a country with no immigrants, with the "just drown them" rhetoric always simmering away.
Problem is that as they refuse to engage with solutions, drowning them is basically all they have left and the Royal Navy refused last time it was proposed.
Dead migrants may excite a few, but repulses anyone who isn't a total stard. The newspaper front pages with the dead toddler face down on the beach in Greece horrified people - if we had the same on the beach at Hythe as a result of government policy there would be absolute outrage. Doubly so from the stards who were demanding exactly this kind of policy.
There is No Way to stop the boats because the Tories refuse to co-operate internationally. And the libertarian wing of the party looks at the ever growing labour shortage, and the migrants brought in and housed in misery not allowed to work and thinks "exploitable labour pool". All Starmer has to do to win on this subject is propose what the Tories can't do - control our borders.
You are assuming that the French government will enthusiastically implement any agreement. They won't. Historically, they haven't - at least for the long term.
This is because the local French hate the immigrants. Hate. Any policy that stops them getting to the UK creates anger. Hence the police standing around as the pile in to boats in front of them.
If Paris tries to *enforce* such an agreement, then
a) This mean using force against the immigrants. Which upsets the more liberal French. b) This means the immigrants pileup at the camps in France. Which upsets the locals.
Action was taken before, when immigrants trying to access the Channel Tunnel interrupted operations. Which would have been seen, at national level as an unacceptable interference with state infrastructure.
Why should the French government (local or national) stop the immigrants?
Because they don't want vast camps in Pas de Calais. So we work together on stopping them arriving there at all. For starters we work with source nations like Albania. All the Albanians are coming via France and small boats because there is no legal route they can use. Same with Afghanistan. And there are various other examples - whither Braverman getting stumped at the select committee by a Tory backbencher.
Slow the flow into France and the French work with us. As they have said they want to do. As they have done in the past.
Slow the flow into France how?
The not-very-publicised EU policy of funding militias to keep them in North Africa was withdrawn 12 months (?) ago.
A significant number are Albanians. Who cannot seek asylum in the UK via a legal route. Open one up and there is no need to enter france and get on a small boat.
How many would actually qualify for refugee status, say at the UK embassy in Tirana? I'd argue hardly any. Refugee status is being abused.
How do you know that refugee status is being abused? Like me, you don't have a clue; yet you pretend you "know" stuff that's unknowable. You may be right, you may be wrong - but you don't know, you just have an opinion.
1) Omnibus/health 2) Personal scandal 3) Stalinist purge 4) Loses seat in election 5) Voluntarily hands over 6) Doesn't command 325 seats from Lab (+ other parties) - for which there could be loads of sub-reasons 7) Only does so on condition he retires and another leads
All unlikely - in the same way that at the time of the Hartlepool election it was unlikely Boris would not be PM after the next GE. Cumulatively they are more than trivial.
80% or a little lower is about right.
3) is not possible why he commands the Labour party and it 20% ahead in the polls. 4) is not going to happen - see polls. 5) Could do
6) Labour is largest party after the next election - 95%+ - They will form the next government 7) Even the most arrogant other party leader wouldn't try to demand that they could only work with a different Labour leader.
The Tories need a black swan and I think we've had our quota of those for this decade already.
Must be >95% chance of Starmer being PM after the next GE.
Quote Tweet MattinWoolwich @MattWWoolwich · 11 Feb UK is screwed. Can’t erect a garden shed, put a cafe on your farm, stick tables outside your bar, build a house, expand a life sciences lab, or erect a solar panel, without a clipboard-toting shadow industry (local govt, CPRE, MPs, busybodies) trying to stop you. twitter.com/tomwilliamsism… 2:43 pm · 12 Feb 2023"
Put a roof on a disused building - planning inspectors plus police roll up.
Funny story but...
a) I don't know anybody who has reported a crime and had no response, never mind repeatedly;
b) Planning laws are laws too. Don't like them? Vote for someone* who wants to change them.
(*Every farmer I know votes for the Tories religiously, the same Tories who run the government and control their local councils. They get what they vote for. No sympathy from me.)
Farmer reports theft - if he is persistent, he gets a crime number.
Putting a roof on a small outbuilding that used to have a roof is legal - no planning required. It's not as if he was building a house or something shady (!) like that.
He was doing it to create a secure store to stop thefts....
1) Omnibus/health 2) Personal scandal 3) Stalinist purge 4) Loses seat in election 5) Voluntarily hands over 6) Doesn't command 325 seats from Lab (+ other parties) - for which there could be loads of sub-reasons 7) Only does so on condition he retires and another leads
All unlikely - in the same way that at the time of the Hartlepool election it was unlikely Boris would not be PM after the next GE. Cumulatively they are more than trivial.
80% or a little lower is about right.
3) is not possible why he commands the Labour party and it 20% ahead in the polls. 4) is not going to happen - see polls. 5) Could do
6) Labour is largest party after the next election - 95%+ - They will form the next government 7) Even the most arrogant other party leader wouldn't try to demand that they could only work with a different Labour leader.
The Tories need a black swan and I think we've had our quota of those for this decade already.
Must be >95% chance of Starmer being PM after the next GE.
PB herds towards lumping on Labour, and not just on Labour but on Starmer at 1/4. One answer to the implied question in the header is if the Tories keep their majority. They do that by bigging up immigration. If necessary they can ditch no.4 in a row of their own leaders. The last one who went of his own accord was David Cameron.
On election night 2015, Ed Miliband went to bed expecting to wake up as Prime Minister.
Did he?
The exit poll was clear that the Tories were on the cusp of being the largest party (if not having an overall majority) while Labour was a long way behind with the Lib-Dems facing meltdown and Labour facing total oblivion to the SNP in Scotland.
So at 10pm the writing was on the Edstone lol.
That said, I get what you're saying. We're a long way from the election and a lot can happen. Maybe we'll have an alien invasion... that would probably be regarded as "events dear boy" and change the narrative hahahaha!
Indeed. Or WW3. Or an economic catastrophe. Anyone who lumps on the favourite when things are so volatile is taking a bigger risk than they think.
I don't think immigration can save the Tories. Recent comment on Talk (No fans of Labour) do point out they used to send more people back.
Immigration is the albatross around the Tory neck.
Their own supporters would be very happy to see a country with no immigrants, with the "just drown them" rhetoric always simmering away.
Problem is that as they refuse to engage with solutions, drowning them is basically all they have left and the Royal Navy refused last time it was proposed.
Dead migrants may excite a few, but repulses anyone who isn't a total stard. The newspaper front pages with the dead toddler face down on the beach in Greece horrified people - if we had the same on the beach at Hythe as a result of government policy there would be absolute outrage. Doubly so from the stards who were demanding exactly this kind of policy.
There is No Way to stop the boats because the Tories refuse to co-operate internationally. And the libertarian wing of the party looks at the ever growing labour shortage, and the migrants brought in and housed in misery not allowed to work and thinks "exploitable labour pool". All Starmer has to do to win on this subject is propose what the Tories can't do - control our borders.
You are assuming that the French government will enthusiastically implement any agreement. They won't. Historically, they haven't - at least for the long term.
This is because the local French hate the immigrants. Hate. Any policy that stops them getting to the UK creates anger. Hence the police standing around as the pile in to boats in front of them.
If Paris tries to *enforce* such an agreement, then
a) This mean using force against the immigrants. Which upsets the more liberal French. b) This means the immigrants pileup at the camps in France. Which upsets the locals.
Action was taken before, when immigrants trying to access the Channel Tunnel interrupted operations. Which would have been seen, at national level as an unacceptable interference with state infrastructure.
Why should the French government (local or national) stop the immigrants?
Because they don't want vast camps in Pas de Calais. So we work together on stopping them arriving there at all. For starters we work with source nations like Albania. All the Albanians are coming via France and small boats because there is no legal route they can use. Same with Afghanistan. And there are various other examples - whither Braverman getting stumped at the select committee by a Tory backbencher.
Slow the flow into France and the French work with us. As they have said they want to do. As they have done in the past.
Slow the flow into France how?
The not-very-publicised EU policy of funding militias to keep them in North Africa was withdrawn 12 months (?) ago.
A significant number are Albanians. Who cannot seek asylum in the UK via a legal route. Open one up and there is no need to enter france and get on a small boat.
Under what status are they claiming asylum though? I didn't think Albania was that unsafe a country? They are, for the most part, economic migrants, with no genuine refugee claim.
As someone who has a lot of sympathy for genuine refugees (to the extent of buying a property to house them) and having been to Albania too I have the sense that there is a lot of exploiting of rules going on among this group. There are issues with organised crime in Albania but it isn't a war zone, it is a reasonably free country and there is no genocide going on there. But I also don't see why we shouldn't welcome them here to work legally, as long as they have no organised crime links. The current setup seems the worst of all worlds - especially in terms of strengthening the hand of criminal gangs, while reducing public confidence in the asylum process.
Labour will have enough problems governing with a tiny majority, no money to spend and the Unions in an increasingly hostile and militant mood to do much about Brexit...
Starmer could engineer some favourable economic winds and the support of business by going back into the single market though so that must be tempting. He just has to ensure he doesn't enrage the blood and soil leavers too much before the election.
Yes, it's very clear that Starmer is lying about what be intends to do post election.
Why not as he lied about what he was going to do pre-election, jettisoning all the promises he made to the Labour Party members not to mention all his actions under Corbyn to get his current job?
The man is a serial liar.
It's just Keir being Keir. People should lighten up and enjoy it!
PB herds towards lumping on Labour, and not just on Labour but on Starmer at 1/4. One answer to the implied question in the header is if the Tories keep their majority. They do that by bigging up immigration. If necessary they can ditch no.4 in a row of their own leaders. The last one who went of his own accord was David Cameron.
On election night 2015, Ed Miliband went to bed expecting to wake up as Prime Minister.
Did he?
The exit poll was clear that the Tories were on the cusp of being the largest party (if not having an overall majority) while Labour was a long way behind with the Lib-Dems facing meltdown and Labour facing total oblivion to the SNP in Scotland.
So at 10pm the writing was on the Edstone lol.
That said, I get what you're saying. We're a long way from the election and a lot can happen. Maybe we'll have an alien invasion... that would probably be regarded as "events dear boy" and change the narrative hahahaha!
Indeed. Or WW3. Or an economic catastrophe. Anyone who lumps on the favourite when things are so volatile is taking a bigger risk than they think.
I don't think immigration can save the Tories. Recent comment on Talk (No fans of Labour) do point out they used to send more people back.
Immigration is the albatross around the Tory neck.
Their own supporters would be very happy to see a country with no immigrants, with the "just drown them" rhetoric always simmering away.
Problem is that as they refuse to engage with solutions, drowning them is basically all they have left and the Royal Navy refused last time it was proposed.
Dead migrants may excite a few, but repulses anyone who isn't a total stard. The newspaper front pages with the dead toddler face down on the beach in Greece horrified people - if we had the same on the beach at Hythe as a result of government policy there would be absolute outrage. Doubly so from the stards who were demanding exactly this kind of policy.
There is No Way to stop the boats because the Tories refuse to co-operate internationally. And the libertarian wing of the party looks at the ever growing labour shortage, and the migrants brought in and housed in misery not allowed to work and thinks "exploitable labour pool". All Starmer has to do to win on this subject is propose what the Tories can't do - control our borders.
You are assuming that the French government will enthusiastically implement any agreement. They won't. Historically, they haven't - at least for the long term.
This is because the local French hate the immigrants. Hate. Any policy that stops them getting to the UK creates anger. Hence the police standing around as the pile in to boats in front of them.
If Paris tries to *enforce* such an agreement, then
a) This mean using force against the immigrants. Which upsets the more liberal French. b) This means the immigrants pileup at the camps in France. Which upsets the locals.
Action was taken before, when immigrants trying to access the Channel Tunnel interrupted operations. Which would have been seen, at national level as an unacceptable interference with state infrastructure.
Why should the French government (local or national) stop the immigrants?
Because they don't want vast camps in Pas de Calais. So we work together on stopping them arriving there at all. For starters we work with source nations like Albania. All the Albanians are coming via France and small boats because there is no legal route they can use. Same with Afghanistan. And there are various other examples - whither Braverman getting stumped at the select committee by a Tory backbencher.
Slow the flow into France and the French work with us. As they have said they want to do. As they have done in the past.
Slow the flow into France how?
The not-very-publicised EU policy of funding militias to keep them in North Africa was withdrawn 12 months (?) ago.
A significant number are Albanians. Who cannot seek asylum in the UK via a legal route. Open one up and there is no need to enter france and get on a small boat.
How many would actually qualify for refugee status, say at the UK embassy in Tirana? I'd argue hardly any. Refugee status is being abused.
How do you know that refugee status is being abused? Like me, you don't have a clue; yet you pretend you "know" stuff that's unknowable. You may be right, you may be wrong - but you don't know, you just have an opinion.
The evidence thats in the public domain suggests that a high number of the recent arrivals are indeed from Albania - unless you have evidence that thats not the case?
1) Omnibus/health 2) Personal scandal 3) Stalinist purge 4) Loses seat in election 5) Voluntarily hands over 6) Doesn't command 325 seats from Lab (+ other parties) - for which there could be loads of sub-reasons 7) Only does so on condition he retires and another leads
All unlikely - in the same way that at the time of the Hartlepool election it was unlikely Boris would not be PM after the next GE. Cumulatively they are more than trivial.
80% or a little lower is about right.
2-5 are remote indeed. If any apart from 4 were going to happen they'd almost certainly have done so already. And he has a 27k majority, so that's not independent of 6 or 7.
1) Omnibus/health 2) Personal scandal 3) Stalinist purge 4) Loses seat in election 5) Voluntarily hands over 6) Doesn't command 325 seats from Lab (+ other parties) - for which there could be loads of sub-reasons 7) Only does so on condition he retires and another leads
All unlikely - in the same way that at the time of the Hartlepool election it was unlikely Boris would not be PM after the next GE. Cumulatively they are more than trivial.
80% or a little lower is about right.
Slightly different dynamic to Boris at Hartlepool o'clock. There was always a decent chance of Boris blowing up, because of who he was (as someone here (me) put it, the only question was whether it would take 10 years or 10 days). Starmer won't do anything silly, because he clearly intends to do as little as possible.
So unless there's a short sucessful war with France (Spain at a pinch), what makes Mr and Mrs Voter look more favourably on the government? A rapid improvement in people's lived experience of the economy, I guess, but that seems unlikely and possibly insufficient anyway. Remember the "Britain is Booming, Don't let Labour Blow It" campaign from 1997?
PB herds towards lumping on Labour, and not just on Labour but on Starmer at 1/4. One answer to the implied question in the header is if the Tories keep their majority. They do that by bigging up immigration. If necessary they can ditch no.4 in a row of their own leaders. The last one who went of his own accord was David Cameron.
On election night 2015, Ed Miliband went to bed expecting to wake up as Prime Minister.
Did he?
The exit poll was clear that the Tories were on the cusp of being the largest party (if not having an overall majority) while Labour was a long way behind with the Lib-Dems facing meltdown and Labour facing total oblivion to the SNP in Scotland.
So at 10pm the writing was on the Edstone lol.
That said, I get what you're saying. We're a long way from the election and a lot can happen. Maybe we'll have an alien invasion... that would probably be regarded as "events dear boy" and change the narrative hahahaha!
Indeed. Or WW3. Or an economic catastrophe. Anyone who lumps on the favourite when things are so volatile is taking a bigger risk than they think.
I don't think immigration can save the Tories. Recent comment on Talk (No fans of Labour) do point out they used to send more people back.
Immigration is the albatross around the Tory neck.
Their own supporters would be very happy to see a country with no immigrants, with the "just drown them" rhetoric always simmering away.
Problem is that as they refuse to engage with solutions, drowning them is basically all they have left and the Royal Navy refused last time it was proposed.
Dead migrants may excite a few, but repulses anyone who isn't a total stard. The newspaper front pages with the dead toddler face down on the beach in Greece horrified people - if we had the same on the beach at Hythe as a result of government policy there would be absolute outrage. Doubly so from the stards who were demanding exactly this kind of policy.
There is No Way to stop the boats because the Tories refuse to co-operate internationally. And the libertarian wing of the party looks at the ever growing labour shortage, and the migrants brought in and housed in misery not allowed to work and thinks "exploitable labour pool". All Starmer has to do to win on this subject is propose what the Tories can't do - control our borders.
You are assuming that the French government will enthusiastically implement any agreement. They won't. Historically, they haven't - at least for the long term.
This is because the local French hate the immigrants. Hate. Any policy that stops them getting to the UK creates anger. Hence the police standing around as the pile in to boats in front of them.
If Paris tries to *enforce* such an agreement, then
a) This mean using force against the immigrants. Which upsets the more liberal French. b) This means the immigrants pileup at the camps in France. Which upsets the locals.
Action was taken before, when immigrants trying to access the Channel Tunnel interrupted operations. Which would have been seen, at national level as an unacceptable interference with state infrastructure.
Why should the French government (local or national) stop the immigrants?
Because they don't want vast camps in Pas de Calais. So we work together on stopping them arriving there at all. For starters we work with source nations like Albania. All the Albanians are coming via France and small boats because there is no legal route they can use. Same with Afghanistan. And there are various other examples - whither Braverman getting stumped at the select committee by a Tory backbencher.
Slow the flow into France and the French work with us. As they have said they want to do. As they have done in the past.
Slow the flow into France how?
The not-very-publicised EU policy of funding militias to keep them in North Africa was withdrawn 12 months (?) ago.
A significant number are Albanians. Who cannot seek asylum in the UK via a legal route. Open one up and there is no need to enter france and get on a small boat.
How many would actually qualify for refugee status, say at the UK embassy in Tirana? I'd argue hardly any. Refugee status is being abused.
How do you know that refugee status is being abused? Like me, you don't have a clue; yet you pretend you "know" stuff that's unknowable. You may be right, you may be wrong - but you don't know, you just have an opinion.
The evidence thats in the public domain suggests that a high number of the recent arrivals are indeed from Albania - unless you have evidence that thats not the case?
Surely just angling to be SecState in Trump's administration.
The thinking is that more primary candidates works in Trump’s favour, and fewer candidates works better for an outsider such as DeSantis.
So yep, people wanting big jobs in a Trump administration, could do well to put their names in the hat early.
I'm not really sure why anyone would want a big job in a Trump administration - it never ends well, does it?
There's a reasonable change he blows up before the Republican convention, so it's not irrational throwing your hat in the ring.
And a not Trump candidate has a chance against Biden.
Either you opt for irrelevancy or you run.
Though why anyone sane would still be in the party is a better question.
Oh I get that. My point is I do not think Haley is angling for a job in a Trump administration.
Assuming she cannot win the nomination, the ideal for her is that she does creditably, Trump wins and blows up in the GE or DeSantis wins and Trump still runs, screwing DS.
PB herds towards lumping on Labour, and not just on Labour but on Starmer at 1/4. One answer to the implied question in the header is if the Tories keep their majority. They do that by bigging up immigration. If necessary they can ditch no.4 in a row of their own leaders. The last one who went of his own accord was David Cameron.
On election night 2015, Ed Miliband went to bed expecting to wake up as Prime Minister.
Did he?
The exit poll was clear that the Tories were on the cusp of being the largest party (if not having an overall majority) while Labour was a long way behind with the Lib-Dems facing meltdown and Labour facing total oblivion to the SNP in Scotland.
So at 10pm the writing was on the Edstone lol.
That said, I get what you're saying. We're a long way from the election and a lot can happen. Maybe we'll have an alien invasion... that would probably be regarded as "events dear boy" and change the narrative hahahaha!
Indeed. Or WW3. Or an economic catastrophe. Anyone who lumps on the favourite when things are so volatile is taking a bigger risk than they think.
I don't think immigration can save the Tories. Recent comment on Talk (No fans of Labour) do point out they used to send more people back.
Immigration is the albatross around the Tory neck.
Their own supporters would be very happy to see a country with no immigrants, with the "just drown them" rhetoric always simmering away.
Problem is that as they refuse to engage with solutions, drowning them is basically all they have left and the Royal Navy refused last time it was proposed.
Dead migrants may excite a few, but repulses anyone who isn't a total stard. The newspaper front pages with the dead toddler face down on the beach in Greece horrified people - if we had the same on the beach at Hythe as a result of government policy there would be absolute outrage. Doubly so from the stards who were demanding exactly this kind of policy.
There is No Way to stop the boats because the Tories refuse to co-operate internationally. And the libertarian wing of the party looks at the ever growing labour shortage, and the migrants brought in and housed in misery not allowed to work and thinks "exploitable labour pool". All Starmer has to do to win on this subject is propose what the Tories can't do - control our borders.
You are assuming that the French government will enthusiastically implement any agreement. They won't. Historically, they haven't - at least for the long term.
This is because the local French hate the immigrants. Hate. Any policy that stops them getting to the UK creates anger. Hence the police standing around as the pile in to boats in front of them.
If Paris tries to *enforce* such an agreement, then
a) This mean using force against the immigrants. Which upsets the more liberal French. b) This means the immigrants pileup at the camps in France. Which upsets the locals.
Action was taken before, when immigrants trying to access the Channel Tunnel interrupted operations. Which would have been seen, at national level as an unacceptable interference with state infrastructure.
Why should the French government (local or national) stop the immigrants?
Because they don't want vast camps in Pas de Calais. So we work together on stopping them arriving there at all. For starters we work with source nations like Albania. All the Albanians are coming via France and small boats because there is no legal route they can use. Same with Afghanistan. And there are various other examples - whither Braverman getting stumped at the select committee by a Tory backbencher.
Slow the flow into France and the French work with us. As they have said they want to do. As they have done in the past.
Slow the flow into France how?
The not-very-publicised EU policy of funding militias to keep them in North Africa was withdrawn 12 months (?) ago.
A significant number are Albanians. Who cannot seek asylum in the UK via a legal route. Open one up and there is no need to enter france and get on a small boat.
Under what status are they claiming asylum though? I didn't think Albania was that unsafe a country? They are, for the most part, economic migrants, with no genuine refugee claim.
As someone who has a lot of sympathy for genuine refugees (to the extent of buying a property to house them) and having been to Albania too I have the sense that there is a lot of exploiting of rules going on among this group. There are issues with organised crime in Albania but it isn't a war zone, it is a reasonably free country and there is no genocide going on there. But I also don't see why we shouldn't welcome them here to work legally, as long as they have no organised crime links. The current setup seems the worst of all worlds - especially in terms of strengthening the hand of criminal gangs, while reducing public confidence in the asylum process.
This is bang on - get them able to work legally, help with English, training courses fine. But people I think ought to accept that there is a distinct issue with Albanians abusing the system for economic gain.
Frankly I admire those who are trying to make a better life for themselves, I just don't accept the way this is happening, with the conivance of the French too.
Comments
As a case in point, human intelligence evolved less as a tool for pursuing objective truth than as a tool for pursuing personal well-being, tribal belonging, social status, and sex, and this often required the adoption of what I call “Fashionably Irrational Beliefs” (FIBs), which the brain has come to excel at……
Some of these FIBs can now be found everywhere. A particularly prominent example is wokeism, a popularized academic worldview that’s half conspiracy theory and half moral panic. Wokeism seeks to portray racism, sexism, and transphobia as endemic to Western society, and to scapegoat these forms of discrimination on white people generally and straight white men specifically, who are believed to be secretly trying to enforce such bigotries to maintain their place at the top of a social hierarchy.
Naturally, woke intellectuals don’t consider themselves alarmists or conspiracy theorists; they believe their intelligence gives them the unique ability to glimpse a hidden world of prejudices. What they don’t know is that high IQ people and low IQ people display similar levels of prejudice, except toward different groups, and educated people actually display greater prejudice against those with different views.
https://gurwinder.substack.com/p/why-smart-people-hold-stupid-beliefs
This is because the local French hate the immigrants. Hate. Any policy that stops them getting to the UK creates anger. Hence the police standing around as the pile in to boats in front of them.
If Paris tries to *enforce* such an agreement, then
a) This mean using force against the immigrants. Which upsets the more liberal French.
b) This means the immigrants pileup at the camps in France. Which upsets the locals.
Action was taken before, when immigrants trying to access the Channel Tunnel interrupted operations. Which would have been seen, at national level as an unacceptable interference with state infrastructure.
Why should the French government (local or national) stop the immigrants?
The master-debaters that emerge from these institutions go on to become tomorrow’s elites—politicians, entertainers, and intellectuals.
All the other Scottish leaders’ ratings are dominated by “Don’t Know”.
https://twitter.com/Pidud_/status/1625057747153858560
Labyrinthine sophistry like “sex is a spectrum” prevails among cognitively sophisticated cultural elites, including those who should know better such as biologists, but it’s rarer among the common people, who lack the capacity for mental gymnastics required to accept such elaborate delusions.
2) He announces a the 2024 manifesto is a photocopy of the 1983 manifesto with some changes.
3) These changes are leaving NATO and staying out of the EU.
4) Instead joining a resurrected Warsaw Pact and COMECON.
That might just save the Tories.
Might.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/feb/13/tory-vice-chair-lee-anderson-faces-libel-claim-over-bribery-allegations
For background, Michael Harris is the dad of Tom Hollis, who was formerly Deputy Council Leader still a double councillor currently serving a community sentence for dishonestly trying to get his neighbour arrested for a fabricated violent crime.
Michael Harris used to be a Labour Councillor, and the whole family was claimed to have gone went Lab > Lib Dem around 2011, but by 2015 mum was reported representing Labour.
Tom Hollis moved on to Ashfield Independents around 2015 with Jason Zadrozny. No idea what happened to Michael Harris.
Hollis (Tom) was JZ's partner; no idea about current status.
I have heard enough rumours wrt planning irregularities to leave room for all of them. Link to the recent arrests of AI Councillors wrt alleged fraud - no idea !
This BBC piece from 2015 gives a bit of a flavour.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-england-32259325
Life's rich tapestry. It's like SOAP.
https://youtu.be/0BHQT3Omqtw?t=20
https://twitter.com/T_Krawchenko/status/1625285246861312002
Somehow, the notion of Russia 'civilizing' its colonies persists in many quarters. I took classes in Uni where profs argued this. The reality is however colonization and persistent social stratification.
Take for example what happened in Kyrgyzstan...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-64377368
Said theory suggest the Belgian Congo wasn't colonialism, either. But hey....
Sturgeon : “I don’t use swear words”
Sunak: “Oh dear”
Starmer: “Plonker”
Ross: “Ugh”
Harvie: “Numbskull”
Sarwar: “Eejit”
So Sandu is a pain in the dick for the RF and they think that as Moldova isn't exactly a bastion of stability and good governance they might be able to collapse the government and get a more sympathetic president - Dodon or Shor.
Yet another day when GG’s insights are confirmed as poo
Slow the flow into France and the French work with us. As they have said they want to do. As they have done in the past.
Might even be the same zoo.
Fraserburgh saw its passenger rail station close in 1965. What gets missed is that right to the end it had its own branchline out to St Combs. This was built as a light railway to get fishermen living in Cairnbulg and St Combs to the new location of their fishing boats which was Fraserburgh.
So these new towns didn't just open for fishing. They literally acted as a magnet to draw in the fleets from their local predecessors.
The not-very-publicised EU policy of funding militias to keep them in North Africa was withdrawn 12 months (?) ago.
Perhaps as most of these outrageous allegations get ignored it becomes less risk to make them. Until "I'll sue you" becomes reality.
I've been threatened with libel action by another councillor. Pointing out that (a) what I said was factual and (b) I have the screenshots from his Facebook page to prove it shut him up.
I reckon we might start to see a flowering of creativity among my kids' generation. They have no incentive to live the conventional 9 to 5 life, it doesn't pay anymore, it's not worth chasing, so they might as well enjoy themselves and fulfill their creative urges.
There's stuff you can get away with in the lowish stakes, low scrutiny world of local politics that simply doesn't pass muster when it's done on a bigger stage.
The Libyan Coastguard is still.. er.. proactively rescuing* migrants from their boats.
*Taking them off the boats at gun point, sinking the boats and incarcerating the migrants.
Terry Valentine : Did you ever dream about a place you never really recall being to before? A place that maybe only exists in your imagination? Some place far away, half remembered when you wake up. When you were there, though, you knew the language. You knew your way around. *That* was the sixties.
[pause]
Terry Valentine : No. It wasn't that either. It was just '66 and early '67. That's all there was.
By 1997, there was a considerable chunk of the Conservative party who rather hoped to be in opposition next time, all the better to remake the party in their own image. Similarly, at least some Lib Dems gave the impression of not enjoying government by the time of the 2015 election. Whereas for Brown in 2010, the will was still there, even if the energy, ideas and personnel weren't.
https://tinyurl.com/yvdbwu8d
Non-COVID excess deaths below 1,000 for the latest week. Interesting that COVID deaths are tracking the non-COVID deaths. I guess it could be that most of the COVID deaths are deaths with rather than from COVID, but perhaps it is also related to COVID and other nasty stuff spreading with people socialising in the run up to and during Christmas.
Week-ending | 5-year average | COVID deaths | non-COVID deaths | non-COVID deaths in excess of the 5-year average
07-Oct-22 | 9,835 | 400 | 10,807 | 972
14-Oct-22 | 10,091 | 565 | 11,134 | 1,043
21-Oct-22 | 10,224 | 687 | 11,251 | 1,027
28-Oct-22 | 10,013 | 651 | 10,594 | 581
04-Nov-22 | 10,278 | 650 | 11,145 | 867
11-Nov-22 | 10,743 | 518 | 11,020 | 277
18-Nov-22 | 10,786 | 423 | 11,156 | 370
25-Nov-22 | 10,705 | 348 | 11,135 | 430
02-Dec-22 | 10,725 | 317 | 10,990 | 265
09-Dec-22 | 11,007 | 326 | 11,368 | 361
16-Dec-22 | 11,203 | 390 | 11,999 | 796
23-Dec-22 | 12,037 | 429 | 14,101 | 2,064
30-Dec-22 | 7,925 | 393 | 9,124 | 1,199
06-Jan-23 | 12,037 | 739 | 14,244 | 2,207
13-Jan-23 | 13,749 | 922 | 16,459 | 2,710
20-Jan-23 | 13,098 | 781 | 15,023 | 1,925
27-Jan-23 | 12,562 | 579 | 13,588 | 1,026
03-Feb-23 | 12,108 | 499 | 12,913 | 805
Sheffield was found to be the spanking capital of the UK, with one in ten (15 per cent) partaking.
https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/23318411.brightons-favourite-sexual-position-revealed-study/
The man is a serial liar.
In Scotland, matters are arranged differently. Here it is considered scandalous to even raise these issues. The pretence that there is nothing to be examined must be maintained, no matter how ridiculous — and even wicked — that may be.
For Scotland has a Tavistock of its own. A decade ago, just 37 children were referred to the specialist Young People’s Gender Service at the Sandyford clinic in Glasgow. In 2021 that figure was 521. The Sandyford clinic operates on the same basis as the now discredited Tavistock clinic.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dffaa4b0-abbc-11ed-9cb3-80326348937b?shareToken=6e3797e3195e8150fcaae277843013c9
Very naughty.
@b_judah
I agree with this take:
Quote Tweet
MattinWoolwich
@MattWWoolwich
·
11 Feb
UK is screwed. Can’t erect a garden shed, put a cafe on your farm, stick tables outside your bar, build a house, expand a life sciences lab, or erect a solar panel, without a clipboard-toting shadow industry (local govt, CPRE, MPs, busybodies) trying to stop you. twitter.com/tomwilliamsism…
2:43 pm · 12 Feb 2023"
https://twitter.com/b_judah/status/1624781367413288964?cxt=HHwWiMC9pfKCsYwtAAAA
"More 16-24-year-olds get jobs as living costs bite
The Office for National Statistics said a record number of people moved out of "economic inactivity", which is defined as people not looking for work, between July and December, as more got jobs.
It was driven by people in the 16-24 age group, as well as 50-64-year-olds.
One analyst suggested a "great unretirement" trend had emerged, with older people returning to work."
https://order-order.com/2023/02/14/libdem-style-bar-chart-eu-boosterism-from-times/
Report a crime? no response. Repeatedly.
Put a roof on a disused building - planning inspectors plus police roll up.
So yep, people wanting big jobs in a Trump administration, could do well to put their names in the hat early.
1) Omnibus/health
2) Personal scandal
3) Stalinist purge
4) Loses seat in election
5) Voluntarily hands over
6) Doesn't command 325 seats from Lab (+ other parties) - for which there could be loads of sub-reasons
7) Only does so on condition he retires and another leads
All unlikely - in the same way that at the time of the Hartlepool election it was unlikely Boris would not be PM after the next GE. Cumulatively they are more than trivial.
80% or a little lower is about right.
1) Report it to the allies of the smuggling gang
or
2) Report it to an opposing gang.
Neither are likely to end well for the reporting individual.
4) is not going to happen - see polls.
5) Could do
6) Labour is largest party after the next election - 95%+ - They will form the next government
7) Even the most arrogant other party leader wouldn't try to demand that they could only work with a different Labour leader.
a) I don't know anybody who has reported a crime and had no response, never mind repeatedly;
b) Planning laws are laws too. Don't like them? Vote for someone* who wants to change them.
(*Every farmer I know votes for the Tories religiously, the same Tories who run the government and control their local councils. They get what they vote for. No sympathy from me.)
So it was important for Philip II of Spain that he be titled King of England and made co-regnant with Mary I, and this was a major reason why Elizabeth I did not marry.
Consequently, it was important that Albert and Philip were a Prince and Duke respectively to make it clear that their wives were in charge.
Now that male primogeniture has been abolished for the British crown, and so Charlotte is above her younger brother Louis in the line of succession, it would perhaps be possible for the next Queen Regnant to have a King Consort. Particularly since this might well not happen until the 22nd century. It would seem to be a logical progression.
And a not Trump candidate has a chance against Biden.
Either you opt for irrelevancy or you run.
Though why anyone sane would still be in the party is a better question.
One suggestion that makes sense is that he was firearms owner (shotgun) so the police got sent along.
He made everyone cups of tea and got on with the roofing. The planning types were a bit shocked he didn't stop for them - but why should he? It was legal.....
Must be >95% chance of Starmer being PM after the next GE.
Putting a roof on a small outbuilding that used to have a roof is legal - no planning required. It's not as if he was building a house or something shady (!) like that.
He was doing it to create a secure store to stop thefts....
But I also don't see why we shouldn't welcome them here to work legally, as long as they have no organised crime links. The current setup seems the worst of all worlds - especially in terms of strengthening the hand of criminal gangs, while reducing public confidence in the asylum process.
See, for instance:
https://inews.co.uk/news/albanians-why-coming-uk-how-many-asylum-seekers-albania-pm-1950955#:~:text=How%20many%20asylum%20seekers%20come%20from%20Albania%20and,Alex%20Finnis%20Reporter%20November%203%2C%202022%201%3A34%20pm
If any apart from 4 were going to happen they'd almost certainly have done so already.
And he has a 27k majority, so that's not independent of 6 or 7.
So unless there's a short sucessful war with France (Spain at a pinch), what makes Mr and Mrs Voter look more favourably on the government? A rapid improvement in people's lived experience of the economy, I guess, but that seems unlikely and possibly insufficient anyway. Remember the "Britain is Booming, Don't let Labour Blow It" campaign from 1997?
Assuming she cannot win the nomination, the ideal for her is that she does creditably, Trump wins and blows up in the GE or DeSantis wins and Trump still runs, screwing DS.
Haley then emerges as a front-runner for 2028.
Frankly I admire those who are trying to make a better life for themselves, I just don't accept the way this is happening, with the conivance of the French too.