Howdy, Stranger!

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

New poll has LAB on course to win ALL 40 red wall Tory seats – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,163
edited March 2023 in General
New poll has LAB on course to win ALL 40 red wall Tory seats – politicalbetting.com

Labour leads by 22% in the Red Wall, enough to win ALL 40 of these seats in the next GE.Red Wall VI (5 March):Labour 51% (-4) Conservative 29% (+2)Reform UK 9% (-1)Lib Dem 6% (+2)Green 2% (-1)Plaid Cymru 1% (–)Other 2% (+1)Changes +/- 19 Febhttps://t.co/GfKKGUh5oY pic.twitter.com/7JR8MfHwAZ

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,913
    Another cock-up by SKS
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 5,288
    On the small boats - is it specific to that mode or are the similarly dangerous crossings in the backs of container lorries treated the same?
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,994
    FPT because obviously the most exciting news this week:

    Big snow event is tonight though. Probably rain on the South Coast. Inland, anything from a cm or so of slush in London to 5cm on the North and South downs, a bit more on the Chilterns, 4-5cm in the South Midlands and then some truly handy totals from Gloucs up through the Marches into central Wales. SSE winds so the best place for proper deep snow probably somewhere like the Southern and Eastern slopes of the Black Mountains.

    Then moving up into Snowdonia and the high Peak in the following couple of days.
  • Pro_Rata said:

    On the small boats - is it specific to that mode or are the similarly dangerous crossings in the backs of container lorries treated the same?

    I understand they have been all but eliminated, hence the rise in small boats
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 3,883
    Roger said:

    Another cock-up by SKS

    ...don't be rude....

    :wink:
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,041
    edited March 2023
    TimS said:

    FPT because obviously the most exciting news this week:

    Big snow event is tonight though. Probably rain on the South Coast. Inland, anything from a cm or so of slush in London to 5cm on the North and South downs, a bit more on the Chilterns, 4-5cm in the South Midlands and then some truly handy totals from Gloucs up through the Marches into central Wales. SSE winds so the best place for proper deep snow probably somewhere like the Southern and Eastern slopes of the Black Mountains.

    Then moving up into Snowdonia and the high Peak in the following couple of days.

    We already have snow in Eryi and Yr Wyddfa
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,913
    OT. I know too many Yorkshire men to believe Matthew Vaughn didn't say what he was reported to have said. It's what passes for a sense of humour there. But does any normal person think it's sufficiently offensive for him to lose his livelihood over. SERIOUSLY?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,388
    edited March 2023
    TimS said:

    FPT because obviously the most exciting news this week:

    Big snow event is tonight though. Probably rain on the South Coast. Inland, anything from a cm or so of slush in London to 5cm on the North and South downs, a bit more on the Chilterns, 4-5cm in the South Midlands and then some truly handy totals from Gloucs up through the Marches into central Wales. SSE winds so the best place for proper deep snow probably somewhere like the Southern and Eastern slopes of the Black Mountains.

    Then moving up into Snowdonia and the high Peak in the following couple of days.

    Not forecast for here tonight, although there's lots forecast for tomorrow evening.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,388
    Roger said:

    OT. I know too many Yorkshire men to believe Matthew Vaughn didn't say what he was reported to have said. It's what passes for a sense of humour there. But does any normal person think it's sufficiently offensive for him to lose his livelihood over. SERIOUSLY?

    Do you mean Michael Vaughan?
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 5,288
    TimS said:

    dixiedean said:

    TimS said:

    Are the Southerners here all looking forward to the snow tomorrow?

    (And South Midlanders, South Welsh and any hermits living up on Dartmoor)

    Snow all melted in the sunlight today here. Got that grubby look now.
    Big snow event is tonight though. Probably rain on the South Coast. Inland, anything from a cm or so of slush in London to 5cm on the North and South downs, a bit more on the Chilterns, 4-5cm in the South Midlands and then some truly handy totals from Gloucs up through the Marches into central Wales. SSE winds so the best place for proper deep snow probably somewhere like the Southern and Eastern slopes of the Black Mountains.
    Further north we're due the Thursday morning through to Friday morning band.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 5,288

    Pro_Rata said:

    On the small boats - is it specific to that mode or are the similarly dangerous crossings in the backs of container lorries treated the same?

    I understand they have been all but eliminated, hence the rise in small boats
    Of course the possible perverse outcome of a tight government focus on boats plus not disincentive lorries might be the reversal of that. Let's hope not.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,679
    I think the Tories need to put the Red Wall thing to bed. It was fun while it lasted, but was really just a cultural curiosity brought about by a range of forces: Brexit, Boris, Corbyn, Trump, the Financial Collapse, Thatcher etc. etc. Highly unlikely to happen again in my lifetime.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,070
    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    OT. I know too many Yorkshire men to believe Matthew Vaughn didn't say what he was reported to have said. It's what passes for a sense of humour there. But does any normal person think it's sufficiently offensive for him to lose his livelihood over. SERIOUSLY?

    Do you mean Michael Vaughan?
    He's clearly lost his good name, then.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,485
    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    OT. I know too many Yorkshire men to believe Matthew Vaughn didn't say what he was reported to have said. It's what passes for a sense of humour there. But does any normal person think it's sufficiently offensive for him to lose his livelihood over. SERIOUSLY?

    Do you mean Michael Vaughan?
    Vince Vaughn?
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,405
    Roger said:

    OT. I know too many Yorkshire men to believe Matthew Vaughn didn't say what he was reported to have said. It's what passes for a sense of humour there. But does any normal person think it's sufficiently offensive for him to lose his livelihood over. SERIOUSLY?

    I don’t know, but what did Michael Vaughan say?
  • Pro_Rata said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    On the small boats - is it specific to that mode or are the similarly dangerous crossings in the backs of container lorries treated the same?

    I understand they have been all but eliminated, hence the rise in small boats
    Of course the possible perverse outcome of a tight government focus on boats plus not disincentive lorries might be the reversal of that. Let's hope not.
    The bill will apply to lorries as well
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,485
    TimS said:

    FPT because obviously the most exciting news this week:

    Big snow event is tonight though. Probably rain on the South Coast. Inland, anything from a cm or so of slush in London to 5cm on the North and South downs, a bit more on the Chilterns, 4-5cm in the South Midlands and then some truly handy totals from Gloucs up through the Marches into central Wales. SSE winds so the best place for proper deep snow probably somewhere like the Southern and Eastern slopes of the Black Mountains.

    Then moving up into Snowdonia and the high Peak in the following couple of days.

    According to the BBC the focus of the S/Eastern snow is tomorrow evening – but I admit I haven't checked the latest model runs.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,433

    I think the Tories need to put the Red Wall thing to bed. It was fun while it lasted, but was really just a cultural curiosity brought about by a range of forces: Brexit, Boris, Corbyn, Trump, the Financial Collapse, Thatcher etc. etc. Highly unlikely to happen again in my lifetime.

    Any more helpful tips?
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,662
    We settled on 'Stop The Boats' as a slogan for our policy, because cruel, impractical, illegal, deceitful, xenophobic gaslighting wasn't as catchy.
    #ToryGaslighting
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541

    I think the Tories need to put the Red Wall thing to bed. It was fun while it lasted, but was really just a cultural curiosity brought about by a range of forces: Brexit, Boris, Corbyn, Trump, the Financial Collapse, Thatcher etc. etc. Highly unlikely to happen again in my lifetime.

    Any more helpful tips?
    They should reinstate Liz Truss
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,921
    edited March 2023
    The poll is not great for the Conservatives but not surprising either. Most of the redwall seats voted Labour even in 2010, 2015 and 2017. They went Conservative in 2019 mainly to get Brexit done and beat Corbyn, otherwise they are not natural Tory seats.

    So now both those goals have been achieved and Starmer has replaced Corbyn as Labour leader and Rishi has replaced Boris as Tory leader they have gone back to Lab. Rishi might hold more bluewall Home counties and West London seats than Boris would have done, especially from the LDs but he has almost certainly lost the redwall to Labour again
  • We settled on 'Stop The Boats' as a slogan for our policy, because cruel, impractical, illegal, deceitful, xenophobic gaslighting wasn't as catchy.
    #ToryGaslighting

    It's vile.
  • On topic, today is further proof why the Tories need to be eradicated.
  • O/T watch this week's John Oliver to see why Ron DeSantis is a douchebag.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,388

    O/T watch this week's John Oliver to see why Ron DeSantis is a douchebag.

    You actually needed to watch something to establish that?
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,662

    We settled on 'Stop The Boats' as a slogan for our policy, because cruel, impractical, illegal, deceitful, xenophobic gaslighting wasn't as catchy.
    #ToryGaslighting

    It's vile.
    It is.

    Are HM Opposition in favour or against?
  • ydoethur said:

    O/T watch this week's John Oliver to see why Ron DeSantis is a douchebag.

    You actually needed to watch something to establish that?
    No, but this really links just how much of a Mark Reckless he is.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,647

    I think the Tories need to put the Red Wall thing to bed. It was fun while it lasted, but was really just a cultural curiosity brought about by a range of forces: Brexit, Boris, Corbyn, Trump, the Financial Collapse, Thatcher etc. etc. Highly unlikely to happen again in my lifetime.

    More the old coalfields than Red Wall becoming more like other constituencies with the same demographic proportions as memories of mining fade.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382

    O/T watch this week's John Oliver to see why Ron DeSantis is a douchebag.

    John Oliver's dad lives less than a third of a mile from me and was for a time my wife's boss bosd
  • We settled on 'Stop The Boats' as a slogan for our policy, because cruel, impractical, illegal, deceitful, xenophobic gaslighting wasn't as catchy.
    #ToryGaslighting

    It's vile.
    It is.

    Are HM Opposition in favour or against?
    Against.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,652
    The silly thing about all this small boats stuff is that it is not going to work. They will keep on coming and there will be relatively few, if any, deportations. It will have two effects, IMO:
    1. Galvanise anti-Tory tactical voting in Blue Wall seats.
    2. Seriously disappoint Reform-leaning 2019 Tories in the Red Wall.

    If this was the first attempt at the front end of a first Tory term I could understand it. But the same rhetoric accompanying the third piece of supposedly gamechanging legislation in three years in year 13 of Tory rule seems less smart to me.

    But I guess if you have nothing, you will try anything.
  • US intelligence officials believe an attack on the Nord Stream energy pipelines in September was carried out by a pro-Ukrainian group, but say there is no evidence they were assisted by the government in Kyiv.

    The cost of repairing the underwater pipelines that carry gas from Russia to Europe has been estimated at as much as $500 million after they were damaged by explosives. Nobody claimed responsibility at the time, and while Washington now believes that an independent group was responsible, it is still not clear how the operation was carried out.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nord-stream-pipeline-attack-us-ukraine-3vjpvg2t6
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,921

    We settled on 'Stop The Boats' as a slogan for our policy, because cruel, impractical, illegal, deceitful, xenophobic gaslighting wasn't as catchy.
    #ToryGaslighting

    It worked for Tony Abbott in Australia in 2013 and an Italian version for Meloni in Italy last year
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,662
    HYUFD said:

    The poll is not great for the Conservatives but not surprising either. Most of the redwall seats voted Labour even in 2010, 2015 and 2017. They went Conservative in 2019 mainly to get Brexit done and beat Corbyn, otherwise they are not natural Tory seats.

    So now both those goals have been achieved and Starmer has replaced Corbyn as Labour leader and Rishi has replaced Boris as Tory leader they have gone back to Lab. Rishi might hold more bluewall Home counties and West London seats than Boris would have done, especially from the LDs but he has almost certainly lost the redwall to Labour again

    I wouldn't give up

    Stop the boats and Referendum on Capital Punishment will be red meat to red wall.

    I expect both to be in Tory Manifesto and be rammed down peoples throats as much as the oven ready deal.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541
    HYUFD said:

    We settled on 'Stop The Boats' as a slogan for our policy, because cruel, impractical, illegal, deceitful, xenophobic gaslighting wasn't as catchy.
    #ToryGaslighting

    It worked for Tony Abbott in Australia in 2013 and an Italian version for Meloni in Italy last year
    Oh! That makes it all okay then.
  • New poll has sun on course to rise in the East tomorrow.

    As it stands Labour won't just win the 40 red wall seats, they'll win far more than that. It'll take a very dramatic movement in the polls to change that.
  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 3,028
    The thing is - no one trust the Tories to solve anything. The small boats thing today is another indicator of how they’ve lost their minds - pushing forward on something that looks dubious in terms of legality. Which is a shame after the common sense of the Windsor framework
  • O/T watch this week's John Oliver to see why Ron DeSantis is a douchebag.

    John Oliver's dad lives less than a third of a mile from me and was for a time my wife's boss bosd
    I knew his father used to be a headteacher in Bedford, didn't realise the Smithson link.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,822

    On topic, today is further proof why the Tories need to be eradicated.

    Can't we just vote them out instead, I think we may have to leave some international treaties if we want to eradicate them.
  • WillGWillG Posts: 2,366
    TimS said:

    Driver said:

    WillG said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @guardian: Suella Braverman’s small boats crackdown is performative cruelty at its worst | Enver Solomon https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/07/suella-braverman-small-boats-crackdown-illegal-migrants-uk

    One paragraph in and the journalist is already lying. People are not fleeing persecution when they are coming from France.
    And the French say 'people are not fleeing persecution when they are coming from Italy'. And so on.
    France takes a lot more refugees/asylum seekers than we do.
    Which is why it would make sense to have an international agreement on sharing the burden/benefit. I consider myself very liberally minded on most matters, but logic tells me that if someone is fleeing persecution they should claim asylum in the first safe country they land in. Moving on from there they become economic migrants.

    If one were fleeing a gang of thugs one wouldn't pass several places of sanctuary in the desire to get to the one that had the most desirable armchair.
    Right, and that has to be the end-point, doesn't it, although one that's going to be difficult to reach with all the vested interests and voters' opinions getting in the way?

    Asylum must be claimed in the first safe country as a sign that the claim is legitimate, but all safe countries agree that would place an unfair burden on those that happen to be nearest to the countries that refugees are fleeing. There could even be a way in the sharing system for refugees who do have links to a particular country to request to be transferred there.
    And asylum seekers should be able to express a preference of country based on specific links such as family, religion or language. To take the analogy about running from thugs and stopping at the first house: yes, but you might well try to make it to your brother's house where you know you'll be looked after.

    Not to say that all preferences would always be granted - otherwise everyone arriving in Europe would end up in Germany. But it makes sense from an integration and support perspective that, for example, a native French speaker goes to France, someone with family in London comes to London, someone persecuted as a Yazidi ends up somewhere where there is a Yazidi community and so on.
    This is rubbish. The best sense from a support perspective is where it is cheapest to host them. That way the money can go furthest. And the talk of "integration" gives the game away. It isn't about giving people a refuge from persecution. It's about trying to expand long term immigration.
  • Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 3,250

    TimS said:

    FPT because obviously the most exciting news this week:

    Big snow event is tonight though. Probably rain on the South Coast. Inland, anything from a cm or so of slush in London to 5cm on the North and South downs, a bit more on the Chilterns, 4-5cm in the South Midlands and then some truly handy totals from Gloucs up through the Marches into central Wales. SSE winds so the best place for proper deep snow probably somewhere like the Southern and Eastern slopes of the Black Mountains.

    Then moving up into Snowdonia and the high Peak in the following couple of days.

    We already have snow in Eryi and Yr Wyddfa
    Snowed On. The clue's in the name.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,994

    TimS said:

    FPT because obviously the most exciting news this week:

    Big snow event is tonight though. Probably rain on the South Coast. Inland, anything from a cm or so of slush in London to 5cm on the North and South downs, a bit more on the Chilterns, 4-5cm in the South Midlands and then some truly handy totals from Gloucs up through the Marches into central Wales. SSE winds so the best place for proper deep snow probably somewhere like the Southern and Eastern slopes of the Black Mountains.

    Then moving up into Snowdonia and the high Peak in the following couple of days.

    According to the BBC the focus of the S/Eastern snow is tomorrow evening – but I admit I haven't checked the latest model runs.
    Latest has it starting around 2am in London and finishing 7am, with the snow spreading up into Wales during the day.

    At this range I usually look at the Arome model but a few other high resolution ones show something similar.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,662
    HYUFD said:

    We settled on 'Stop The Boats' as a slogan for our policy, because cruel, impractical, illegal, deceitful, xenophobic gaslighting wasn't as catchy.
    #ToryGaslighting

    It worked for Tony Abbott in Australia in 2013 and an Italian version for Meloni in Italy last year
    It did.

    Just because it's immoral and illegal won't stop it being popular with some, unfortunately.

    Represents Tories best chance of clinging on. That's how desperate it is.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,632
    edited March 2023

    HYUFD said:

    We settled on 'Stop The Boats' as a slogan for our policy, because cruel, impractical, illegal, deceitful, xenophobic gaslighting wasn't as catchy.
    #ToryGaslighting

    It worked for Tony Abbott in Australia in 2013 and an Italian version for Meloni in Italy last year
    It did.

    Just because it's immoral and illegal won't stop it being popular with some, unfortunately.

    Represents Tories best chance of clinging on. That's how desperate it is.
    You know who also advocated abrogating rights and international treaties whilst dealing with immigrants and asylum seekers? The BNP.

    Stellar company the Tories have joined.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,652
    HYUFD said:

    We settled on 'Stop The Boats' as a slogan for our policy, because cruel, impractical, illegal, deceitful, xenophobic gaslighting wasn't as catchy.
    #ToryGaslighting

    It worked for Tony Abbott in Australia in 2013 and an Italian version for Meloni in Italy last year

    Both were in opposition, weren't they?

  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,662

    We settled on 'Stop The Boats' as a slogan for our policy, because cruel, impractical, illegal, deceitful, xenophobic gaslighting wasn't as catchy.
    #ToryGaslighting

    It's vile.
    It is.

    Are HM Opposition in favour or against?
    Against.
    Good and we know SKS is a man of principle who never changes his mind if there might be a few votes in it
  • CorrectHorseBattery3CorrectHorseBattery3 Posts: 2,757
    edited March 2023
    This policy is inhumane and useless.
  • The thing is - no one trust the Tories to solve anything. The small boats thing today is another indicator of how they’ve lost their minds - pushing forward on something that looks dubious in terms of legality. Which is a shame after the common sense of the Windsor framework

    From this poll.


  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,871

    HYUFD said:

    We settled on 'Stop The Boats' as a slogan for our policy, because cruel, impractical, illegal, deceitful, xenophobic gaslighting wasn't as catchy.
    #ToryGaslighting

    It worked for Tony Abbott in Australia in 2013 and an Italian version for Meloni in Italy last year
    It did.

    Just because it's immoral and illegal won't stop it being popular with some, unfortunately.

    Represents Tories best chance of clinging on. That's how desperate it is.
    You know who also advocated abrogating rights and international treaties whilst dealing with immigrants and asylum seekers? The BNP.

    Stellar company the Tories have joined.
    If a country signs a treaty that shouldn't mean at a future date they can't say this treaty doesn't work for us so we are unsigning....the treaty of Troyes for example
  • So in summary you cannot be a refugee. How does somebody from Afghanistan claim asylum here? It is impossible.
  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 3,028

    The thing is - no one trust the Tories to solve anything. The small boats thing today is another indicator of how they’ve lost their minds - pushing forward on something that looks dubious in terms of legality. Which is a shame after the common sense of the Windsor framework

    From this poll.


    So basically, the only effective thing really has been the Ukraine response. Just.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,662

    HYUFD said:

    We settled on 'Stop The Boats' as a slogan for our policy, because cruel, impractical, illegal, deceitful, xenophobic gaslighting wasn't as catchy.
    #ToryGaslighting

    It worked for Tony Abbott in Australia in 2013 and an Italian version for Meloni in Italy last year
    It did.

    Just because it's immoral and illegal won't stop it being popular with some, unfortunately.

    Represents Tories best chance of clinging on. That's how desperate it is.
    You know who also advocated abrogating rights and international treaties whilst dealing with immigrants and asylum seekers? The BNP.

    Stellar company the Tories have joined.
    Well yes.

    In order to get clear blue water they need to go further given Labour are in Thatcher territory on most of the main issues
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,871

    So in summary you cannot be a refugee. How does somebody from Afghanistan claim asylum here? It is impossible.

    Why does a refugee from afghanistan need asylum in the uk? There are safe countries nearer
  • 1. I’ve been having a look at the bill. Not going to be able to put together anything coherent tonight. It’s a terrible piece of legislation that denies refugees their rights under the Refugee Convention. But a law in the UK cannot magically invent somewhere to remove people to.

    2. So we’ll likely end up with tens of thousands of people who are refugees but whose claims cannot legally be assessed and who cannot work, who have to live on minimal state support in hotels. For ever.

    3. If it doesn’t actually deter all arrivals — and it won’t — then it looks completely unsustainable. The government is going to create a new, huge, ever-growing asylum backlog. Honestly, I think it’s absolutely nuts.


    https://twitter.com/ColinYeo1/status/1633179664100339713
  • Under this legislation [sic] Jews fleeing Nazi Germany would have been kicked out of the UK.

    Take a fucking bow Rishi.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,822

    1. I’ve been having a look at the bill. Not going to be able to put together anything coherent tonight. It’s a terrible piece of legislation that denies refugees their rights under the Refugee Convention. But a law in the UK cannot magically invent somewhere to remove people to.

    2. So we’ll likely end up with tens of thousands of people who are refugees but whose claims cannot legally be assessed and who cannot work, who have to live on minimal state support in hotels. For ever.

    3. If it doesn’t actually deter all arrivals — and it won’t — then it looks completely unsustainable. The government is going to create a new, huge, ever-growing asylum backlog. Honestly, I think it’s absolutely nuts.


    https://twitter.com/ColinYeo1/status/1633179664100339713

    Clearly designed to be illegal and pass on the blame to the courts.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,871

    Under this legislation [sic] Jews fleeing Nazi Germany would have been kicked out of the UK.

    Take a fucking bow Rishi.

    No they wouldn't because no european country save maybe switzerland was safe for them. The french were quite happy under vicy to put jews on trains. The jews have a point there. An afghani fleeing persecution in afghanistan does not have that excuse.

    I would agree though if you said we take afghans persecuted for working with british forces because we owe them that.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,507

    The thing is - no one trust the Tories to solve anything. The small boats thing today is another indicator of how they’ve lost their minds - pushing forward on something that looks dubious in terms of legality. Which is a shame after the common sense of the Windsor framework

    From this poll.


    My take is this is a rather poor poll for Labour, 6% chunk knocked off the lead since the last one.

    7% only on economy doesn’t look too good for Labour either.

    We have to remember, losing 6% of lead now and only 7% ahead on economy, we are still north country miles away from a general election.

    We used to think of these seats as Labour heartlands, loyal to Labour even through the Thatcher landslides of the eighties? Why then are Tories doing so well there this week, against all these headwinds?
  • 1. I’ve been having a look at the bill. Not going to be able to put together anything coherent tonight. It’s a terrible piece of legislation that denies refugees their rights under the Refugee Convention. But a law in the UK cannot magically invent somewhere to remove people to.

    2. So we’ll likely end up with tens of thousands of people who are refugees but whose claims cannot legally be assessed and who cannot work, who have to live on minimal state support in hotels. For ever.

    3. If it doesn’t actually deter all arrivals — and it won’t — then it looks completely unsustainable. The government is going to create a new, huge, ever-growing asylum backlog. Honestly, I think it’s absolutely nuts.


    https://twitter.com/ColinYeo1/status/1633179664100339713

    Clearly designed to be illegal and pass on the blame to the courts.
    Bizarre strategy, everybody loves lawyers, except the ones who are Tory politicians.

    Why do you think Starmer is leading in the polls, it is because he is a top lawyer.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,647

    1. I’ve been having a look at the bill. Not going to be able to put together anything coherent tonight. It’s a terrible piece of legislation that denies refugees their rights under the Refugee Convention. But a law in the UK cannot magically invent somewhere to remove people to.

    2. So we’ll likely end up with tens of thousands of people who are refugees but whose claims cannot legally be assessed and who cannot work, who have to live on minimal state support in hotels. For ever.

    3. If it doesn’t actually deter all arrivals — and it won’t — then it looks completely unsustainable. The government is going to create a new, huge, ever-growing asylum backlog. Honestly, I think it’s absolutely nuts.


    https://twitter.com/ColinYeo1/status/1633179664100339713

    Clearly designed to be illegal and pass on the blame to the courts.
    Yes, the whole purpose is performative cruelty so as to create outrage at "Leftie North London Lawyers". It is designed to fail.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,652
    Foxy said:

    1. I’ve been having a look at the bill. Not going to be able to put together anything coherent tonight. It’s a terrible piece of legislation that denies refugees their rights under the Refugee Convention. But a law in the UK cannot magically invent somewhere to remove people to.

    2. So we’ll likely end up with tens of thousands of people who are refugees but whose claims cannot legally be assessed and who cannot work, who have to live on minimal state support in hotels. For ever.

    3. If it doesn’t actually deter all arrivals — and it won’t — then it looks completely unsustainable. The government is going to create a new, huge, ever-growing asylum backlog. Honestly, I think it’s absolutely nuts.


    https://twitter.com/ColinYeo1/status/1633179664100339713

    Clearly designed to be illegal and pass on the blame to the courts.
    Yes, the whole purpose is performative cruelty so as to create outrage at "Leftie North London Lawyers". It is designed to fail.

    I'm actually struggling to get wound up by it all because it is so transparently performative and designed only to create dividing lines that most people will just dismiss it.

  • The thing is - no one trust the Tories to solve anything. The small boats thing today is another indicator of how they’ve lost their minds - pushing forward on something that looks dubious in terms of legality. Which is a shame after the common sense of the Windsor framework

    From this poll.


    My take is this is a rather poor poll for Labour, 6% chunk knocked off the lead since the last one.

    7% only on economy doesn’t look too good for Labour either.

    We have to remember, losing 6% of lead now and only 7% ahead on economy, we are still north country miles away from a general election.

    We used to think of these seats as Labour heartlands, loyal to Labour even through the Thatcher landslides of the eighties? Why then are Tories doing so well there this week, against all these headwinds?
    I stopped reading at 'my take'
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 21,971
    edited March 2023
    DougSeal said:

    Driver said:

    DougSeal said:

    Driver said:

    Carnyx said:

    Driver said:

    Chris said:

    Driver said:

    Chris said:

    WillG said:

    Chris said:

    Westie said:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ground-breaking-new-laws-to-stop-the-boats

    "Home Secretary Suella Braverman said: (...) We must stop the boats. (...) It is completely unfair that people who travel through a string of safe countries then come to the UK illegally and abuse our asylum laws to avoid removal."

    Human rights law is for wimps, libtards, whiners, and the "elite", right? It's for trade unionists, lefty lawyers, cultural Marxists, and Remoaners. We know their type. Give 'em a chance and they always go on about human rights. They want those boats to keep coming here. Well enough is enough. From NOW.

    To be honest I just wonder whether people like Suella Braverman (and for that matter Rishi Sunak) have thought things through completely, if they have decided it's a good strategy for them to appeal to the anti-immigrant vote.
    What is incorrect about what she is saying?
    I'm not sure I can make it any simpler.

    What I'm asking is whether it can be more likely than not incompatible with the ECHR, and yet for her to be confident it is compatible with international law.
    Potentially if the ECHR is itself incompatible with the Refugee Convention?
    You mean if the provisions of the ECHR were not considered to be part of international law?

    That does seem to be implied logically by what she is saying, but can she really be saying that?
    I'm thinking that it's a possible argument that the proposed Bill is compatible with the Refugee Convention and hence with "international law".

    This is probably a dubious argument, but it's the best I've come up with (not that I would pretend to be an expert).
    Well globally most people in civilised, western countries are not subject to the ECHR. EG Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply and all of them are subject to international laws and agreements.

    Meanwhile the ECHR is so robust it had Russia as a member at rhe start of 2022. Good job there, great job ensuring a free press, free speech and free elections and avoiding a fascist regime coming to power and everything else the convention was supposed to deal with.

    The ECHR is a failure and we could withdraw from it and still be an upstanding civilised nation subject to international law.

    However it is my understanding that unless and until we do, it is part of OUR international law even if its not a part of other nations international law.
    "Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply"

    Er, there's a rather different and more basic reason for that. They are not in Europe. The UK is.
    Why are human rights in Europe special? On something like this shouldn't there be a global agreement?
    It was introduced because Europe had very recently succumbed to barbarism and the majority of countries therein wanted a joint agreement to try and ensure that civilisation would never again leave our shared home.
    That was a very long time ago, is it still relevant in 2023?
    Europe has largely, with some admitted exceptions, avoided barbarism while it has been current. So yes. It is relevant.

    Which Human Right to you object to most of the ones listed? The right to a fair trial? The right to property? The right to family? What is it that irks you about these? Do you yearn for a time when the U.K. could commit genocide on its own shores with impunity?
    "largely"

    So long as you avoid looking at nations like Russia, that had the ECHR seal of approval last year. 🤦‍♂️

    I agree with the Human Rights from the Convention. I think those rights should be protected by the UK Parliament.

    I do not agree with seconding that to unelected jurists that can be swayed by Roubles.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541
    Pagan2 said:

    Under this legislation [sic] Jews fleeing Nazi Germany would have been kicked out of the UK.

    Take a fucking bow Rishi.

    No they wouldn't because no european country save maybe switzerland was safe for them. The french were quite happy under vicy to put jews on trains. The jews have a point there. An afghani fleeing persecution in afghanistan does not have that excuse.

    I would agree though if you said we take afghans persecuted for working with british forces because we owe them that.
    Idiot. We didn’t take in any Jews after the fall of France. They couldn’t get here. All the Jews we took in (very few comparatively) were before the outbreak of the war. Under Rishi’s amoral piece of shit legislation they would have been sent back to France and the rest of Europe ready to be murdered after the Nazi’s arrived.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,822

    1. I’ve been having a look at the bill. Not going to be able to put together anything coherent tonight. It’s a terrible piece of legislation that denies refugees their rights under the Refugee Convention. But a law in the UK cannot magically invent somewhere to remove people to.

    2. So we’ll likely end up with tens of thousands of people who are refugees but whose claims cannot legally be assessed and who cannot work, who have to live on minimal state support in hotels. For ever.

    3. If it doesn’t actually deter all arrivals — and it won’t — then it looks completely unsustainable. The government is going to create a new, huge, ever-growing asylum backlog. Honestly, I think it’s absolutely nuts.


    https://twitter.com/ColinYeo1/status/1633179664100339713

    Clearly designed to be illegal and pass on the blame to the courts.
    Bizarre strategy, everybody loves lawyers, except the ones who are Tory politicians.

    Why do you think Starmer is leading in the polls, it is because he is a top lawyer.
    Because the Tory party have become ************,*****,**** and *******.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,431
    Pagan2 said:

    So in summary you cannot be a refugee. How does somebody from Afghanistan claim asylum here? It is impossible.

    Why does a refugee from afghanistan need asylum in the uk? There are safe countries nearer
    Can speak English… sort of, anyway ….. and has family here.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 5,288

    Pro_Rata said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    On the small boats - is it specific to that mode or are the similarly dangerous crossings in the backs of container lorries treated the same?

    I understand they have been all but eliminated, hence the rise in small boats
    Of course the possible perverse outcome of a tight government focus on boats plus not disincentive lorries might be the reversal of that. Let's hope not.
    The bill will apply to lorries as well
    Thanks.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,507

    O/T watch this week's John Oliver to see why Ron DeSantis is a douchebag.

    John Oliver's dad lives less than a third of a mile from me and was for a time my wife's boss bosd
    I knew his father used to be a headteacher in Bedford, didn't realise the Smithson link.
    John Oliver was also a teacher, at Glendale College in the states.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,822
    Pagan2 said:

    So in summary you cannot be a refugee. How does somebody from Afghanistan claim asylum here? It is impossible.

    Why does a refugee from afghanistan need asylum in the uk? There are safe countries nearer
    We gave them the right by international treaty. If we don't want to do that anymore we should leave the treaty. Not make new laws that simply cannot be enforced and weaken trust in our own courts.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,871
    DougSeal said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Under this legislation [sic] Jews fleeing Nazi Germany would have been kicked out of the UK.

    Take a fucking bow Rishi.

    No they wouldn't because no european country save maybe switzerland was safe for them. The french were quite happy under vicy to put jews on trains. The jews have a point there. An afghani fleeing persecution in afghanistan does not have that excuse.

    I would agree though if you said we take afghans persecuted for working with british forces because we owe them that.
    Idiot. We didn’t take in any Jews after the fall of France. They couldn’t get here. All the Jews we took in (very few comparatively) were before the outbreak of the war. Under Rishi’s amoral piece of shit legislation they would have been sent back to France and the rest of Europe ready to be murdered after the Nazi’s arrived.
    As usual you are wrong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_refugees_from_German-occupied_Europe_in_the_United_Kingdom

    During the war 10k made it here
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,822

    Foxy said:

    1. I’ve been having a look at the bill. Not going to be able to put together anything coherent tonight. It’s a terrible piece of legislation that denies refugees their rights under the Refugee Convention. But a law in the UK cannot magically invent somewhere to remove people to.

    2. So we’ll likely end up with tens of thousands of people who are refugees but whose claims cannot legally be assessed and who cannot work, who have to live on minimal state support in hotels. For ever.

    3. If it doesn’t actually deter all arrivals — and it won’t — then it looks completely unsustainable. The government is going to create a new, huge, ever-growing asylum backlog. Honestly, I think it’s absolutely nuts.


    https://twitter.com/ColinYeo1/status/1633179664100339713

    Clearly designed to be illegal and pass on the blame to the courts.
    Yes, the whole purpose is performative cruelty so as to create outrage at "Leftie North London Lawyers". It is designed to fail.

    I'm actually struggling to get wound up by it all because it is so transparently performative and designed only to create dividing lines that most people will just dismiss it.

    Less than two years to go as well.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,634

    US intelligence officials believe an attack on the Nord Stream energy pipelines in September was carried out by a pro-Ukrainian group, but say there is no evidence they were assisted by the government in Kyiv.

    The cost of repairing the underwater pipelines that carry gas from Russia to Europe has been estimated at as much as $500 million after they were damaged by explosives. Nobody claimed responsibility at the time, and while Washington now believes that an independent group was responsible, it is still not clear how the operation was carried out.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nord-stream-pipeline-attack-us-ukraine-3vjpvg2t6

    A "pro-Ukrainian group" sounds like a euphemism for a Western intelligence agency.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,786
    edited March 2023
    @hyufd You refer to my views on Grammar schools on the last thread as lefty liberal crap. As you well know I am not a 'lefty'. As you also know I am far more in favour of the free market than you, which makes me closer to the Tories than you on many issues. You often come over with some real socialist stuff. You might also like to consider why so many Conservative Governments since Comprehensives were brought in have done nothing about removing them and why Conservative control councils like Surrey implemented the Comprehensive system and have kept it ever since. They rely on evidence.

    Only Conservatives who want to take us back to 1950 or Victorian times are in favour of the Grammars. Modern Conservatives like David Johnson, MP for Wantage, who has written on the subject and whom I know a little, are very anti Grammars.

    Or as usual are these not real Tories?
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,723
    What track record does Redfield Wilton have .. just asking ?
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,507
    edited March 2023

    The thing is - no one trust the Tories to solve anything. The small boats thing today is another indicator of how they’ve lost their minds - pushing forward on something that looks dubious in terms of legality. Which is a shame after the common sense of the Windsor framework

    From this poll.


    My take is this is a rather poor poll for Labour, 6% chunk knocked off the lead since the last one.

    7% only on economy doesn’t look too good for Labour either.

    We have to remember, losing 6% of lead now and only 7% ahead on economy, we are still north country miles away from a general election.

    We used to think of these seats as Labour heartlands, loyal to Labour even through the Thatcher landslides of the eighties? Why then are Tories doing so well there this week, against all these headwinds?
    I stopped reading at 'my take'
    That’s a shame as I raised some interesting points.

    Why talk up a poll where the gap has closed so much since the last one?

    Why, in this situation, are Labour not further ahead on economy?

    Why, considering some of the worst headwinds any UK government have had to endure since the 70’s, is the Tory position clearly not worsening, in fact just recently seems to be advancing, such as in this poll?

    I can tap out and not offer my “honest unspun take” if Admins don’t like them.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,433
    John Redwood not a fan of Rishi's deal:

    Now more of the detail is coming out about the Northern Ireland talks, it shows us more matters need to be clarified in writing and sorted out in the Joint Committee before accepting any changes to the legal position.

    The EU spokesman has told MEPs according to briefings that the ECJ will have an important role and substantial amounts of EU law will apply to Northern Ireland. He also pointed out the Stormont brake would rarely be able to work. It seems the green lane would still be subject to EU checks and to possible EU interruption to the flow of goods. That is why I have asked the government to show us a list of the EU laws that will apply to Northern Ireland from day one of any new agreements. I have asked how many VAT and Excise rules will still constrain our tax policies, and want to know more about what information and form filling people will need to supply to allow green lane trade. It appears that EU plant and animal husbandry rules will apply. We also need to know in what circumstances the EU could suspend or modify green lane trade.

    It is most important to get this right. The rest of the UK does not want to find it needs to align with the EU over tax and regulations, any more than Unionists in Northern Ireland wish to find their laws and taxes in part come from the EU where they have no vote or voice. The UK fully accepts the need to avoid a border between NI and the Republic, but also needs to avoid a border between GB and NI. Any new arrangement at the very least needs a unilateral exit route for the UK should the terms prove onerous. It remains to be seen if the Unionist parties find it acceptable so that they can rejoin the Stormont Assembly, one of the original aims of the talks.

    https://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2023/03/07/the-government-needs-to-ask-for-substantial-improvements-to-the-northern-ireland-deal/

    The point I have bolded is, to me, the crux of the matter. The deal may not be great shakes itself, but any easing of intra-UK trade is to be welcomed - however, only if the agreement can be terminated freely by both parties. Otherwise, the Windsor Framework will have the binding status of an international treaty on the UK, but the EU will be able to suspend its commitments under the agreement whenever it wants to. That's not something any responsible Government would put its name to.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,723
    Roger said:

    OT. I know too many Yorkshire men to believe Matthew Vaughn didn't say what he was reported to have said. It's what passes for a sense of humour there. But does any normal person think it's sufficiently offensive for him to lose his livelihood over. SERIOUSLY?

    Oh dear Roger.. do get the name right....
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,871

    Roger said:

    OT. I know too many Yorkshire men to believe Matthew Vaughn didn't say what he was reported to have said. It's what passes for a sense of humour there. But does any normal person think it's sufficiently offensive for him to lose his livelihood over. SERIOUSLY?

    Oh dear Roger.. do get the name right....
    Roger doesn't think Polanski sodomizing a 15 year old is a big deal either as it was years ago and Polanski is a lovey
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,723
    edited March 2023
    What track record does Redfield Wilton have?
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,994

    US intelligence officials believe an attack on the Nord Stream energy pipelines in September was carried out by a pro-Ukrainian group, but say there is no evidence they were assisted by the government in Kyiv.

    The cost of repairing the underwater pipelines that carry gas from Russia to Europe has been estimated at as much as $500 million after they were damaged by explosives. Nobody claimed responsibility at the time, and while Washington now believes that an independent group was responsible, it is still not clear how the operation was carried out.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nord-stream-pipeline-attack-us-ukraine-3vjpvg2t6

    A "pro-Ukrainian group" sounds like a euphemism for a Western intelligence agency.
    They said they believed the perpetrators were Ukrainian and/or Russian nationals.

    There’s a lot of sabotage of regime property happening on a weekly basis in Russia. Some possibly is liberal anti-Putinists but it seems a fair bit is different breeds of Russian ultra-nationalist. If Western intelligence are aware of Russian dissident groups then I assume they will be protecting their sources.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,094

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    https://news.sky.com/story/rishi-sunaks-small-boats-plan-to-push-boundaries-of-international-law-12827674

    How the fuck is this going to work? How are these people supposed to claim asylum when they are no safe, legal routes to do so???

    I think that's the point. They can't. The idea is to stop the flow completely.
    A year ago we were told that the mere threat of Rwanda would stop the boats, yet here we are again. It is just performative cruelty as policy.

    At the same time we are fast tracking asylum claims from places thought to be legitimate:

    https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/government-fast-track-asylum-seekers/
    The latter policy (fast track) is sensible. People from countries like Afghanistan, Syria, South Sudan, Eritrea and the like will almost inevitably succeed in their asylum claims so why clog up the system with them? Conversely, claims from the likes of Albania have very poor prospects and should again be brought to a swift conclusion with action taken on removal.
    Why should they succeed, though?

    Are we obliged to take in anyone from any really poor/crap country who makes it to our shores. There are hundreds of millions of such people.

    On this I think the fundamentals of the question hinge.
    We cannot house all our own people. Sooner or later the "We are full up" sign will have to go up.
    But why can't we house everyone?

    It's not lack of land and it's not lack of money to buy bricks or pay builders.

    It's just that we don't want to build stuff. And that works less well as an excuse.
    This.

    The policy of not building houses to match population is institutionally racist, incidentally.
    Everything is racist if you can find an excuse for it to be so. Its more likely to be racist against the wwc.
    The main issue is probably old vs. young. Older WWC people who bought their council houses under Maggie are sitting relatively prettily.

    Does the UK's racial mix look different for young and old people?
    I think that the intersection of age and racial demographics are an underappreciated source of some of the political dynamics in this country. In a lot of ways the defining difference between Baby Boomers and Millenials or Gen Z is how racially diverse the latter groups are compared to the former. I think this helps to explain the lack of understanding, perhaps even lack of empathy, between the generations. It probably helps to account for the intensified political polarisation by age for one thing, as well as the politics of housing.
    Since race is not a very polarising political issue in this country (unlike America) I still think its housing, not race, that's the key issue in the UK.

    Thank goodness we aren't like America where everything boils down to race.
    As I already posted the vast majority in the UK as in the US own property, only in inner London like inner New York City do most rent.

    The difference in the UK has historically been class more than race.

    Though increasingly there is more of an age difference in both
    The fact that most own their property, because property was affordable when old people were young, is utterly irrelevant and not the killer point you think it is.

    Most young people should be able to afford a house. They can't. That's a problem and it needs solving urgently.
    By 39 most have bought a property in the UK, at least with a mortgage.

    Now ideally that would be nearer 30 but 39 is not old, indeed at most it is young middle age
    39 is far, far, far too old, it is past the age that it is safest to start having children.

    People should be able to afford a home by 25, so they can settle down and have children.
    My daughter in law has just had her third baby at 40

    Not sure your comment on age women are safe having children is correct
    Indeed, Cherie Blair had Leo when she was 45
    image

    is just one issue
    Yes of course the risk of things like that increases but it is still only a small chance and on the other hand you are more mature and financially secure to take on motherhood than in your early 20s
    Also more tired! We had our first child at 30 and third at 37 and there was a big difference in energy levels! I would say late 20s or early 30s is the optimal time to start having children, and society should be organised to facilitate that. Successfully raising the next generation should be one of the main goals of any civilisation. If we make it increasingly hard for people to have children we are basically committing suicide as a society. Osborne's assault on parents was so dumb.
    It is womens' choice, especially upper middle class womens' choice to go to university and have careers first before children.

    100 years ago many of them would have gone to finishing school, then had children soon after who would be left with nanny or governess. Now many want careers first and will have children in their late 30s or early 40s rather than 20s, often still leaving them with nannies or au pairs anyway much of the time
    This is your regular reminder that the upper middle class are not the only people in the country.
    Don't tell the political parties that, it'll blow their minds.
  • The thing is - no one trust the Tories to solve anything. The small boats thing today is another indicator of how they’ve lost their minds - pushing forward on something that looks dubious in terms of legality. Which is a shame after the common sense of the Windsor framework

    From this poll.


    My take is this is a rather poor poll for Labour, 6% chunk knocked off the lead since the last one.

    7% only on economy doesn’t look too good for Labour either.

    We have to remember, losing 6% of lead now and only 7% ahead on economy, we are still north country miles away from a general election.

    We used to think of these seats as Labour heartlands, loyal to Labour even through the Thatcher landslides of the eighties? Why then are Tories doing so well there this week, against all these headwinds?
    I stopped reading at 'my take'
    That’s a shame as I raised some interesting points.

    Why talk up a poll where the gap has closed so much since the last one?

    Why, in this situation, are Labour not further ahead on economy?

    Why, considering some of the worst headwinds any UK government have had to endure since the 70’s, is the Tory position clearly not worsening, in fact just recently seems to be advancing, such as in this poll?

    I can tap out and not offer my “honest unspun take” if Admins don’t like them.
    The polls seem fairly stable but what is evident is they seem to collectively indicate Sunak is improving his ratings better than his party
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,994

    The thing is - no one trust the Tories to solve anything. The small boats thing today is another indicator of how they’ve lost their minds - pushing forward on something that looks dubious in terms of legality. Which is a shame after the common sense of the Windsor framework

    From this poll.


    My take is this is a rather poor poll for Labour, 6% chunk knocked off the lead since the last one.

    7% only on economy doesn’t look too good for Labour either.

    We have to remember, losing 6% of lead now and only 7% ahead on economy, we are still north country miles away from a general election.

    We used to think of these seats as Labour heartlands, loyal to Labour even through the Thatcher landslides of the eighties? Why then are Tories doing so well there this week, against all these headwinds?
    I stopped reading at 'my take'
    That’s a shame as I raised some interesting points.

    Why talk up a poll where the gap has closed so much since the last one?

    Why, in this situation, are Labour not further ahead on economy?

    Why, considering some of the worst headwinds any UK government have had to endure since the 70’s, is the Tory position clearly not worsening, in fact just recently seems to be advancing, such as in this poll?

    I can tap out and not offer my “honest unspun take” if Admins don’t like them.
    Look at the time series. The government is always ahead on the economy. The only three times the opposition had a small lead were before the 1997 election, before the 2010 election, and now. Blair was no better placed on this metric in 1997 than Starmer is now.
  • The thing is - no one trust the Tories to solve anything. The small boats thing today is another indicator of how they’ve lost their minds - pushing forward on something that looks dubious in terms of legality. Which is a shame after the common sense of the Windsor framework

    From this poll.


    My take is this is a rather poor poll for Labour, 6% chunk knocked off the lead since the last one.

    7% only on economy doesn’t look too good for Labour either.

    We have to remember, losing 6% of lead now and only 7% ahead on economy, we are still north country miles away from a general election.

    We used to think of these seats as Labour heartlands, loyal to Labour even through the Thatcher landslides of the eighties? Why then are Tories doing so well there this week, against all these headwinds?
    I stopped reading at 'my take'
    That’s a shame as I raised some interesting points.

    Why talk up a poll where the gap has closed so much since the last one?

    Why, in this situation, are Labour not further ahead on economy?

    Why, considering some of the worst headwinds any UK government have had to endure since the 70’s, is the Tory position clearly not worsening, in fact just recently seems to be advancing, such as in this poll?

    I can tap out and not offer my “honest unspun take” if Admins don’t like them.
    Well you've never done that before, predicting the Tories are advancing.
  • John Redwood not a fan of Rishi's deal:

    Now more of the detail is coming out about the Northern Ireland talks, it shows us more matters need to be clarified in writing and sorted out in the Joint Committee before accepting any changes to the legal position.

    The EU spokesman has told MEPs according to briefings that the ECJ will have an important role and substantial amounts of EU law will apply to Northern Ireland. He also pointed out the Stormont brake would rarely be able to work. It seems the green lane would still be subject to EU checks and to possible EU interruption to the flow of goods. That is why I have asked the government to show us a list of the EU laws that will apply to Northern Ireland from day one of any new agreements. I have asked how many VAT and Excise rules will still constrain our tax policies, and want to know more about what information and form filling people will need to supply to allow green lane trade. It appears that EU plant and animal husbandry rules will apply. We also need to know in what circumstances the EU could suspend or modify green lane trade.

    It is most important to get this right. The rest of the UK does not want to find it needs to align with the EU over tax and regulations, any more than Unionists in Northern Ireland wish to find their laws and taxes in part come from the EU where they have no vote or voice. The UK fully accepts the need to avoid a border between NI and the Republic, but also needs to avoid a border between GB and NI. Any new arrangement at the very least needs a unilateral exit route for the UK should the terms prove onerous. It remains to be seen if the Unionist parties find it acceptable so that they can rejoin the Stormont Assembly, one of the original aims of the talks.

    https://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2023/03/07/the-government-needs-to-ask-for-substantial-improvements-to-the-northern-ireland-deal/

    The point I have bolded is, to me, the crux of the matter. The deal may not be great shakes itself, but any easing of intra-UK trade is to be welcomed - however, only if the agreement can be terminated freely by both parties. Otherwise, the Windsor Framework will have the binding status of an international treaty on the UK, but the EU will be able to suspend its commitments under the agreement whenever it wants to. That's not something any responsible Government would put its name to.
    The deal is the deal and will go through though the DUP may prevaricate over Stormont
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,652

    Foxy said:

    1. I’ve been having a look at the bill. Not going to be able to put together anything coherent tonight. It’s a terrible piece of legislation that denies refugees their rights under the Refugee Convention. But a law in the UK cannot magically invent somewhere to remove people to.

    2. So we’ll likely end up with tens of thousands of people who are refugees but whose claims cannot legally be assessed and who cannot work, who have to live on minimal state support in hotels. For ever.

    3. If it doesn’t actually deter all arrivals — and it won’t — then it looks completely unsustainable. The government is going to create a new, huge, ever-growing asylum backlog. Honestly, I think it’s absolutely nuts.


    https://twitter.com/ColinYeo1/status/1633179664100339713

    Clearly designed to be illegal and pass on the blame to the courts.
    Yes, the whole purpose is performative cruelty so as to create outrage at "Leftie North London Lawyers". It is designed to fail.

    I'm actually struggling to get wound up by it all because it is so transparently performative and designed only to create dividing lines that most people will just dismiss it.

    Less than two years to go as well.

    It seems that the government plan at the next election will be to promise to leave the ECHR and to ask voters to trust Suella Braverman with their human rights!

  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541
    edited March 2023

    DougSeal said:

    Driver said:

    DougSeal said:

    Driver said:

    Carnyx said:

    Driver said:

    Chris said:

    Driver said:

    Chris said:

    WillG said:

    Chris said:

    Westie said:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ground-breaking-new-laws-to-stop-the-boats

    "Home Secretary Suella Braverman said: (...) We must stop the boats. (...) It is completely unfair that people who travel through a string of safe countries then come to the UK illegally and abuse our asylum laws to avoid removal."

    Human rights law is for wimps, libtards, whiners, and the "elite", right? It's for trade unionists, lefty lawyers, cultural Marxists, and Remoaners. We know their type. Give 'em a chance and they always go on about human rights. They want those boats to keep coming here. Well enough is enough. From NOW.

    To be honest I just wonder whether people like Suella Braverman (and for that matter Rishi Sunak) have thought things through completely, if they have decided it's a good strategy for them to appeal to the anti-immigrant vote.
    What is incorrect about what she is saying?
    I'm not sure I can make it any simpler.

    What I'm asking is whether it can be more likely than not incompatible with the ECHR, and yet for her to be confident it is compatible with international law.
    Potentially if the ECHR is itself incompatible with the Refugee Convention?
    You mean if the provisions of the ECHR were not considered to be part of international law?

    That does seem to be implied logically by what she is saying, but can she really be saying that?
    I'm thinking that it's a possible argument that the proposed Bill is compatible with the Refugee Convention and hence with "international law".

    This is probably a dubious argument, but it's the best I've come up with (not that I would pretend to be an expert).
    Well globally most people in civilised, western countries are not subject to the ECHR. EG Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply and all of them are subject to international laws and agreements.

    Meanwhile the ECHR is so robust it had Russia as a member at rhe start of 2022. Good job there, great job ensuring a free press, free speech and free elections and avoiding a fascist regime coming to power and everything else the convention was supposed to deal with.

    The ECHR is a failure and we could withdraw from it and still be an upstanding civilised nation subject to international law.

    However it is my understanding that unless and until we do, it is part of OUR international law even if its not a part of other nations international law.
    "Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply"

    Er, there's a rather different and more basic reason for that. They are not in Europe. The UK is.
    Why are human rights in Europe special? On something like this shouldn't there be a global agreement?
    It was introduced because Europe had very recently succumbed to barbarism and the majority of countries therein wanted a joint agreement to try and ensure that civilisation would never again leave our shared home.
    That was a very long time ago, is it still relevant in 2023?
    Europe has largely, with some admitted exceptions, avoided barbarism while it has been current. So yes. It is relevant.

    Which Human Right to you object to most of the ones listed? The right to a fair trial? The right to property? The right to family? What is it that irks you about these? Do you yearn for a time when the U.K. could commit genocide on its own shores with impunity?
    "largely"

    So long as you avoid looking at nations like Russia, that had the ECHR seal of approval last year. 🤦‍♂️

    I agree with the Human Rights from the Convention. I think those rights should be protected by the UK Parliament.

    I do not agree with seconding that to unelected jurists that can be swayed by Roubles.
    Parliament is sovereign in this country. We need protecting from it and the whims of populist demagogues elected to deprive minorities of basic human dignity and life . Parliament can, and has, taken away the most basic human rights. We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities of human rights. As has happened in many countries. including this one.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,094

    John Redwood not a fan of Rishi's deal:

    Now more of the detail is coming out about the Northern Ireland talks, it shows us more matters need to be clarified in writing and sorted out in the Joint Committee before accepting any changes to the legal position.

    The EU spokesman has told MEPs according to briefings that the ECJ will have an important role and substantial amounts of EU law will apply to Northern Ireland. He also pointed out the Stormont brake would rarely be able to work. It seems the green lane would still be subject to EU checks and to possible EU interruption to the flow of goods. That is why I have asked the government to show us a list of the EU laws that will apply to Northern Ireland from day one of any new agreements. I have asked how many VAT and Excise rules will still constrain our tax policies, and want to know more about what information and form filling people will need to supply to allow green lane trade. It appears that EU plant and animal husbandry rules will apply. We also need to know in what circumstances the EU could suspend or modify green lane trade.

    It is most important to get this right. The rest of the UK does not want to find it needs to align with the EU over tax and regulations, any more than Unionists in Northern Ireland wish to find their laws and taxes in part come from the EU where they have no vote or voice. The UK fully accepts the need to avoid a border between NI and the Republic, but also needs to avoid a border between GB and NI. Any new arrangement at the very least needs a unilateral exit route for the UK should the terms prove onerous. It remains to be seen if the Unionist parties find it acceptable so that they can rejoin the Stormont Assembly, one of the original aims of the talks.

    https://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2023/03/07/the-government-needs-to-ask-for-substantial-improvements-to-the-northern-ireland-deal/

    The point I have bolded is, to me, the crux of the matter. The deal may not be great shakes itself, but any easing of intra-UK trade is to be welcomed - however, only if the agreement can be terminated freely by both parties. Otherwise, the Windsor Framework will have the binding status of an international treaty on the UK, but the EU will be able to suspend its commitments under the agreement whenever it wants to. That's not something any responsible Government would put its name to.
    People shouldn't grasp at any old solution simply because the existing situation is so bad, so it is good to do careful analysis, but one does have to be careful to avoid the old perfect being the enemy of the good situation. I hope that is what the likes of Redwood are doing, and not simply looking for details they can use as a pretext. In fairness to them, the number instantly coming out against very clearly was relatively low, so if people are simply looking for a pretext they are even then taking their time to do so.
  • pingping Posts: 3,805
    edited March 2023
    The next election is shaping up to be one helluva dirty affair.

    Labour - and Starmer - need to avoid getting involved in trench warfare.

    In this context, I do rather wonder if the Lib Dems may surprise on the upside.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,786
    kjh said:

    @hyufd You refer to my views on Grammar schools on the last thread as lefty liberal crap. As you well know I am not a 'lefty'. As you also know I am far more in favour of the free market than you, which makes me closer to the Tories than you on many issues. You often come over with some real socialist stuff. You might also like to consider why so many Conservative Governments since Comprehensives were brought in have done nothing about removing them and why Conservative control councils like Surrey implemented the Comprehensive system and have kept it ever since. They rely on evidence.

    Only Conservatives who want to take us back to 1950 or Victorian times are in favour of the Grammars. Modern Conservatives like David Johnson, MP for Wantage, who has written on the subject and whom I know a little, are very anti Grammars.

    Or as usual are these not real Tories?

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-social-mobility-case-against-grammar-schools/
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,094
    edited March 2023

    1. I’ve been having a look at the bill. Not going to be able to put together anything coherent tonight. It’s a terrible piece of legislation that denies refugees their rights under the Refugee Convention. But a law in the UK cannot magically invent somewhere to remove people to.

    2. So we’ll likely end up with tens of thousands of people who are refugees but whose claims cannot legally be assessed and who cannot work, who have to live on minimal state support in hotels. For ever.

    3. If it doesn’t actually deter all arrivals — and it won’t — then it looks completely unsustainable. The government is going to create a new, huge, ever-growing asylum backlog. Honestly, I think it’s absolutely nuts.


    https://twitter.com/ColinYeo1/status/1633179664100339713

    Clearly designed to be illegal and pass on the blame to the courts.
    Get those enemies of the people headlines ready to go.

    The GoodLaw chap is often whinging about judges being bullied into siding with the government, and that's the reason he loses various cases since it cannot be on the facts or law, so he should sign up to one on this from the looks of it.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,723

    John Redwood not a fan of Rishi's deal:

    Now more of the detail is coming out about the Northern Ireland talks, it shows us more matters need to be clarified in writing and sorted out in the Joint Committee before accepting any changes to the legal position.

    The EU spokesman has told MEPs according to briefings that the ECJ will have an important role and substantial amounts of EU law will apply to Northern Ireland. He also pointed out the Stormont brake would rarely be able to work. It seems the green lane would still be subject to EU checks and to possible EU interruption to the flow of goods. That is why I have asked the government to show us a list of the EU laws that will apply to Northern Ireland from day one of any new agreements. I have asked how many VAT and Excise rules will still constrain our tax policies, and want to know more about what information and form filling people will need to supply to allow green lane trade. It appears that EU plant and animal husbandry rules will apply. We also need to know in what circumstances the EU could suspend or modify green lane trade.

    It is most important to get this right. The rest of the UK does not want to find it needs to align with the EU over tax and regulations, any more than Unionists in Northern Ireland wish to find their laws and taxes in part come from the EU where they have no vote or voice. The UK fully accepts the need to avoid a border between NI and the Republic, but also needs to avoid a border between GB and NI. Any new arrangement at the very least needs a unilateral exit route for the UK should the terms prove onerous. It remains to be seen if the Unionist parties find it acceptable so that they can rejoin the Stormont Assembly, one of the original aims of the talks.

    https://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2023/03/07/the-government-needs-to-ask-for-substantial-improvements-to-the-northern-ireland-deal/

    The point I have bolded is, to me, the crux of the matter. The deal may not be great shakes itself, but any easing of intra-UK trade is to be welcomed - however, only if the agreement can be terminated freely by both parties. Otherwise, the Windsor Framework will have the binding status of an international treaty on the UK, but the EU will be able to suspend its commitments under the agreement whenever it wants to. That's not something any responsible Government would put its name to.
    The deal is the deal and will go through though the DUP may prevaricate over Stormont
    The D U P are so.last year....
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,871
    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    Driver said:

    DougSeal said:

    Driver said:

    Carnyx said:

    Driver said:

    Chris said:

    Driver said:

    Chris said:

    WillG said:

    Chris said:

    Westie said:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ground-breaking-new-laws-to-stop-the-boats

    "Home Secretary Suella Braverman said: (...) We must stop the boats. (...) It is completely unfair that people who travel through a string of safe countries then come to the UK illegally and abuse our asylum laws to avoid removal."

    Human rights law is for wimps, libtards, whiners, and the "elite", right? It's for trade unionists, lefty lawyers, cultural Marxists, and Remoaners. We know their type. Give 'em a chance and they always go on about human rights. They want those boats to keep coming here. Well enough is enough. From NOW.

    To be honest I just wonder whether people like Suella Braverman (and for that matter Rishi Sunak) have thought things through completely, if they have decided it's a good strategy for them to appeal to the anti-immigrant vote.
    What is incorrect about what she is saying?
    I'm not sure I can make it any simpler.

    What I'm asking is whether it can be more likely than not incompatible with the ECHR, and yet for her to be confident it is compatible with international law.
    Potentially if the ECHR is itself incompatible with the Refugee Convention?
    You mean if the provisions of the ECHR were not considered to be part of international law?

    That does seem to be implied logically by what she is saying, but can she really be saying that?
    I'm thinking that it's a possible argument that the proposed Bill is compatible with the Refugee Convention and hence with "international law".

    This is probably a dubious argument, but it's the best I've come up with (not that I would pretend to be an expert).
    Well globally most people in civilised, western countries are not subject to the ECHR. EG Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply and all of them are subject to international laws and agreements.

    Meanwhile the ECHR is so robust it had Russia as a member at rhe start of 2022. Good job there, great job ensuring a free press, free speech and free elections and avoiding a fascist regime coming to power and everything else the convention was supposed to deal with.

    The ECHR is a failure and we could withdraw from it and still be an upstanding civilised nation subject to international law.

    However it is my understanding that unless and until we do, it is part of OUR international law even if its not a part of other nations international law.
    "Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply"

    Er, there's a rather different and more basic reason for that. They are not in Europe. The UK is.
    Why are human rights in Europe special? On something like this shouldn't there be a global agreement?
    It was introduced because Europe had very recently succumbed to barbarism and the majority of countries therein wanted a joint agreement to try and ensure that civilisation would never again leave our shared home.
    That was a very long time ago, is it still relevant in 2023?
    Europe has largely, with some admitted exceptions, avoided barbarism while it has been current. So yes. It is relevant.

    Which Human Right to you object to most of the ones listed? The right to a fair trial? The right to property? The right to family? What is it that irks you about these? Do you yearn for a time when the U.K. could commit genocide on its own shores with impunity?
    "largely"

    So long as you avoid looking at nations like Russia, that had the ECHR seal of approval last year. 🤦‍♂️

    I agree with the Human Rights from the Convention. I think those rights should be protected by the UK Parliament.

    I do not agree with seconding that to unelected jurists that can be swayed by Roubles.
    Parliament is sovereign in this country. We need protecting from it and the whims of populist demagogues elected to deprive minorities of basic human dignity and life . Parliament can, and has, taken away the most basic human rights. We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities of human rights. As has happened in many countries. including this one.
    If 99% of the country choose to vote for policy x why do you think the 1% should be allowed to say no?
  • eekeek Posts: 28,370

    1. I’ve been having a look at the bill. Not going to be able to put together anything coherent tonight. It’s a terrible piece of legislation that denies refugees their rights under the Refugee Convention. But a law in the UK cannot magically invent somewhere to remove people to.

    2. So we’ll likely end up with tens of thousands of people who are refugees but whose claims cannot legally be assessed and who cannot work, who have to live on minimal state support in hotels. For ever.

    3. If it doesn’t actually deter all arrivals — and it won’t — then it looks completely unsustainable. The government is going to create a new, huge, ever-growing asylum backlog. Honestly, I think it’s absolutely nuts.


    https://twitter.com/ColinYeo1/status/1633179664100339713

    Anyone know if this is true

    https://twitter.com/marty_mcd/status/1633180910215413761

    There was an Immigration lawyer on Sky earlier "We have six safe 3rd countries, we need 200. They'll have to release almost all of these people in a year, to house the next 40k that come across. We were removing 50k a year, since we lost Dublin it's in the low thousands"
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541
    Pagan2 said:

    DougSeal said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Under this legislation [sic] Jews fleeing Nazi Germany would have been kicked out of the UK.

    Take a fucking bow Rishi.

    No they wouldn't because no european country save maybe switzerland was safe for them. The french were quite happy under vicy to put jews on trains. The jews have a point there. An afghani fleeing persecution in afghanistan does not have that excuse.

    I would agree though if you said we take afghans persecuted for working with british forces because we owe them that.
    Idiot. We didn’t take in any Jews after the fall of France. They couldn’t get here. All the Jews we took in (very few comparatively) were before the outbreak of the war. Under Rishi’s amoral piece of shit legislation they would have been sent back to France and the rest of Europe ready to be murdered after the Nazi’s arrived.
    As usual you are wrong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_refugees_from_German-occupied_Europe_in_the_United_Kingdom

    During the war 10k made it here
    And this piece of legislation from Sunak would have ensured the other 60,000 who arrived before the war were murdered.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,759
    kle4 said:

    John Redwood not a fan of Rishi's deal:

    Now more of the detail is coming out about the Northern Ireland talks, it shows us more matters need to be clarified in writing and sorted out in the Joint Committee before accepting any changes to the legal position.

    The EU spokesman has told MEPs according to briefings that the ECJ will have an important role and substantial amounts of EU law will apply to Northern Ireland. He also pointed out the Stormont brake would rarely be able to work. It seems the green lane would still be subject to EU checks and to possible EU interruption to the flow of goods. That is why I have asked the government to show us a list of the EU laws that will apply to Northern Ireland from day one of any new agreements. I have asked how many VAT and Excise rules will still constrain our tax policies, and want to know more about what information and form filling people will need to supply to allow green lane trade. It appears that EU plant and animal husbandry rules will apply. We also need to know in what circumstances the EU could suspend or modify green lane trade.

    It is most important to get this right. The rest of the UK does not want to find it needs to align with the EU over tax and regulations, any more than Unionists in Northern Ireland wish to find their laws and taxes in part come from the EU where they have no vote or voice. The UK fully accepts the need to avoid a border between NI and the Republic, but also needs to avoid a border between GB and NI. Any new arrangement at the very least needs a unilateral exit route for the UK should the terms prove onerous. It remains to be seen if the Unionist parties find it acceptable so that they can rejoin the Stormont Assembly, one of the original aims of the talks.

    https://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2023/03/07/the-government-needs-to-ask-for-substantial-improvements-to-the-northern-ireland-deal/

    The point I have bolded is, to me, the crux of the matter. The deal may not be great shakes itself, but any easing of intra-UK trade is to be welcomed - however, only if the agreement can be terminated freely by both parties. Otherwise, the Windsor Framework will have the binding status of an international treaty on the UK, but the EU will be able to suspend its commitments under the agreement whenever it wants to. That's not something any responsible Government would put its name to.
    People shouldn't grasp at any old solution simply because the existing situation is so bad, so it is good to do careful analysis, but one does have to be careful to avoid the old perfect being the enemy of the good situation. I hope that is what the likes of Redwood are doing, and not simply looking for details they can use as a pretext. In fairness to them, the number instantly coming out against very clearly was relatively low, so if people are simply looking for a pretext they are even then taking their time to do so.
    With NI, any small incremental step has to be a good thing. I've become so bored by the Irish and their drama though. Give the island a big push and send it off to the US - they seem keen!
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,433
    edited March 2023
    kle4 said:

    John Redwood not a fan of Rishi's deal:

    Now more of the detail is coming out about the Northern Ireland talks, it shows us more matters need to be clarified in writing and sorted out in the Joint Committee before accepting any changes to the legal position.

    The EU spokesman has told MEPs according to briefings that the ECJ will have an important role and substantial amounts of EU law will apply to Northern Ireland. He also pointed out the Stormont brake would rarely be able to work. It seems the green lane would still be subject to EU checks and to possible EU interruption to the flow of goods. That is why I have asked the government to show us a list of the EU laws that will apply to Northern Ireland from day one of any new agreements. I have asked how many VAT and Excise rules will still constrain our tax policies, and want to know more about what information and form filling people will need to supply to allow green lane trade. It appears that EU plant and animal husbandry rules will apply. We also need to know in what circumstances the EU could suspend or modify green lane trade.

    It is most important to get this right. The rest of the UK does not want to find it needs to align with the EU over tax and regulations, any more than Unionists in Northern Ireland wish to find their laws and taxes in part come from the EU where they have no vote or voice. The UK fully accepts the need to avoid a border between NI and the Republic, but also needs to avoid a border between GB and NI. Any new arrangement at the very least needs a unilateral exit route for the UK should the terms prove onerous. It remains to be seen if the Unionist parties find it acceptable so that they can rejoin the Stormont Assembly, one of the original aims of the talks.

    https://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2023/03/07/the-government-needs-to-ask-for-substantial-improvements-to-the-northern-ireland-deal/

    The point I have bolded is, to me, the crux of the matter. The deal may not be great shakes itself, but any easing of intra-UK trade is to be welcomed - however, only if the agreement can be terminated freely by both parties. Otherwise, the Windsor Framework will have the binding status of an international treaty on the UK, but the EU will be able to suspend its commitments under the agreement whenever it wants to. That's not something any responsible Government would put its name to.
    People shouldn't grasp at any old solution simply because the existing situation is so bad, so it is good to do careful analysis, but one does have to be careful to avoid the old perfect being the enemy of the good situation. I hope that is what the likes of Redwood are doing, and not simply looking for details they can use as a pretext. In fairness to them, the number instantly coming out against very clearly was relatively low, so if people are simply looking for a pretext they are even then taking their time to do so.
    I am in favour of any progress on the issue. I neither want nor expect a perfect deal or even a totally 'fair' deal. However, it is patently wrong to lock the UK in, so that to return to the Protocol Bill would be a breach of international law, but allow the EU to suspend the green lanes etc. unilaterally. You would surely agree that that would be extremely foolish - ultimately a worse situation than we have now, which is that we have the legal right to suspend the NIP. That isn't 'a detail'; it's a honking great red flag.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,094
    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    Driver said:

    DougSeal said:

    Driver said:

    Carnyx said:

    Driver said:

    Chris said:

    Driver said:

    Chris said:

    WillG said:

    Chris said:

    Westie said:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ground-breaking-new-laws-to-stop-the-boats

    "Home Secretary Suella Braverman said: (...) We must stop the boats. (...) It is completely unfair that people who travel through a string of safe countries then come to the UK illegally and abuse our asylum laws to avoid removal."

    Human rights law is for wimps, libtards, whiners, and the "elite", right? It's for trade unionists, lefty lawyers, cultural Marxists, and Remoaners. We know their type. Give 'em a chance and they always go on about human rights. They want those boats to keep coming here. Well enough is enough. From NOW.

    To be honest I just wonder whether people like Suella Braverman (and for that matter Rishi Sunak) have thought things through completely, if they have decided it's a good strategy for them to appeal to the anti-immigrant vote.
    What is incorrect about what she is saying?
    I'm not sure I can make it any simpler.

    What I'm asking is whether it can be more likely than not incompatible with the ECHR, and yet for her to be confident it is compatible with international law.
    Potentially if the ECHR is itself incompatible with the Refugee Convention?
    You mean if the provisions of the ECHR were not considered to be part of international law?

    That does seem to be implied logically by what she is saying, but can she really be saying that?
    I'm thinking that it's a possible argument that the proposed Bill is compatible with the Refugee Convention and hence with "international law".

    This is probably a dubious argument, but it's the best I've come up with (not that I would pretend to be an expert).
    Well globally most people in civilised, western countries are not subject to the ECHR. EG Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply and all of them are subject to international laws and agreements.

    Meanwhile the ECHR is so robust it had Russia as a member at rhe start of 2022. Good job there, great job ensuring a free press, free speech and free elections and avoiding a fascist regime coming to power and everything else the convention was supposed to deal with.

    The ECHR is a failure and we could withdraw from it and still be an upstanding civilised nation subject to international law.

    However it is my understanding that unless and until we do, it is part of OUR international law even if its not a part of other nations international law.
    "Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply"

    Er, there's a rather different and more basic reason for that. They are not in Europe. The UK is.
    Why are human rights in Europe special? On something like this shouldn't there be a global agreement?
    It was introduced because Europe had very recently succumbed to barbarism and the majority of countries therein wanted a joint agreement to try and ensure that civilisation would never again leave our shared home.
    That was a very long time ago, is it still relevant in 2023?
    Europe has largely, with some admitted exceptions, avoided barbarism while it has been current. So yes. It is relevant.

    Which Human Right to you object to most of the ones listed? The right to a fair trial? The right to property? The right to family? What is it that irks you about these? Do you yearn for a time when the U.K. could commit genocide on its own shores with impunity?
    "largely"

    So long as you avoid looking at nations like Russia, that had the ECHR seal of approval last year. 🤦‍♂️

    I agree with the Human Rights from the Convention. I think those rights should be protected by the UK Parliament.

    I do not agree with seconding that to unelected jurists that can be swayed by Roubles.
    Parliament is sovereign in this country. We need protecting from it and the whims of populist demagogues elected to deprive minorities of basic human dignity and life . Parliament can, and has, taken away the most basic human rights. We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities of human rights. As has happened in many countries. including this one.
    I don't think the ECHR would protect us from such things if parliament wanted to go in that direction. But I see no advantage to leaving it either, since the propnents of that idea typically seen exercised by a very precise matter only, and leaving the ECHR is some magical weapon they propose to fix it.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,871
    Pagan2 said:

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    Driver said:

    DougSeal said:

    Driver said:

    Carnyx said:

    Driver said:

    Chris said:

    Driver said:

    Chris said:

    WillG said:

    Chris said:

    Westie said:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ground-breaking-new-laws-to-stop-the-boats

    "Home Secretary Suella Braverman said: (...) We must stop the boats. (...) It is completely unfair that people who travel through a string of safe countries then come to the UK illegally and abuse our asylum laws to avoid removal."

    Human rights law is for wimps, libtards, whiners, and the "elite", right? It's for trade unionists, lefty lawyers, cultural Marxists, and Remoaners. We know their type. Give 'em a chance and they always go on about human rights. They want those boats to keep coming here. Well enough is enough. From NOW.

    To be honest I just wonder whether people like Suella Braverman (and for that matter Rishi Sunak) have thought things through completely, if they have decided it's a good strategy for them to appeal to the anti-immigrant vote.
    What is incorrect about what she is saying?
    I'm not sure I can make it any simpler.

    What I'm asking is whether it can be more likely than not incompatible with the ECHR, and yet for her to be confident it is compatible with international law.
    Potentially if the ECHR is itself incompatible with the Refugee Convention?
    You mean if the provisions of the ECHR were not considered to be part of international law?

    That does seem to be implied logically by what she is saying, but can she really be saying that?
    I'm thinking that it's a possible argument that the proposed Bill is compatible with the Refugee Convention and hence with "international law".

    This is probably a dubious argument, but it's the best I've come up with (not that I would pretend to be an expert).
    Well globally most people in civilised, western countries are not subject to the ECHR. EG Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply and all of them are subject to international laws and agreements.

    Meanwhile the ECHR is so robust it had Russia as a member at rhe start of 2022. Good job there, great job ensuring a free press, free speech and free elections and avoiding a fascist regime coming to power and everything else the convention was supposed to deal with.

    The ECHR is a failure and we could withdraw from it and still be an upstanding civilised nation subject to international law.

    However it is my understanding that unless and until we do, it is part of OUR international law even if its not a part of other nations international law.
    "Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply"

    Er, there's a rather different and more basic reason for that. They are not in Europe. The UK is.
    Why are human rights in Europe special? On something like this shouldn't there be a global agreement?
    It was introduced because Europe had very recently succumbed to barbarism and the majority of countries therein wanted a joint agreement to try and ensure that civilisation would never again leave our shared home.
    That was a very long time ago, is it still relevant in 2023?
    Europe has largely, with some admitted exceptions, avoided barbarism while it has been current. So yes. It is relevant.

    Which Human Right to you object to most of the ones listed? The right to a fair trial? The right to property? The right to family? What is it that irks you about these? Do you yearn for a time when the U.K. could commit genocide on its own shores with impunity?
    "largely"

    So long as you avoid looking at nations like Russia, that had the ECHR seal of approval last year. 🤦‍♂️

    I agree with the Human Rights from the Convention. I think those rights should be protected by the UK Parliament.

    I do not agree with seconding that to unelected jurists that can be swayed by Roubles.
    Parliament is sovereign in this country. We need protecting from it and the whims of populist demagogues elected to deprive minorities of basic human dignity and life . Parliament can, and has, taken away the most basic human rights. We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities of human rights. As has happened in many countries. including this one.
    If 99% of the country choose to vote for policy x why do you think the 1% should be allowed to say no?
    For example if the law of the land was women must always agree to sex when asked and 99% of people want to change that but 1% want to keep it you think the minority should not be allowed to be overridden or is it as I suspect you just don't like the majority choosing to vote for something you disagree with?
  • I mean lol and whut?


This discussion has been closed.