Sunak calls Starmer another 'leftie lawyer' who voted against deportations of illegal immigrants at PMQs
Two cheeks, same arse.
Oh and Sunak has repeated Braverman's billions of asylum seeker lies.
He has just said at the dispatch box that 100 million is the UN estimate
It's nonsense. Check out Susannah this morning. This number includes the displaced people from the Turkish earthquake. It is displaced people throughout the world and not the number of people displaced who plan to arrive at Dover in a boat. You have been taken in. In fairness Sunak was careful not to add Braverman's later statement about them all wanting to come to the UK
Sunak and Braverman don’t believe a word of it either. They’re just electioneering. It’s almost all the Tory government do: government for them is one long referendum campaign.
That’s why last week’s deal on NI felt such an outlier. Seems a long time ago doesn’t it? Since then we’ve had Boristas working up into a lather about partygate again, and Suella channelling Farage.
Sunak appears to me to be rather uncomfortable. Cruella on the other hand is lapping up the attention.
The obvious sexism in the nickname really reveals who you are.
A police officer pushed his partner out of a moving car, repeatedly beat her around the head and face and called her “a stupid c***”, a hearing was told.
The officer punched her in the stomach, tried to throw her into a bath of bleach, pulled her across the floor by her hair and even threw semen at her in the shower. The officer faced allegations that he was violent, abusive and used coercive and controlling behaviour against ex-partners who were also police officers.
However the officer, who has since resigned from Sussex police, has been granted anonymity, in part to “protect his welfare”.
On small-boats. I've yet to find a Tory MP who thinks it will actually work. Or who believes even Braverman thinks it will work. One senior Tory said "she knows it won't work. Her plan is to eventually resign, and claim No.10/officials undermined her strategy".
The choices for the UK government regarding the Dinghy People (barring some huge change in global geopolitical trends) can be boiled down to these three:
1. Violently push back the boats. Accept that many will drown. This will be morally unacceptable to 98% of the country
2. Immediately detain and deport all those who arrive. Disallow their rights. Off they go to Rwanda or whoever we can bribe - this will be palatable to much of the country but will be loathed by many liberals (and others). Also legally difficult
3. Basically accept there’s nothing we can do. Make some futile gestures like “helping French police”. Prohibit the use of the word “dinghy”. Accept that 100,000s will cross and this number will likely grow and grow. This will enrage much of the country and possibly lead to Britain’s first serious far right party
That’s it. That’s the choice. Not good
Even on that dodgy framing (3) is superior. Certainly better than the Cons trying to head off a far right party by becoming one.
But although I usually like defeatism - it's quite underrated as a mindset imo - it's overly defeatist to assume nothing effective can be done about this issue that doesn't involve the dehumanization of vulnerable people. I'm pretty suspicious of those who say this so readily. It can be hard to distinguish a muscular, clear-sighted rejection of liberal waffle from a genuine enthusiasm for far right 'solutions' to protect 'us' from 'them' - since in polite society the second tends to dress up as the first.
If you want to go with 3 at some point you will have vigilante groups patrolling beaches and meting out "justice" just like they have on the american border. If that is what you want then by all means go for 3
You can't have government policy dictated by the worst elements in society.
Or "voters", as they are sometimes called.
Sure. And there are parties to vote for if you want hard right British Nationalism that doesn't pussyfoot around with human rights for refugees. What would be unfortunate is if the Conservative Party joins their number.
Although I don't think that's what's really happening here. I think they're playing dress up with it, vice-signalling if you like, looking not to solve the problem but to please and annoy the right people.
Indeed so. As I mentioned yesterday, they're trying to look as if they're trying to do something.
Sunak calls Starmer another 'leftie lawyer' who voted against deportations of illegal immigrants at PMQs
Two cheeks, same arse.
Oh and Sunak has repeated Braverman's billions of asylum seeker lies.
He has just said at the dispatch box that 100 million is the UN estimate
It's nonsense. Check out Susannah this morning. This number includes the displaced people from the Turkish earthquake. It is displaced people throughout the world and not the number of people displaced who plan to arrive at Dover in a boat. You have been taken in. In fairness Sunak was careful not to add Braverman's later statement about them all wanting to come to the UK
Sunak and Braverman don’t believe a word of it either. They’re just electioneering. It’s almost all the Tory government do: government for them is one long referendum campaign.
That’s why last week’s deal on NI felt such an outlier. Seems a long time ago doesn’t it? Since then we’ve had Boristas working up into a lather about partygate again, and Suella channelling Farage.
Sunak appears to me to be rather uncomfortable. Cruella on the other hand is lapping up the attention.
The obvious sexism in the nickname really reveals who you are.
Do you think it was sexism when people kept on calling Sir Gavin Williamson the nickname Frank Spencer?
An experimental “passion fruit margarita” served by agreeable annamites in a Mexican cartel themed bar in a French-Japanese town square next to a famous 16th century Chinese temple. I am now half drunk. Love this job
Dame Judith, you chose your career wisely
The theme music to wish you were here is the quintessence and distillation of “holiday”. One of the happiest tunes on earth.
Do we think Braverman and now Sunak's attack on lefty Lawyers and Starmer in particular is wise, when we have people out there mad enough to physically attack lefty Lawyers? Braverman' of course is also attacking her political opponents as traitors. Would she have a problem were another Jo Cox incident to occur on the back of it?
Sunak calls Starmer another 'leftie lawyer' who voted against deportations of illegal immigrants at PMQs
Two cheeks, same arse.
Oh and Sunak has repeated Braverman's billions of asylum seeker lies.
He has just said at the dispatch box that 100 million is the UN estimate
It's nonsense. Check out Susannah this morning. This number includes the displaced people from the Turkish earthquake. It is displaced people throughout the world and not the number of people displaced who plan to arrive at Dover in a boat. You have been taken in. In fairness Sunak was careful not to add Braverman's later statement about them all wanting to come to the UK
Sunak and Braverman don’t believe a word of it either. They’re just electioneering. It’s almost all the Tory government do: government for them is one long referendum campaign.
That’s why last week’s deal on NI felt such an outlier. Seems a long time ago doesn’t it? Since then we’ve had Boristas working up into a lather about partygate again, and Suella channelling Farage.
Sunak appears to me to be rather uncomfortable. Cruella on the other hand is lapping up the attention.
The obvious sexism in the nickname really reveals who you are.
Do you think it was sexism when people kept on calling Sir Gavin Williamson the nickname Frank Spencer?
I think it was very unkind to Frank Spencer who had at least the virtue of being vaguely amusing at times
Sunak calls Starmer another 'leftie lawyer' who voted against deportations of illegal immigrants at PMQs
Two cheeks, same arse.
Oh and Sunak has repeated Braverman's billions of asylum seeker lies.
He has just said at the dispatch box that 100 million is the UN estimate
It's nonsense. Check out Susannah this morning. This number includes the displaced people from the Turkish earthquake. It is displaced people throughout the world and not the number of people displaced who plan to arrive at Dover in a boat. You have been taken in. In fairness Sunak was careful not to add Braverman's later statement about them all wanting to come to the UK
When you say I have been taken in I heard the 100 million estimate many times previously from many different sources not just the UN and it seems generally accepted
Do you think all 100 million will come to the UK as is the inference by rule breaking Rishi and the disgraced national security risk Braverman?
Of course not but Sunak is meeting Macron and Scholz to discuss this issue which Europe is also struggling with not least Italy which even this week has seen tragic drownings in the Med
@CarolineLucas Suella Braverman may have broken the Ministerial Code. Again.
Blaming civil servants for blocking her immoral & unworkable small boats plan is a direct attack on their integrity & impartiality. I'm asking PM to investigate - and Home Sec must apologise.
Sunak calls Starmer another 'leftie lawyer' who voted against deportations of illegal immigrants at PMQs
Two cheeks, same arse.
Oh and Sunak has repeated Braverman's billions of asylum seeker lies.
He has just said at the dispatch box that 100 million is the UN estimate
It's nonsense. Check out Susannah this morning. This number includes the displaced people from the Turkish earthquake. It is displaced people throughout the world and not the number of people displaced who plan to arrive at Dover in a boat. You have been taken in. In fairness Sunak was careful not to add Braverman's later statement about them all wanting to come to the UK
When you say I have been taken in I heard the 100 million estimate many times previously from many different sources not just the UN and it seems generally accepted
Do you think all 100 million will come to the UK as is the inference by rule breaking Rishi and the disgraced national security risk Braverman?
I didn't hear what Sunak said but presumably he was trying to point out the scale of the problem. We're in a new world.
Sunak calls Starmer another 'leftie lawyer' who voted against deportations of illegal immigrants at PMQs
Two cheeks, same arse.
Oh and Sunak has repeated Braverman's billions of asylum seeker lies.
He has just said at the dispatch box that 100 million is the UN estimate
It's nonsense. Check out Susannah this morning. This number includes the displaced people from the Turkish earthquake. It is displaced people throughout the world and not the number of people displaced who plan to arrive at Dover in a boat. You have been taken in. In fairness Sunak was careful not to add Braverman's later statement about them all wanting to come to the UK
When you say I have been taken in I heard the 100 million estimate many times previously from many different sources not just the UN and it seems generally accepted
Do you think all 100 million will come to the UK as is the inference by rule breaking Rishi and the disgraced national security risk Braverman?
Remember the last lot, or the one before, or the one before, were going to prosecute the RNLI and its involved members, crews, local branches, etc. for people trafficking. Till they backed down. But only when the bill in question was well on the way.
Sunak calls Starmer another 'leftie lawyer' who voted against deportations of illegal immigrants at PMQs
Two cheeks, same arse.
Oh and Sunak has repeated Braverman's billions of asylum seeker lies.
He has just said at the dispatch box that 100 million is the UN estimate
It's nonsense. Check out Susannah this morning. This number includes the displaced people from the Turkish earthquake. It is displaced people throughout the world and not the number of people displaced who plan to arrive at Dover in a boat. You have been taken in. In fairness Sunak was careful not to add Braverman's later statement about them all wanting to come to the UK
Sunak and Braverman don’t believe a word of it either. They’re just electioneering. It’s almost all the Tory government do: government for them is one long referendum campaign.
That’s why last week’s deal on NI felt such an outlier. Seems a long time ago doesn’t it? Since then we’ve had Boristas working up into a lather about partygate again, and Suella channelling Farage.
Sunak appears to me to be rather uncomfortable. Cruella on the other hand is lapping up the attention.
The obvious sexism in the nickname really reveals who you are.
Do you think it was sexism when people kept on calling Sir Gavin Williamson the nickname Frank Spencer?
No, because Frank Spencer isn't referring to a highly gendered villain archetype.
A police officer pushed his partner out of a moving car, repeatedly beat her around the head and face and called her “a stupid c***”, a hearing was told.
The officer punched her in the stomach, tried to throw her into a bath of bleach, pulled her across the floor by her hair and even threw semen at her in the shower. The officer faced allegations that he was violent, abusive and used coercive and controlling behaviour against ex-partners who were also police officers.
However the officer, who has since resigned from Sussex police, has been granted anonymity, in part to “protect his welfare”.
Had a chat with a barrister with impeccably right wing credentials and no fan of illegal border crossings.
Says yesterday's legislation is simply the worst piece of drafted legislation he has ever seen.
Like it was focus grouped and then drafted.
He feels sorry for the GLD teams that will have to defend this shit in court.
There's a retroactive clause in the bill that must have been written by Lionel Hutz.
It isn't serious law. Braverman sends a letter to Tory MPs saying she doesn't know if the bill is legal but there is "a greater than 50% chance" it isn't.
Then we get Dishi in front of a Stop The Boats lectern. Speaking in his Jackanory voice. Quite literally telling stories to political toddlers.
They know the plan - laughable to even use that word - doesn't work practically. They know it doesn't work legally. But they also know their remaining voters don't care, they just want action. Though I don't think "blame the courts" works as an excuse any longer.
The third plan in three years and legislation so obviously designed for dividing lines rather than results is too obviously transparent to fool most voters. And making Braverman the face of it just compounds the problem. She is massively unpopular.
I really can’t see it ending well for Sunak. The people he is targeting are those most likely to buy the Farage/Reform betrayal narrative that will inevitably explode into the right-wing press this summer when the boats keep on coming.
Cooper was right yesterday: people want results, not performative gestures that won’t work.
In a serious question:
How *would* anyone stop the boats?
It doesn't seem to me, short of major military operations on the beaches of Northern France, which ain't happening, or arranging odd accidents for all the traffickers - and even that would presumably pause rather than eliminate the problem - that there's much to be done about it.
That doesn't mean we can't still point and laugh at the stupidity of this idea, but are there are any concrete suggestions? If so, let's hear them.
I don't think you can stop them but I am pretty sure you can mitigate their effects and reduce their numbers, but that requires serious thinking, compromises and a lot more spending. It seems that the vast majority of the traffickers are situated on this side of the Channel, for example. That indicates that enforcement authorities could be doing a lot more than they are to tackle them - are they failing through lack of resources, planning, coordination, etc? Is anyone in government asking? And, as we know, the time it takes to process asylum claims is ridiculous. Tat is down to the Home Office and the people who run it. Then there are the six years of distrust and antagonism that were caused by Brexit. That will not all be undone immediately - and if it is to be done meaningfully, it cannot be done while trying to appease the ERG. And so on. What won't work is saying this is not our problem, everyone else has to handle it and we will break international law to try to get our way.
Eliminate demand.
1) all employers liable for employing undocumented (they actually are, sort off, now) 2) fine of £100k per employee. Directors personal assets liable etc. 3) 50K goes to the undocumented employee who gives evidence against the employer. In the event of a successful conviction. 4) indefinite leave to remain also granted to the employee on conviction of the employer.
The Tory Party donors do not like this one.....I wonder why......
When employers have cooperated with the police/immigration to highlight undocumented workers, they have met with a wall of abuse from the Left.
The difference with my suggestion is paying for the information. Which will increase the reporting/prosecuting rate to 100%
Every ambulance chasing solicitor will be on this like a tramp on chips.
Average fine of £5k if caught will not change the economic incenvtives for those who are not motivated by morals or the law. Make it £100k per employee and the incentives change.
Let them work. We need them.
If they are working illegally - the government isn't seeing the income tax revenue
Make it legal. Make it easy to get an NI number. We are short of people of working age.
no we are short of people of working age with sufficient incentive to actually work.
Countries should be concentrating on policies focussed on coping with a declining population because immigration is nothing more than a ponzi scheme
I agree with that and I don't think the answer is encouraging people to have more babies but finding ways of coping with a population that gets older. I know it is an economic nightmare but it is better than climate change, scarcity of water and all the problems overpopulation brings.
In an ideal world I would like to see free movement, but until all countries become similarly equal economies that is also impossible.
If we as a country had infinite resources then I would be happy with open borders. We don't however and we already have a population of sufficient size to put pressure on water, housing and services. Two of those 3 we could do something about it is true by building more and taxing more. However we cannot make more rain fall and if anything predictions are we will get less rain over time.
Water scarcity is going to be the 21st century problem for a lot of countries
The UK has above average rainfall at nearly four foot a year.
The problem is the privatisation of water. The water companies have loaded up with debt, paid high dividends to their overseas shareholders and neglected investment in infrastructure eg reservoirs, interconnected pipelines and repairing leaking pipes. Thames Water loses 24% of its water though leaks.
The solution is nationalisation of water supply with investment in infrastructure within a national framework. Then we won't run short.
You are aware that all attempts building reservoirs are being, essentially, blocked?
Or that every large infrastructure project by a water company goes through the usual decades long fight with the antis - see the Thames Water megasewer, for instance.
The Thames Water Tideway project is massive - and incidentally paid for by the taxpayer not Thames Water.
The initial public consultations started in March 2011, numerous options were considered and the scheme was finally approved by the Government in September 2014. Construction started in 2016. Hardly a "decades long fight with the antis".
Did I say they would all come here? No I didn't but they will largely aim for developed countries as their nations become less habitable due to heat, water shortages, famine etc.
The real start of the scheme was around 2001 - with the initial planning.
Also
In August 2015, the independent investors to finance and deliver the scheme were confirmed. Bazalgette Tunnel Limited, a new special-purpose company appointed to take the project forward, received its licence from Ofwat as a new regulated utilities business, separate from Thames Water.[75][76] The special-purpose company is backed by pension funds and other long-term investors represented by Allianz, Amber Infrastructure Group, Dalmore Capital and DIF.[75]
The funding scheme used was later called the Regulated Asset Base (RAB) model, and be used in the nuclear industry.[77] If the cost overruns by more than 30%, the government would have to provide additional equity finance
Sorry off topic but just to respond to @hyufd after I left the thread last night:
You say Grammar schools give parents more choice. They don't. If your child fails the 11 plus they get less choice.
On the 'leftie' nonsense you haven't responded to the fact that I am not a 'leftie' and that successive Conservative governments have done nothing to remove comprehensives and that Tory controlled councils like Surrey implemented and supported them. When I identified David Johnston as a Tory MP who writes against Grammars you call him a leftie. I mean one of your own MPs. You also referred to him as a Heathite. Was Heath's government leftie then? What about Thatcher's government who didn't undo comprehensives? Or Surrey Country Council? All lefties?
Are everyone lefties other than yourself? This is very confusing if most Tories are lefties, especially as many of your own views are indistinguishable from far left authoritarianism.
If you are a working class parent though the evidence Bristol University foundation however was that your child would get better GCSE results than at the local comprehensive.
Heath's government did nothing to stop local authorities turning grammars into comprehensives which had begun when Wilson's government pushed to end selective education(the trend only slowed when Thatcher was PM and slightly reversed with more pupils attending grammars when Major was PM). Hence most of the few remaining areas with grammars are in Tory controlled councils.
You can't even ballot to open new grammars now, only ballot to close them. True parental choice would at least allow that
Not sure whose post you are referring to, but you haven't addressed the points I made, but that is normal for you as you never do.
Are all these Tories I refer to lefties eg Heath's govt, Surrey County Council? Did you really mean to call your own current MPs lefties who support Comprehensive schools? They were your actual words re David Johnson. You have declared every Tory on this site as not being a real Tory at some time or other. You are now doing the same to previous and current govts and Tory controlled councils. Who is left?
Oh I absolutely have.
Tories who want to abolish grammars like David Johnson are a tiny minority of the party and no more really than members of your party, the LDs, who backed Brexit. They are irrelevant, indeed Sunak and Truss both backed grammars in the leadership campaign last year.
I notice you also refuse to allow parents to ballot to open new grammars, just to close them. Not much liberalism and parental choice there from you then!
Re your last paragraph I did no such thing. I have never commented on this point. You are putting words into my mouth. But on that same line how is there more parental choice for parents of children who fail the 11 plus. They have less choice. You are taking choice away from the majority of parents with the Grammars system as you have removed schools from them. You didn't deal with that point.
So lets get this clear then:
All Tory MPs who back Comprehensives are not true Tories. Have you let them know?
Surrey County Council and all Tory County Councils who implemented Comprehensives are not true Tories either
Heath's Government from what you say definitely wasn't Tory then.
Thatcher's govt who did nothing to reverse Comprehensives in her long time as PM couldn't have been Tory either then as she had plenty of time to do something about it
Nobody who posts to this site is a Tory. I note you excommunicated @MarqueeMark and @Sean_F recently.
You say Sunak and Truss back Grammars. How? They are just words. They (well we won't know re Truss) will do zippo to support Grammars. They say this just to keep the loons like you onside.
You can keep posting the link to the Bristol report, but it is has been conclusively accepted by all except a few Tory nutters and UKIP who live in the 1950s that Grammars are bad for the educating the nations children.
Your views on Royalty, Grammars, Church, the nation, etc put you with the group of 90 year old Tory Colonels. You have become an old man 50 years before your time.
30% of voters want more grammars (ie higher than the Conservative voteshare in most current polls except Deltapoll). A further 20% of voters want to retain existing grammars but not build anymore.
Only 26% of voters like you want to stop existing grammars selecting by ability and turn them into comprehensives
Not answering any of the points again, but quoting a 5 year old poll, which confirms that 46% were against new grammar schools and only 30% in favour and that is the best you can do.
So it confirms 30% want more grammar schools which is more than the 26% who like you want to abolish the existing grammar schools
You do know how to misrepresent stuff spectacularly don't you:
a) Read the poll 46% don't want anymore Grammar Schools only 30% do. Excluding the don't knows that is 61% who don't want more Grammar Schools. Do you really think those who want to ban more but don't want to close existing ones are in favour of Grammar schools? If you do you are being exceedingly thick. Why do you think they don't want anymore? How can someone who is in favour of Grammar schools answer a question by then saying they don't want anymore. They can't. Your interpretation is ludicrous. I mean how do you not understand this?
b) The poll is 5 years old for goodness sake. I guess I should be glad it is in this century. Could you not find one that suits your bias that is more recent.
c) The wording of the poll is very poor because each question is ambiguous before it gets to the grammar school bit eg 'encourage more schools to select by academic ability'. It only then makes it clear that it is talking about Grammar schools. I have no issue with schools selecting by academic ability once in the school. I'm very much in favour of setting.
So thanks for that poll. I think you have proved conclusively you are talking bollocks.
A police officer pushed his partner out of a moving car, repeatedly beat her around the head and face and called her “a stupid c***”, a hearing was told.
The officer punched her in the stomach, tried to throw her into a bath of bleach, pulled her across the floor by her hair and even threw semen at her in the shower. The officer faced allegations that he was violent, abusive and used coercive and controlling behaviour against ex-partners who were also police officers.
However the officer, who has since resigned from Sussex police, has been granted anonymity, in part to “protect his welfare”.
Ah, yes, New Hampshire - that most representative state of the GOP primaries...
It isn't representative. It's more favourable to the moderates than places like Iowa and South Carolina.
New Hampshire used to be rock solid Republican, it voted GOP at every Presidential election from 1948 to 1992 except 1964 and elected Republicans to Congress.
Now it is solid Democrat in terms of its Congressional representation and hasn't voted for the GOP candidate for President since Bush in 2000
Sunak calls Starmer another 'leftie lawyer' who voted against deportations of illegal immigrants at PMQs
Two cheeks, same arse.
Oh and Sunak has repeated Braverman's billions of asylum seeker lies.
He has just said at the dispatch box that 100 million is the UN estimate
It's nonsense. Check out Susannah this morning.
At least the wittering fool on GMB has moved on from fake outrage at the thought of the govt having a few moggies put down to counter COVID. A thought that lasted less than a day.
If Labour think these plans are so appalling and the numbers so misleading, it is incumbent on them to release THEIR plan to stop the boats. And also the estimate of how many would come under their plan.
SKS: Nobody on this side wants open borders. On that side they’ve lost control of the borders
What kind of racist drivel is that
SKS fans please explain
It is not racist in itself for countries to restrict who can and cannot enter. It could rise to a level which is racist, but it is not the case that any restriction from open borders is racist.
It's that approach which has caused such frustration amongst those who are not racist but think we need to reduce numbers. Thats not me, I don't care, but a majority do.
Sorry off topic but just to respond to @hyufd after I left the thread last night:
You say Grammar schools give parents more choice. They don't. If your child fails the 11 plus they get less choice.
On the 'leftie' nonsense you haven't responded to the fact that I am not a 'leftie' and that successive Conservative governments have done nothing to remove comprehensives and that Tory controlled councils like Surrey implemented and supported them. When I identified David Johnston as a Tory MP who writes against Grammars you call him a leftie. I mean one of your own MPs. You also referred to him as a Heathite. Was Heath's government leftie then? What about Thatcher's government who didn't undo comprehensives? Or Surrey Country Council? All lefties?
Are everyone lefties other than yourself? This is very confusing if most Tories are lefties, especially as many of your own views are indistinguishable from far left authoritarianism.
If you are a working class parent though the evidence Bristol University foundation however was that your child would get better GCSE results than at the local comprehensive.
Heath's government did nothing to stop local authorities turning grammars into comprehensives which had begun when Wilson's government pushed to end selective education(the trend only slowed when Thatcher was PM and slightly reversed with more pupils attending grammars when Major was PM). Hence most of the few remaining areas with grammars are in Tory controlled councils.
You can't even ballot to open new grammars now, only ballot to close them. True parental choice would at least allow that
Not sure whose post you are referring to, but you haven't addressed the points I made, but that is normal for you as you never do.
Are all these Tories I refer to lefties eg Heath's govt, Surrey County Council? Did you really mean to call your own current MPs lefties who support Comprehensive schools? They were your actual words re David Johnson. You have declared every Tory on this site as not being a real Tory at some time or other. You are now doing the same to previous and current govts and Tory controlled councils. Who is left?
Oh I absolutely have.
Tories who want to abolish grammars like David Johnson are a tiny minority of the party and no more really than members of your party, the LDs, who backed Brexit. They are irrelevant, indeed Sunak and Truss both backed grammars in the leadership campaign last year.
I notice you also refuse to allow parents to ballot to open new grammars, just to close them. Not much liberalism and parental choice there from you then!
Re your last paragraph I did no such thing. I have never commented on this point. You are putting words into my mouth. But on that same line how is there more parental choice for parents of children who fail the 11 plus. They have less choice. You are taking choice away from the majority of parents with the Grammars system as you have removed schools from them. You didn't deal with that point.
So lets get this clear then:
All Tory MPs who back Comprehensives are not true Tories. Have you let them know?
Surrey County Council and all Tory County Councils who implemented Comprehensives are not true Tories either
Heath's Government from what you say definitely wasn't Tory then.
Thatcher's govt who did nothing to reverse Comprehensives in her long time as PM couldn't have been Tory either then as she had plenty of time to do something about it
Nobody who posts to this site is a Tory. I note you excommunicated @MarqueeMark and @Sean_F recently.
You say Sunak and Truss back Grammars. How? They are just words. They (well we won't know re Truss) will do zippo to support Grammars. They say this just to keep the loons like you onside.
You can keep posting the link to the Bristol report, but it is has been conclusively accepted by all except a few Tory nutters and UKIP who live in the 1950s that Grammars are bad for the educating the nations children.
Your views on Royalty, Grammars, Church, the nation, etc put you with the group of 90 year old Tory Colonels. You have become an old man 50 years before your time.
30% of voters want more grammars (ie higher than the Conservative voteshare in most current polls except Deltapoll). A further 20% of voters want to retain existing grammars but not build anymore.
Only 26% of voters like you want to stop existing grammars selecting by ability and turn them into comprehensives
Not answering any of the points again, but quoting a 5 year old poll, which confirms that 46% were against new grammar schools and only 30% in favour and that is the best you can do.
So it confirms 30% want more grammar schools which is more than the 26% who like you want to abolish the existing grammar schools
You do know how to misrepresent stuff spectacularly don't you:
a) Read the poll 46% don't want anymore Grammar Schools only 30% do. Excluding the don't knows that is 61% who don't want more Grammar Schools. Do you really think those who want to ban more but don't want to close existing ones are in favour of Grammar schools? If you do you are being exceedingly thick. Why do you think they don't want anymore? How can someone who is in favour of Grammar schools answer a question by then saying they don't want anymore. They can't. Your interpretation is ludicrous. I mean how do you not understand this?
b) The poll is 5 years old for goodness sake. I guess I should be glad it is in this century. Could you not find one that suits your bias that is more recent.
c) The wording of the poll is very poor because each question is ambiguous before it gets to the grammar school bit eg 'encourage more schools to select by academic ability'. It only then makes it clear that it is talking about Grammar schools. I have no issue with schools selecting by academic ability once in the school. I'm very much in favour of setting.
So thanks for that poll. I think you have proved conclusively you are talking bollocks.
a) So 30% want more grammars but only 26% want to close existing grammars. The latter can petition to ballot to close grammars but the former can't petition to open new grammars. How is that fair?
b) Find me another poll that shows a significant difference?
c) Unlike you I don't blame the poll question for a result I dislike
Sunak calls Starmer another 'leftie lawyer' who voted against deportations of illegal immigrants at PMQs
Two cheeks, same arse.
Oh and Sunak has repeated Braverman's billions of asylum seeker lies.
He has just said at the dispatch box that 100 million is the UN estimate
And billions isn't a lie either as I think it was the IPCC that forecast about 2 billion displaced due to climate change by 2050
The relevant point about the numbers is that the total number of boat people wanting to come into the country exceeds the total number of boat people - zero - that the majority of the electorate wishes to see come into the country. The rest is noise.
Nor can this be solved solely by international agreements to try to defeat people trafficking, pleading with the French to deploy more police to the Channel coast, or the much-discussed safe and legal routes for migration - however desirable all of these measures, especially the latter, are. Unless the number of people that the electorate wishes to admit through the safe and legal routes is as large as the total number who want to come in - which it won't be - then those refused will simply travel and get in the boats anyway.
The Government's core argument - that the boat people problem will only stop when it is made clear to migrants that their journey is guaranteed to end in failure - is, therefore, correct. We've known that it was correct all along, really. The Australian precedent proves it. The Government's problem in getting to that destination is, of course, that its situation is more complicated. Australia had to deal with small numbers of large boats not large numbers of small ones, and it didn't have to cope with the constant threat of injunctions from Strasbourg, either. The latter is the more pressing problem.
If I had to guess where this was all headed, it will be with the Government failing to stop the boats again - partly through unwillingness to pay for proper enforcement, partly through its new legislation being neutralised by the ECHR - and pressure being placed on the Tory leadership to withdraw from both the ECHR and the UN Refugee Convention. They probably won't put that in the manifesto, but it wouldn't happen anyway because they'll lose the next election. After that Labour will do nothing effective about the issue - both because the next Government will be as powerless as the last, AND it doesn't want to anyway - so it'll just continue to get worse.
It's an ideal campaign theme for an Orban-type populist, set against the backdrop of the broader disintegration of society caused by a surfeit of old people, a deficit of taxpayers, and the rotting away of an economy too rooted in property speculation to do anything productive.
Ah, yes, New Hampshire - that most representative state of the GOP primaries...
It isn't representative. It's more favourable to the moderates than places like Iowa and South Carolina.
New Hampshire used to be rock solid Republican, it voted GOP at every Presidential election from 1948 to 1992 except 1964 and elected Republicans to Congress.
Now it is solid Democrat in terms of its Congressional representation and hasn't voted for the GOP candidate for President since Bush in 2000
And places that are most dominated by the other side have the most reasonable primary voters. They have enough co-workers and neighbours who vote the other way to know which candidates are most viable. Hence the South Carolina Dems.
The fact that New Hampshire is clearly going Trump shows he will be the nominee, unless dead or legally banned.
Ah, yes, New Hampshire - that most representative state of the GOP primaries...
It isn't representative. It's more favourable to the moderates than places like Iowa and South Carolina.
DeSantis is still ahead in some state head to head polls, but he's faded a lot since the aftermath of the midterms, when many national head to head polls had him ahead of Trump. Not sure if he's missed his moment, or whether things might swing back in his favour. Think there was definitely a chance for DeSantis to say last November 'Trump was a greatest president we've ever had, but now it's time for him to go, he's losing us votes, and the country wants to move on'
Sunak calls Starmer another 'leftie lawyer' who voted against deportations of illegal immigrants at PMQs
Two cheeks, same arse.
Oh and Sunak has repeated Braverman's billions of asylum seeker lies.
He has just said at the dispatch box that 100 million is the UN estimate
It's nonsense. Check out Susannah this morning. This number includes the displaced people from the Turkish earthquake. It is displaced people throughout the world and not the number of people displaced who plan to arrive at Dover in a boat. You have been taken in. In fairness Sunak was careful not to add Braverman's later statement about them all wanting to come to the UK
Sunak and Braverman don’t believe a word of it either. They’re just electioneering. It’s almost all the Tory government do: government for them is one long referendum campaign.
That’s why last week’s deal on NI felt such an outlier. Seems a long time ago doesn’t it? Since then we’ve had Boristas working up into a lather about partygate again, and Suella channelling Farage.
Sunak appears to me to be rather uncomfortable. Cruella on the other hand is lapping up the attention.
I think he must be fully on board with the intent, but hes less comfortable presenting something which is being sold as a legal hail Mary. Likes firmer ground.
The choices for the UK government regarding the Dinghy People (barring some huge change in global geopolitical trends) can be boiled down to these three:
1. Violently push back the boats. Accept that many will drown. This will be morally unacceptable to 98% of the country
2. Immediately detain and deport all those who arrive. Disallow their rights. Off they go to Rwanda or whoever we can bribe - this will be palatable to much of the country but will be loathed by many liberals (and others). Also legally difficult
3. Basically accept there’s nothing we can do. Make some futile gestures like “helping French police”. Prohibit the use of the word “dinghy”. Accept that 100,000s will cross and this number will likely grow and grow. This will enrage much of the country and possibly lead to Britain’s first serious far right party
That’s it. That’s the choice. Not good
Even on that dodgy framing (3) is superior. Certainly better than the Cons trying to head off a far right party by becoming one.
But although I usually like defeatism - it's quite underrated as a mindset imo - it's overly defeatist to assume nothing effective can be done about this issue that doesn't involve the dehumanization of vulnerable people. I'm pretty suspicious of those who say this so readily. It can be hard to distinguish a muscular, clear-sighted rejection of liberal waffle from a genuine enthusiasm for far right 'solutions' to protect 'us' from 'them' - since in polite society the second tends to dress up as the first.
If you want to go with 3 at some point you will have vigilante groups patrolling beaches and meting out "justice" just like they have on the american border. If that is what you want then by all means go for 3
You can't have government policy dictated by the worst elements in society.
Ah you mean by worst the poor who find their share of the pie ever more diminished when they have to share it with ever more people? Does it ever seem strange to you that most of the bleeding hearts crying let them all in come from area's that aren't particulary impacted by ever more people whereas those living in poorer areas find their rent ever increasing for substandard accomodation and their services stretched to cope with ever more people?
Getting disadvantaged people to blame it on foreigners is a textbook technique of the far right. I'd rather it stayed in the textbooks.
You are rich and probably live in an area which doesn't house a lot of new immigrants. People like me that lived most of our lives in poor area's which do house a lot of poor immigrants however see the effect on our lives. I don't see it as immigrants to blame for it, I see it as people like you to blame for it. You want to feel good about your bleeding heart credentials and let everyone in but you don't have to live with it.
Two examples, when I first moved to slough in 87 you could get an appointment with a doctor in the next 3 days, when I left slough last year the time to the appointment was now 3 weeks. Other one is I have friends who started families and signed up on the council housing list...by the time there children became adults they were further down the list than when they first signed up.
I don't blame immigrants because I can understand why they come. I do blame people like you for not worrying about the poor people in your own country and making sure they aren't disadvantaged by it
I'm a middle class do gooder and there are plenty of immigrants in our neighbourhood. I'm more than happy for there to be more of them too. Blame the government for the deterioration in public services, it's their job to run them properly, they've run them into the ground as a deliberate act of policy. And plenty of our public services rely on immigrants to function.
There are plenty of immigrants in middle clasa neighbourhoods. Particularly in and around London. The difference is that those immigrants tend to be educated, speak good English, generally integrated into the local community and crime among such groups is extremely low. In lower income neighbourhoods, you are much more likely to get immigrants that form separate communities, are difficult to communicate to, and the next generation of youth often have resentment of the country their parents came to.
The government should really create an integration index by local authority, showing rates of intermarriage, English ability and crime levels by migrants. Then hold local authorities responsible for addressing them.
I'm doing my bit for the intermarriage index. Perhaps I should get a tax break or something.
Sunak calls Starmer another 'leftie lawyer' who voted against deportations of illegal immigrants at PMQs
Two cheeks, same arse.
Oh and Sunak has repeated Braverman's billions of asylum seeker lies.
He has just said at the dispatch box that 100 million is the UN estimate
It's nonsense. Check out Susannah this morning. This number includes the displaced people from the Turkish earthquake. It is displaced people throughout the world and not the number of people displaced who plan to arrive at Dover in a boat. You have been taken in. In fairness Sunak was careful not to add Braverman's later statement about them all wanting to come to the UK
Sunak and Braverman don’t believe a word of it either. They’re just electioneering. It’s almost all the Tory government do: government for them is one long referendum campaign.
That’s why last week’s deal on NI felt such an outlier. Seems a long time ago doesn’t it? Since then we’ve had Boristas working up into a lather about partygate again, and Suella channelling Farage.
Sunak appears to me to be rather uncomfortable. Cruella on the other hand is lapping up the attention.
The obvious sexism in the nickname really reveals who you are.
Eh? It just rhymes is all. Nicknames are pretty dumb, but sexist?
Ah, yes, New Hampshire - that most representative state of the GOP primaries...
It isn't representative. It's more favourable to the moderates than places like Iowa and South Carolina.
DeSantis is still ahead in some state head to head polls, but he's faded a lot since the aftermath of the midterms, when many national head to head polls had him ahead of Trump. Not sure if he's missed his moment, or whether things might swing back in his favour. Think there was definitely a chance for DeSantis to say last November 'Trump was a greatest president we've ever had, but now it's time for him to go, he's losing us votes, and the country wants to move on'
Lost his nerve and figures he'll get another shot.
The choices for the UK government regarding the Dinghy People (barring some huge change in global geopolitical trends) can be boiled down to these three:
1. Violently push back the boats. Accept that many will drown. This will be morally unacceptable to 98% of the country
2. Immediately detain and deport all those who arrive. Disallow their rights. Off they go to Rwanda or whoever we can bribe - this will be palatable to much of the country but will be loathed by many liberals (and others). Also legally difficult
3. Basically accept there’s nothing we can do. Make some futile gestures like “helping French police”. Prohibit the use of the word “dinghy”. Accept that 100,000s will cross and this number will likely grow and grow. This will enrage much of the country and possibly lead to Britain’s first serious far right party
That’s it. That’s the choice. Not good
Even on that dodgy framing (3) is superior. Certainly better than the Cons trying to head off a far right party by becoming one.
But although I usually like defeatism - it's quite underrated as a mindset imo - it's overly defeatist to assume nothing effective can be done about this issue that doesn't involve the dehumanization of vulnerable people. I'm pretty suspicious of those who say this so readily. It can be hard to distinguish a muscular, clear-sighted rejection of liberal waffle from a genuine enthusiasm for far right 'solutions' to protect 'us' from 'them' - since in polite society the second tends to dress up as the first.
If you want to go with 3 at some point you will have vigilante groups patrolling beaches and meting out "justice" just like they have on the american border. If that is what you want then by all means go for 3
You can't have government policy dictated by the worst elements in society.
Ah you mean by worst the poor who find their share of the pie ever more diminished when they have to share it with ever more people? Does it ever seem strange to you that most of the bleeding hearts crying let them all in come from area's that aren't particulary impacted by ever more people whereas those living in poorer areas find their rent ever increasing for substandard accomodation and their services stretched to cope with ever more people?
Getting disadvantaged people to blame it on foreigners is a textbook technique of the far right. I'd rather it stayed in the textbooks.
You are rich and probably live in an area which doesn't house a lot of new immigrants. People like me that lived most of our lives in poor area's which do house a lot of poor immigrants however see the effect on our lives. I don't see it as immigrants to blame for it, I see it as people like you to blame for it. You want to feel good about your bleeding heart credentials and let everyone in but you don't have to live with it.
Two examples, when I first moved to slough in 87 you could get an appointment with a doctor in the next 3 days, when I left slough last year the time to the appointment was now 3 weeks. Other one is I have friends who started families and signed up on the council housing list...by the time there children became adults they were further down the list than when they first signed up.
I don't blame immigrants because I can understand why they come. I do blame people like you for not worrying about the poor people in your own country and making sure they aren't disadvantaged by it
I'm a middle class do gooder and there are plenty of immigrants in our neighbourhood. I'm more than happy for there to be more of them too. Blame the government for the deterioration in public services, it's their job to run them properly, they've run them into the ground as a deliberate act of policy. And plenty of our public services rely on immigrants to function.
There are plenty of immigrants in middle clasa neighbourhoods. Particularly in and around London. The difference is that those immigrants tend to be educated, speak good English, generally integrated into the local community and crime among such groups is extremely low. In lower income neighbourhoods, you are much more likely to get immigrants that form separate communities, are difficult to communicate to, and the next generation of youth often have resentment of the country their parents came to.
The government should really create an integration index by local authority, showing rates of intermarriage, English ability and crime levels by migrants. Then hold local authorities responsible for addressing them.
I'm doing my bit for the intermarriage index. Perhaps I should get a tax break or something.
I support this tax break.
Would be even better if I received a tax break for every girlfriend.
My sense is the headline yesterday is for party and voter management whilst Rishi is really working on solving this by dealing with Macron bilaterally and accelerating the asylum process in the UK.
If Labour think these plans are so appalling and the numbers so misleading, it is incumbent on them to release THEIR plan to stop the boats. And also the estimate of how many would come under their plan.
In spite of what SKS says in practise labour favour very liberal borders. Not quite open borders but not far off.
Mind you so did new labour and Cameron's Tories but they put nothing in place to support the additional people due to their dishonesty over the matter and not wanting to rock the property boat I'd guess
The choices for the UK government regarding the Dinghy People (barring some huge change in global geopolitical trends) can be boiled down to these three:
1. Violently push back the boats. Accept that many will drown. This will be morally unacceptable to 98% of the country
2. Immediately detain and deport all those who arrive. Disallow their rights. Off they go to Rwanda or whoever we can bribe - this will be palatable to much of the country but will be loathed by many liberals (and others). Also legally difficult
3. Basically accept there’s nothing we can do. Make some futile gestures like “helping French police”. Prohibit the use of the word “dinghy”. Accept that 100,000s will cross and this number will likely grow and grow. This will enrage much of the country and possibly lead to Britain’s first serious far right party
That’s it. That’s the choice. Not good
Even on that dodgy framing (3) is superior. Certainly better than the Cons trying to head off a far right party by becoming one.
But although I usually like defeatism - it's quite underrated as a mindset imo - it's overly defeatist to assume nothing effective can be done about this issue that doesn't involve the dehumanization of vulnerable people. I'm pretty suspicious of those who say this so readily. It can be hard to distinguish a muscular, clear-sighted rejection of liberal waffle from a genuine enthusiasm for far right 'solutions' to protect 'us' from 'them' - since in polite society the second tends to dress up as the first.
If you want to go with 3 at some point you will have vigilante groups patrolling beaches and meting out "justice" just like they have on the american border. If that is what you want then by all means go for 3
You can't have government policy dictated by the worst elements in society.
Ah you mean by worst the poor who find their share of the pie ever more diminished when they have to share it with ever more people? Does it ever seem strange to you that most of the bleeding hearts crying let them all in come from area's that aren't particulary impacted by ever more people whereas those living in poorer areas find their rent ever increasing for substandard accomodation and their services stretched to cope with ever more people?
Getting disadvantaged people to blame it on foreigners is a textbook technique of the far right. I'd rather it stayed in the textbooks.
You are rich and probably live in an area which doesn't house a lot of new immigrants. People like me that lived most of our lives in poor area's which do house a lot of poor immigrants however see the effect on our lives. I don't see it as immigrants to blame for it, I see it as people like you to blame for it. You want to feel good about your bleeding heart credentials and let everyone in but you don't have to live with it.
Two examples, when I first moved to slough in 87 you could get an appointment with a doctor in the next 3 days, when I left slough last year the time to the appointment was now 3 weeks. Other one is I have friends who started families and signed up on the council housing list...by the time there children became adults they were further down the list than when they first signed up.
I don't blame immigrants because I can understand why they come. I do blame people like you for not worrying about the poor people in your own country and making sure they aren't disadvantaged by it
I'm a middle class do gooder and there are plenty of immigrants in our neighbourhood. I'm more than happy for there to be more of them too. Blame the government for the deterioration in public services, it's their job to run them properly, they've run them into the ground as a deliberate act of policy. And plenty of our public services rely on immigrants to function.
There are plenty of immigrants in middle clasa neighbourhoods. Particularly in and around London. The difference is that those immigrants tend to be educated, speak good English, generally integrated into the local community and crime among such groups is extremely low. In lower income neighbourhoods, you are much more likely to get immigrants that form separate communities, are difficult to communicate to, and the next generation of youth often have resentment of the country their parents came to.
The government should really create an integration index by local authority, showing rates of intermarriage, English ability and crime levels by migrants. Then hold local authorities responsible for addressing them.
I'm doing my bit for the intermarriage index. Perhaps I should get a tax break or something.
I support this tax break.
Would be even better if I received a tax break for every girlfriend.
I think "stop the boats" is a win for Conservative moderates
Surely the majority of recent Tory Home Secretaries would have preferred the much more popular
Sink the Boats
It says something when Grant Schapps is probably the pick of recent Home Secretaries
Was just checking and the only one I rate since the last Labour government was Amber Rudd. Those under Major, Blair and Brown were at least mostly competent and appeared to have interests other than stirring up hatred.
Isn't that just a political preference? Can you name any strides against crime and for justice made by Rudd, Straw etc., or were they just your preferred flavour of incompetent?
Of course, in the broadest sense. Although I'm able to pick out several competent Home Secs under both Labour and Conservative governments, but am not a fan of May under the coalition (which I did not believe to be a particularly bad government overall). So it's not party-political, I think. I can think of little positive done by my preferred Home Secs - they're better only for not having so many obvious negatives!
Thinking further, part of it likely comes down to the splitting out of Justice, which changes the Home Sec role a bit. I've less issue with the recent Justice Secretaries - even Raab - although justice is undeniably a mess (more a lack of funding than particular policies, I think).
As someone else noted, Blunkett was not averse to a bit of tubthumping rhetoric, either.
This thread started with a question about the Lib Dems!! They made over 700 gains in 2019, defending that lot I will be astonished if they even manage to break even this year.
A police officer pushed his partner out of a moving car, repeatedly beat her around the head and face and called her “a stupid c***”, a hearing was told.
The officer punched her in the stomach, tried to throw her into a bath of bleach, pulled her across the floor by her hair and even threw semen at her in the shower. The officer faced allegations that he was violent, abusive and used coercive and controlling behaviour against ex-partners who were also police officers.
However the officer, who has since resigned from Sussex police, has been granted anonymity, in part to “protect his welfare”.
Here’s a good example of the challenge facing the Liberal Democrats: a massive 36% of respondents in this survey (and this survey is fairly typical) do not feel that they know enough about the SLD leader to be able to give an opinion. Most of them have probably never even heard of him.
Tbf that'll be partly down to Cole-Hamilton being a shy, retiring publicity-shunning type..
He’s a wee gobshite. But thankfully an invisible wee gobshite.
Quite surprised at that dissatisfied figure for SKS, doesn't suggest a massive resurgence of affection for the party of which SLab is a sub branch.
Good morning
It would be more relevant if this poll was conducted now following the SNP pushing their self destruct button in public
Huh?
SNP 46% Lab 30% Con 10% LD 9% Grn 2% Ref 2%
(Deltapoll; 1,063; 2-6 March)
Sub samples are not polls
I believe a Scottish poll is due soon which may well reflect yesterday's public self destruction by the SNP
SNP Armageddon No.45,121
Yawn.
It must be very hard for you to witness the SNP in self destruct mode as well as Sweden being the worst performing economy in the EU
If Labour think these plans are so appalling and the numbers so misleading, it is incumbent on them to release THEIR plan to stop the boats. And also the estimate of how many would come under their plan.
In spite of what SKS says in practise labour favour very liberal borders. Not quite open borders but not far off.
Mind you so did new labour and Cameron's Tories but they put nothing in place to support the additional people due to their dishonesty over the matter and not wanting to rock the property boat I'd guess
If Labour are throwing their toys out of the pram over this, they can give us an alternative. Not just guff about "safe and humane routes". Give us details and numbers.
The choices for the UK government regarding the Dinghy People (barring some huge change in global geopolitical trends) can be boiled down to these three:
1. Violently push back the boats. Accept that many will drown. This will be morally unacceptable to 98% of the country
2. Immediately detain and deport all those who arrive. Disallow their rights. Off they go to Rwanda or whoever we can bribe - this will be palatable to much of the country but will be loathed by many liberals (and others). Also legally difficult
3. Basically accept there’s nothing we can do. Make some futile gestures like “helping French police”. Prohibit the use of the word “dinghy”. Accept that 100,000s will cross and this number will likely grow and grow. This will enrage much of the country and possibly lead to Britain’s first serious far right party
That’s it. That’s the choice. Not good
Even on that dodgy framing (3) is superior. Certainly better than the Cons trying to head off a far right party by becoming one.
But although I usually like defeatism - it's quite underrated as a mindset imo - it's overly defeatist to assume nothing effective can be done about this issue that doesn't involve the dehumanization of vulnerable people. I'm pretty suspicious of those who say this so readily. It can be hard to distinguish a muscular, clear-sighted rejection of liberal waffle from a genuine enthusiasm for far right 'solutions' to protect 'us' from 'them' - since in polite society the second tends to dress up as the first.
If you want to go with 3 at some point you will have vigilante groups patrolling beaches and meting out "justice" just like they have on the american border. If that is what you want then by all means go for 3
You can't have government policy dictated by the worst elements in society.
Ah you mean by worst the poor who find their share of the pie ever more diminished when they have to share it with ever more people? Does it ever seem strange to you that most of the bleeding hearts crying let them all in come from area's that aren't particulary impacted by ever more people whereas those living in poorer areas find their rent ever increasing for substandard accomodation and their services stretched to cope with ever more people?
Getting disadvantaged people to blame it on foreigners is a textbook technique of the far right. I'd rather it stayed in the textbooks.
You are rich and probably live in an area which doesn't house a lot of new immigrants. People like me that lived most of our lives in poor area's which do house a lot of poor immigrants however see the effect on our lives. I don't see it as immigrants to blame for it, I see it as people like you to blame for it. You want to feel good about your bleeding heart credentials and let everyone in but you don't have to live with it.
Two examples, when I first moved to slough in 87 you could get an appointment with a doctor in the next 3 days, when I left slough last year the time to the appointment was now 3 weeks. Other one is I have friends who started families and signed up on the council housing list...by the time there children became adults they were further down the list than when they first signed up.
I don't blame immigrants because I can understand why they come. I do blame people like you for not worrying about the poor people in your own country and making sure they aren't disadvantaged by it
I'm a middle class do gooder and there are plenty of immigrants in our neighbourhood. I'm more than happy for there to be more of them too. Blame the government for the deterioration in public services, it's their job to run them properly, they've run them into the ground as a deliberate act of policy. And plenty of our public services rely on immigrants to function.
If you are a middle class do-gooder, that by itself means you are unlikely to be facing the issues Pagan is talking about - you can outbid the immigrants (and there is a question what immigrants you are talking here) for rent / property, are probably in reasonably good help so don't need to see the doctor so much and, when it comes to schooling, probably ensure your offspring are within the catchment area of a school where a disproportionate percentage of the pupils also come from middle class backgrounds
ie you have no clue what is the impact on lower income families and, by the sound of it, you couldn't care less - unfortunately, the default position for much of the middle class left.
Not really. This is from the latest Ofsted report on my kids' secondary school: "The proportion of pupils from minority ethnic groups and the proportion of pupils who speak English as an additional language are much higher than those found nationally." Generally speaking, schools with a lot of kids from an immigrant background get better results than those with kids from a WWC background, that's the main reason London schools out perform. I'm very happy that my kids attend a diverse school, not least as they are themselves not white and I know they will be spared most of the racist crap my wife had to put up with attending overwhelmingly white schools in the 80s/90s.
Ah, yes, New Hampshire - that most representative state of the GOP primaries...
It isn't representative. It's more favourable to the moderates than places like Iowa and South Carolina.
New Hampshire used to be rock solid Republican, it voted GOP at every Presidential election from 1948 to 1992 except 1964 and elected Republicans to Congress.
Now it is solid Democrat in terms of its Congressional representation and hasn't voted for the GOP candidate for President since Bush in 2000
And places that are most dominated by the other side have the most reasonable primary voters. They have enough co-workers and neighbours who vote the other way to know which candidates are most viable. Hence the South Carolina Dems.
The fact that New Hampshire is clearly going Trump shows he will be the nominee, unless dead or legally banned.
It doesn't necessarily, Sanders won the New Hampshire primary for the Democrats in 2020.
Buchanan won the New Hampshire GOP primary in 1996, McCain won it in 2000. None won the nomination
Sunak calls Starmer another 'leftie lawyer' who voted against deportations of illegal immigrants at PMQs
Two cheeks, same arse.
Oh and Sunak has repeated Braverman's billions of asylum seeker lies.
He has just said at the dispatch box that 100 million is the UN estimate
It's nonsense. Check out Susannah this morning. This number includes the displaced people from the Turkish earthquake. It is displaced people throughout the world and not the number of people displaced who plan to arrive at Dover in a boat. You have been taken in. In fairness Sunak was careful not to add Braverman's later statement about them all wanting to come to the UK
Sunak and Braverman don’t believe a word of it either. They’re just electioneering. It’s almost all the Tory government do: government for them is one long referendum campaign.
That’s why last week’s deal on NI felt such an outlier. Seems a long time ago doesn’t it? Since then we’ve had Boristas working up into a lather about partygate again, and Suella channelling Farage.
Sunak appears to me to be rather uncomfortable. Cruella on the other hand is lapping up the attention.
The obvious sexism in the nickname really reveals who you are.
Eh? It just rhymes is all. Nicknames are pretty dumb, but sexist?
The fan boys are such snowflakes nowadays. Very ironic as a decade ago they were the ones complaining about snowflakes.
Sorry off topic but just to respond to @hyufd after I left the thread last night:
You say Grammar schools give parents more choice. They don't. If your child fails the 11 plus they get less choice.
On the 'leftie' nonsense you haven't responded to the fact that I am not a 'leftie' and that successive Conservative governments have done nothing to remove comprehensives and that Tory controlled councils like Surrey implemented and supported them. When I identified David Johnston as a Tory MP who writes against Grammars you call him a leftie. I mean one of your own MPs. You also referred to him as a Heathite. Was Heath's government leftie then? What about Thatcher's government who didn't undo comprehensives? Or Surrey Country Council? All lefties?
Are everyone lefties other than yourself? This is very confusing if most Tories are lefties, especially as many of your own views are indistinguishable from far left authoritarianism.
If you are a working class parent though the evidence Bristol University foundation however was that your child would get better GCSE results than at the local comprehensive.
Heath's government did nothing to stop local authorities turning grammars into comprehensives which had begun when Wilson's government pushed to end selective education(the trend only slowed when Thatcher was PM and slightly reversed with more pupils attending grammars when Major was PM). Hence most of the few remaining areas with grammars are in Tory controlled councils.
You can't even ballot to open new grammars now, only ballot to close them. True parental choice would at least allow that
Not sure whose post you are referring to, but you haven't addressed the points I made, but that is normal for you as you never do.
Are all these Tories I refer to lefties eg Heath's govt, Surrey County Council? Did you really mean to call your own current MPs lefties who support Comprehensive schools? They were your actual words re David Johnson. You have declared every Tory on this site as not being a real Tory at some time or other. You are now doing the same to previous and current govts and Tory controlled councils. Who is left?
Oh I absolutely have.
Tories who want to abolish grammars like David Johnson are a tiny minority of the party and no more really than members of your party, the LDs, who backed Brexit. They are irrelevant, indeed Sunak and Truss both backed grammars in the leadership campaign last year.
I notice you also refuse to allow parents to ballot to open new grammars, just to close them. Not much liberalism and parental choice there from you then!
Re your last paragraph I did no such thing. I have never commented on this point. You are putting words into my mouth. But on that same line how is there more parental choice for parents of children who fail the 11 plus. They have less choice. You are taking choice away from the majority of parents with the Grammars system as you have removed schools from them. You didn't deal with that point.
So lets get this clear then:
All Tory MPs who back Comprehensives are not true Tories. Have you let them know?
Surrey County Council and all Tory County Councils who implemented Comprehensives are not true Tories either
Heath's Government from what you say definitely wasn't Tory then.
Thatcher's govt who did nothing to reverse Comprehensives in her long time as PM couldn't have been Tory either then as she had plenty of time to do something about it
Nobody who posts to this site is a Tory. I note you excommunicated @MarqueeMark and @Sean_F recently.
You say Sunak and Truss back Grammars. How? They are just words. They (well we won't know re Truss) will do zippo to support Grammars. They say this just to keep the loons like you onside.
You can keep posting the link to the Bristol report, but it is has been conclusively accepted by all except a few Tory nutters and UKIP who live in the 1950s that Grammars are bad for the educating the nations children.
Your views on Royalty, Grammars, Church, the nation, etc put you with the group of 90 year old Tory Colonels. You have become an old man 50 years before your time.
30% of voters want more grammars (ie higher than the Conservative voteshare in most current polls except Deltapoll). A further 20% of voters want to retain existing grammars but not build anymore.
Only 26% of voters like you want to stop existing grammars selecting by ability and turn them into comprehensives
Not answering any of the points again, but quoting a 5 year old poll, which confirms that 46% were against new grammar schools and only 30% in favour and that is the best you can do.
So it confirms 30% want more grammar schools which is more than the 26% who like you want to abolish the existing grammar schools
You do know how to misrepresent stuff spectacularly don't you:
a) Read the poll 46% don't want anymore Grammar Schools only 30% do. Excluding the don't knows that is 61% who don't want more Grammar Schools. Do you really think those who want to ban more but don't want to close existing ones are in favour of Grammar schools? If you do you are being exceedingly thick. Why do you think they don't want anymore? How can someone who is in favour of Grammar schools answer a question by then saying they don't want anymore. They can't. Your interpretation is ludicrous. I mean how do you not understand this?
b) The poll is 5 years old for goodness sake. I guess I should be glad it is in this century. Could you not find one that suits your bias that is more recent.
c) The wording of the poll is very poor because each question is ambiguous before it gets to the grammar school bit eg 'encourage more schools to select by academic ability'. It only then makes it clear that it is talking about Grammar schools. I have no issue with schools selecting by academic ability once in the school. I'm very much in favour of setting.
So thanks for that poll. I think you have proved conclusively you are talking bollocks.
a) So 30% want more grammars but only 26% want to close existing grammars. The latter can petition to ballot to close grammars but the former can't petition to open new grammars. How is that fair?
b) Find me another poll that shows a significant difference?
c) Unlike you I don't blame the poll question for a result I dislike
Oh I am more than happy with the result. 61% against grammar schools I think vindicates me.
Re a) are you a complete moron. Do you think the people who don't want more Grammar schools, but don't want to close existing ones are in favour of grammar schools?
Why do you think they don't want more if they are favour of them?
How can you be so stupid?
So 61% are against new Grammar schools. It is as clear as daylight to anyone with half a brain
(I suspect, but we won't know without asking them, that the group that is anti Grammar schools but do not want to close existing ones are just trying to avoid the havoc caused in doing so, but that is my guess)
A police officer pushed his partner out of a moving car, repeatedly beat her around the head and face and called her “a stupid c***”, a hearing was told.
The officer punched her in the stomach, tried to throw her into a bath of bleach, pulled her across the floor by her hair and even threw semen at her in the shower. The officer faced allegations that he was violent, abusive and used coercive and controlling behaviour against ex-partners who were also police officers.
However the officer, who has since resigned from Sussex police, has been granted anonymity, in part to “protect his welfare”.
If Labour think these plans are so appalling and the numbers so misleading, it is incumbent on them to release THEIR plan to stop the boats. And also the estimate of how many would come under their plan.
In spite of what SKS says in practise labour favour very liberal borders. Not quite open borders but not far off.
Mind you so did new labour and Cameron's Tories but they put nothing in place to support the additional people due to their dishonesty over the matter and not wanting to rock the property boat I'd guess
If Labour are throwing their toys out of the pram over this, they can give us an alternative. Not just guff about "safe and humane routes". Give us details and numbers.
100m due to arrive
Sunak can say he stopped 99m at GE2024
SKS will say he would have stopped 99.5m if he had been in power
Sunak will say Labour would have let in 100m
SKS will say no we wouldnt we have a plan/mission/pledge
A police officer pushed his partner out of a moving car, repeatedly beat her around the head and face and called her “a stupid c***”, a hearing was told.
The officer punched her in the stomach, tried to throw her into a bath of bleach, pulled her across the floor by her hair and even threw semen at her in the shower. The officer faced allegations that he was violent, abusive and used coercive and controlling behaviour against ex-partners who were also police officers.
However the officer, who has since resigned from Sussex police, has been granted anonymity, in part to “protect his welfare”.
Sorry off topic but just to respond to @hyufd after I left the thread last night:
You say Grammar schools give parents more choice. They don't. If your child fails the 11 plus they get less choice.
On the 'leftie' nonsense you haven't responded to the fact that I am not a 'leftie' and that successive Conservative governments have done nothing to remove comprehensives and that Tory controlled councils like Surrey implemented and supported them. When I identified David Johnston as a Tory MP who writes against Grammars you call him a leftie. I mean one of your own MPs. You also referred to him as a Heathite. Was Heath's government leftie then? What about Thatcher's government who didn't undo comprehensives? Or Surrey Country Council? All lefties?
Are everyone lefties other than yourself? This is very confusing if most Tories are lefties, especially as many of your own views are indistinguishable from far left authoritarianism.
If you are a working class parent though the evidence Bristol University foundation however was that your child would get better GCSE results than at the local comprehensive.
Heath's government did nothing to stop local authorities turning grammars into comprehensives which had begun when Wilson's government pushed to end selective education(the trend only slowed when Thatcher was PM and slightly reversed with more pupils attending grammars when Major was PM). Hence most of the few remaining areas with grammars are in Tory controlled councils.
You can't even ballot to open new grammars now, only ballot to close them. True parental choice would at least allow that
Not sure whose post you are referring to, but you haven't addressed the points I made, but that is normal for you as you never do.
Are all these Tories I refer to lefties eg Heath's govt, Surrey County Council? Did you really mean to call your own current MPs lefties who support Comprehensive schools? They were your actual words re David Johnson. You have declared every Tory on this site as not being a real Tory at some time or other. You are now doing the same to previous and current govts and Tory controlled councils. Who is left?
Oh I absolutely have.
Tories who want to abolish grammars like David Johnson are a tiny minority of the party and no more really than members of your party, the LDs, who backed Brexit. They are irrelevant, indeed Sunak and Truss both backed grammars in the leadership campaign last year.
I notice you also refuse to allow parents to ballot to open new grammars, just to close them. Not much liberalism and parental choice there from you then!
Re your last paragraph I did no such thing. I have never commented on this point. You are putting words into my mouth. But on that same line how is there more parental choice for parents of children who fail the 11 plus. They have less choice. You are taking choice away from the majority of parents with the Grammars system as you have removed schools from them. You didn't deal with that point.
So lets get this clear then:
All Tory MPs who back Comprehensives are not true Tories. Have you let them know?
Surrey County Council and all Tory County Councils who implemented Comprehensives are not true Tories either
Heath's Government from what you say definitely wasn't Tory then.
Thatcher's govt who did nothing to reverse Comprehensives in her long time as PM couldn't have been Tory either then as she had plenty of time to do something about it
Nobody who posts to this site is a Tory. I note you excommunicated @MarqueeMark and @Sean_F recently.
You say Sunak and Truss back Grammars. How? They are just words. They (well we won't know re Truss) will do zippo to support Grammars. They say this just to keep the loons like you onside.
You can keep posting the link to the Bristol report, but it is has been conclusively accepted by all except a few Tory nutters and UKIP who live in the 1950s that Grammars are bad for the educating the nations children.
Your views on Royalty, Grammars, Church, the nation, etc put you with the group of 90 year old Tory Colonels. You have become an old man 50 years before your time.
30% of voters want more grammars (ie higher than the Conservative voteshare in most current polls except Deltapoll). A further 20% of voters want to retain existing grammars but not build anymore.
Only 26% of voters like you want to stop existing grammars selecting by ability and turn them into comprehensives
Not answering any of the points again, but quoting a 5 year old poll, which confirms that 46% were against new grammar schools and only 30% in favour and that is the best you can do.
So it confirms 30% want more grammar schools which is more than the 26% who like you want to abolish the existing grammar schools
You do know how to misrepresent stuff spectacularly don't you:
a) Read the poll 46% don't want anymore Grammar Schools only 30% do. Excluding the don't knows that is 61% who don't want more Grammar Schools. Do you really think those who want to ban more but don't want to close existing ones are in favour of Grammar schools? If you do you are being exceedingly thick. Why do you think they don't want anymore? How can someone who is in favour of Grammar schools answer a question by then saying they don't want anymore. They can't. Your interpretation is ludicrous. I mean how do you not understand this?
b) The poll is 5 years old for goodness sake. I guess I should be glad it is in this century. Could you not find one that suits your bias that is more recent.
c) The wording of the poll is very poor because each question is ambiguous before it gets to the grammar school bit eg 'encourage more schools to select by academic ability'. It only then makes it clear that it is talking about Grammar schools. I have no issue with schools selecting by academic ability once in the school. I'm very much in favour of setting.
So thanks for that poll. I think you have proved conclusively you are talking bollocks.
a) So 30% want more grammars but only 26% want to close existing grammars. The latter can petition to ballot to close grammars but the former can't petition to open new grammars. How is that fair?
b) Find me another poll that shows a significant difference?
c) Unlike you I don't blame the poll question for a result I dislike
Oh I am more than happy with the result. 61% against grammar schools I think vindicates me.
Re a) are you a complete moron. Do you think the people who don't want more Grammar schools, but don't want to close existing ones are in favour of grammar schools?
Why do you think they don't want more if they are favour of them?
How can you be so stupid?
So 61% are against new Grammar schools. It is as clear as daylight to anyone with half a brain
(I suspect, but we won't know without asking them, that the group that is anti Grammar schools but do not want to close existing ones are just trying to avoid the havoc caused in doing so, but that is my guess)
No. I am not a complete moron, I am just not a hypocrite like you who professes to be a liberal while denying parents the opportunity to petition to ballot to open new grammar schools while allowing parents to petition to ballot to close existing grammars as you prefer the latter position.
The one time there was a successful petition to hold a ballot to close an existing grammar in Ripon, most local parents voted to keep it
Sunak calls Starmer another 'leftie lawyer' who voted against deportations of illegal immigrants at PMQs
Two cheeks, same arse.
Oh and Sunak has repeated Braverman's billions of asylum seeker lies.
He has just said at the dispatch box that 100 million is the UN estimate
It's nonsense. Check out Susannah this morning. This number includes the displaced people from the Turkish earthquake. It is displaced people throughout the world and not the number of people displaced who plan to arrive at Dover in a boat. You have been taken in. In fairness Sunak was careful not to add Braverman's later statement about them all wanting to come to the UK
Sunak and Braverman don’t believe a word of it either. They’re just electioneering. It’s almost all the Tory government do: government for them is one long referendum campaign.
That’s why last week’s deal on NI felt such an outlier. Seems a long time ago doesn’t it? Since then we’ve had Boristas working up into a lather about partygate again, and Suella channelling Farage.
Sunak appears to me to be rather uncomfortable. Cruella on the other hand is lapping up the attention.
The obvious sexism in the nickname really reveals who you are.
Do you think it was sexism when people kept on calling Sir Gavin Williamson the nickname Frank Spencer?
No, because Frank Spencer isn't referring to a highly gendered villain archetype.
It's clearly due to the rhyme. See also Failing Grayling, Humza Useless
ETA: And, of course, the lack of a similar nickname for Patel, who was equally disliked by right thnking people the metropolitan liberal elite. The play there, as far as I can recall, being people saying her policies were far from pretty. (Funny thing, hindsight - I'm almost a bit nostalgic for Patel, now)
If Labour think these plans are so appalling and the numbers so misleading, it is incumbent on them to release THEIR plan to stop the boats. And also the estimate of how many would come under their plan.
In spite of what SKS says in practise labour favour very liberal borders. Not quite open borders but not far off.
Mind you so did new labour and Cameron's Tories but they put nothing in place to support the additional people due to their dishonesty over the matter and not wanting to rock the property boat I'd guess
If Labour are throwing their toys out of the pram over this, they can give us an alternative. Not just guff about "safe and humane routes". Give us details and numbers.
100m due to arrive
Sunak can say he stopped 99m at GE2024
SKS will say he would have stopped 99.5m if he had been in power
Sunak will say Labour would have let in 100m
SKS will say no we wouldnt we have a plan/mission/pledge
And on and on and on
BULLLSSSHHHHIIIITTTT
What is bullshit is you claiming anyone has said 100m will arrive.
If Labour think these plans are so appalling and the numbers so misleading, it is incumbent on them to release THEIR plan to stop the boats. And also the estimate of how many would come under their plan.
In spite of what SKS says in practise labour favour very liberal borders. Not quite open borders but not far off.
Mind you so did new labour and Cameron's Tories but they put nothing in place to support the additional people due to their dishonesty over the matter and not wanting to rock the property boat I'd guess
If Labour are throwing their toys out of the pram over this, they can give us an alternative. Not just guff about "safe and humane routes". Give us details and numbers.
100m due to arrive
Sunak can say he stopped 99m at GE2024
SKS will say he would have stopped 99.5m if he had been in power
Sunak will say Labour would have let in 100m
SKS will say no we wouldnt we have a plan/mission/pledge
And on and on and on
BULLLSSSHHHHIIIITTTT
Public will say you let 1m in and you were happy to let 0.5m in
🔵 Tories sent out mass email from Home Secretary yesterday blaming civil servants for small boats 🔵 The fundraising message included Suella Braverman’s signature 🔵 Following a backlash, No10 now says she didn’t write or approve email
Let’s be honest, the small boats issue is a complicated and nuanced issue and most of our politicians and news media don’t deal in complexity and nuance.
The solution is an integrated approach - more money to deal with the asylum backlog, a more accessible and responsive asylum process, closer co-operation with Europe (ho-hum) and yes disincentivising the concept of trying to enter the country illegally.
Unfortunately because we are so polarised and because of the lack of complexity and nuance speaking about any one of these things in depth immediately marks you out as either a lefty loony liberal or a raving nazi. I don’t have much faith in Starmer to reset this situation but I have more than the chancers in government.
🔵 Tories sent out mass email from Home Secretary yesterday blaming civil servants for small boats 🔵 The fundraising message included Suella Braverman’s signature 🔵 Following a backlash, No10 now says she didn’t write or approve email
If Labour think these plans are so appalling and the numbers so misleading, it is incumbent on them to release THEIR plan to stop the boats. And also the estimate of how many would come under their plan.
In spite of what SKS says in practise labour favour very liberal borders. Not quite open borders but not far off.
Mind you so did new labour and Cameron's Tories but they put nothing in place to support the additional people due to their dishonesty over the matter and not wanting to rock the property boat I'd guess
If Labour are throwing their toys out of the pram over this, they can give us an alternative. Not just guff about "safe and humane routes". Give us details and numbers.
100m due to arrive
Sunak can say he stopped 99m at GE2024
SKS will say he would have stopped 99.5m if he had been in power
Sunak will say Labour would have let in 100m
SKS will say no we wouldnt we have a plan/mission/pledge
At the end of 2021 around 89.3 million people were forcibly displaced across the world. Of these, 27.1 million were refugees, whilst 53.2 million were internally displaced within their country of origin.
The UK is home to approx. 1% of the 27.1 million refugees who were forcibly displaced across the world.
----------
We are also about 1% of the worlds population, so the numbers seem about fair. (Less space vs richer broadly balances out imo).
Having said that, the status quo can clearly be improved on. The hand wringing lefty liberals (I dont really know what hand wringing means and not particularly lefty but generally fairly liberal) should not have any fear of saying so or be seen to be on the side of protecting the status quo.
It is expensive, dangerous, good for organised crime, wastes court time, and very bad for refugees, particularly the most vulnerable.
An international quota system, with applications processed close to the conflicts and financial transfers from those countries taking fewer migrants to those taking the most seems a better system, and achievable by negotiation over a decade or two as the complaints made here are not unique to the UK.
If Labour think these plans are so appalling and the numbers so misleading, it is incumbent on them to release THEIR plan to stop the boats. And also the estimate of how many would come under their plan.
In spite of what SKS says in practise labour favour very liberal borders. Not quite open borders but not far off.
Mind you so did new labour and Cameron's Tories but they put nothing in place to support the additional people due to their dishonesty over the matter and not wanting to rock the property boat I'd guess
If Labour are throwing their toys out of the pram over this, they can give us an alternative. Not just guff about "safe and humane routes". Give us details and numbers.
100m due to arrive
Sunak can say he stopped 99m at GE2024
SKS will say he would have stopped 99.5m if he had been in power
Sunak will say Labour would have let in 100m
SKS will say no we wouldnt we have a plan/mission/pledge
And on and on and on
BULLLSSSHHHHIIIITTTT
What is bullshit is you claiming anyone has said 100m will arrive.
Home secretary Suella Braverman was earlier accused of using the “language of extremists” as she claimed the small boats plan was backed by the “law-abiding patriotic majority”.
On ITV she defended her controversial claim to MPs that “there are 100 million people around the world” who could qualify for asylum protection in the UK and “they are coming here”.
Sunak defended that 100m figure in PMQs saying "it was a UNHCR figure"
If Labour think these plans are so appalling and the numbers so misleading, it is incumbent on them to release THEIR plan to stop the boats. And also the estimate of how many would come under their plan.
In spite of what SKS says in practise labour favour very liberal borders. Not quite open borders but not far off.
Mind you so did new labour and Cameron's Tories but they put nothing in place to support the additional people due to their dishonesty over the matter and not wanting to rock the property boat I'd guess
If Labour are throwing their toys out of the pram over this, they can give us an alternative. Not just guff about "safe and humane routes". Give us details and numbers.
100m due to arrive
Sunak can say he stopped 99m at GE2024
SKS will say he would have stopped 99.5m if he had been in power
Sunak will say Labour would have let in 100m
SKS will say no we wouldnt we have a plan/mission/pledge
And on and on and on
BULLLSSSHHHHIIIITTTT
What is bullshit is you claiming anyone has said 100m will arrive.
A police officer pushed his partner out of a moving car, repeatedly beat her around the head and face and called her “a stupid c***”, a hearing was told.
The officer punched her in the stomach, tried to throw her into a bath of bleach, pulled her across the floor by her hair and even threw semen at her in the shower. The officer faced allegations that he was violent, abusive and used coercive and controlling behaviour against ex-partners who were also police officers.
However the officer, who has since resigned from Sussex police, has been granted anonymity, in part to “protect his welfare”.
If Labour think these plans are so appalling and the numbers so misleading, it is incumbent on them to release THEIR plan to stop the boats. And also the estimate of how many would come under their plan.
In spite of what SKS says in practise labour favour very liberal borders. Not quite open borders but not far off.
Mind you so did new labour and Cameron's Tories but they put nothing in place to support the additional people due to their dishonesty over the matter and not wanting to rock the property boat I'd guess
If Labour are throwing their toys out of the pram over this, they can give us an alternative. Not just guff about "safe and humane routes". Give us details and numbers.
100m due to arrive
Sunak can say he stopped 99m at GE2024
SKS will say he would have stopped 99.5m if he had been in power
Sunak will say Labour would have let in 100m
SKS will say no we wouldnt we have a plan/mission/pledge
And on and on and on
BULLLSSSHHHHIIIITTTT
What is bullshit is you claiming anyone has said 100m will arrive.
What does "there are 100m ... they are coming here"" mean
🔵 Tories sent out mass email from Home Secretary yesterday blaming civil servants for small boats 🔵 The fundraising message included Suella Braverman’s signature 🔵 Following a backlash, No10 now says she didn’t write or approve email
Sorry off topic but just to respond to @hyufd after I left the thread last night:
You say Grammar schools give parents more choice. They don't. If your child fails the 11 plus they get less choice.
On the 'leftie' nonsense you haven't responded to the fact that I am not a 'leftie' and that successive Conservative governments have done nothing to remove comprehensives and that Tory controlled councils like Surrey implemented and supported them. When I identified David Johnston as a Tory MP who writes against Grammars you call him a leftie. I mean one of your own MPs. You also referred to him as a Heathite. Was Heath's government leftie then? What about Thatcher's government who didn't undo comprehensives? Or Surrey Country Council? All lefties?
Are everyone lefties other than yourself? This is very confusing if most Tories are lefties, especially as many of your own views are indistinguishable from far left authoritarianism.
If you are a working class parent though the evidence Bristol University foundation however was that your child would get better GCSE results than at the local comprehensive.
Heath's government did nothing to stop local authorities turning grammars into comprehensives which had begun when Wilson's government pushed to end selective education(the trend only slowed when Thatcher was PM and slightly reversed with more pupils attending grammars when Major was PM). Hence most of the few remaining areas with grammars are in Tory controlled councils.
You can't even ballot to open new grammars now, only ballot to close them. True parental choice would at least allow that
Not sure whose post you are referring to, but you haven't addressed the points I made, but that is normal for you as you never do.
Are all these Tories I refer to lefties eg Heath's govt, Surrey County Council? Did you really mean to call your own current MPs lefties who support Comprehensive schools? They were your actual words re David Johnson. You have declared every Tory on this site as not being a real Tory at some time or other. You are now doing the same to previous and current govts and Tory controlled councils. Who is left?
Oh I absolutely have.
Tories who want to abolish grammars like David Johnson are a tiny minority of the party and no more really than members of your party, the LDs, who backed Brexit. They are irrelevant, indeed Sunak and Truss both backed grammars in the leadership campaign last year.
I notice you also refuse to allow parents to ballot to open new grammars, just to close them. Not much liberalism and parental choice there from you then!
Re your last paragraph I did no such thing. I have never commented on this point. You are putting words into my mouth. But on that same line how is there more parental choice for parents of children who fail the 11 plus. They have less choice. You are taking choice away from the majority of parents with the Grammars system as you have removed schools from them. You didn't deal with that point.
So lets get this clear then:
All Tory MPs who back Comprehensives are not true Tories. Have you let them know?
Surrey County Council and all Tory County Councils who implemented Comprehensives are not true Tories either
Heath's Government from what you say definitely wasn't Tory then.
Thatcher's govt who did nothing to reverse Comprehensives in her long time as PM couldn't have been Tory either then as she had plenty of time to do something about it
Nobody who posts to this site is a Tory. I note you excommunicated @MarqueeMark and @Sean_F recently.
You say Sunak and Truss back Grammars. How? They are just words. They (well we won't know re Truss) will do zippo to support Grammars. They say this just to keep the loons like you onside.
You can keep posting the link to the Bristol report, but it is has been conclusively accepted by all except a few Tory nutters and UKIP who live in the 1950s that Grammars are bad for the educating the nations children.
Your views on Royalty, Grammars, Church, the nation, etc put you with the group of 90 year old Tory Colonels. You have become an old man 50 years before your time.
30% of voters want more grammars (ie higher than the Conservative voteshare in most current polls except Deltapoll). A further 20% of voters want to retain existing grammars but not build anymore.
Only 26% of voters like you want to stop existing grammars selecting by ability and turn them into comprehensives
Not answering any of the points again, but quoting a 5 year old poll, which confirms that 46% were against new grammar schools and only 30% in favour and that is the best you can do.
So it confirms 30% want more grammar schools which is more than the 26% who like you want to abolish the existing grammar schools
You do know how to misrepresent stuff spectacularly don't you:
a) Read the poll 46% don't want anymore Grammar Schools only 30% do. Excluding the don't knows that is 61% who don't want more Grammar Schools. Do you really think those who want to ban more but don't want to close existing ones are in favour of Grammar schools? If you do you are being exceedingly thick. Why do you think they don't want anymore? How can someone who is in favour of Grammar schools answer a question by then saying they don't want anymore. They can't. Your interpretation is ludicrous. I mean how do you not understand this?
b) The poll is 5 years old for goodness sake. I guess I should be glad it is in this century. Could you not find one that suits your bias that is more recent.
c) The wording of the poll is very poor because each question is ambiguous before it gets to the grammar school bit eg 'encourage more schools to select by academic ability'. It only then makes it clear that it is talking about Grammar schools. I have no issue with schools selecting by academic ability once in the school. I'm very much in favour of setting.
So thanks for that poll. I think you have proved conclusively you are talking bollocks.
a) So 30% want more grammars but only 26% want to close existing grammars. The latter can petition to ballot to close grammars but the former can't petition to open new grammars. How is that fair?
b) Find me another poll that shows a significant difference?
c) Unlike you I don't blame the poll question for a result I dislike
Oh I am more than happy with the result. 61% against grammar schools I think vindicates me.
Re a) are you a complete moron. Do you think the people who don't want more Grammar schools, but don't want to close existing ones are in favour of grammar schools?
Why do you think they don't want more if they are favour of them?
How can you be so stupid?
So 61% are against new Grammar schools. It is as clear as daylight to anyone with half a brain
(I suspect, but we won't know without asking them, that the group that is anti Grammar schools but do not want to close existing ones are just trying to avoid the havoc caused in doing so, but that is my guess)
No. I am not a complete moron, I am just not a hypocrite like you who professes to be a liberal while denying parents the opportunity to petition to ballot to open new grammar schools while allowing parents to petition to ballot to close existing grammars as you prefer the latter position.
The one time there was a successful petition to hold a ballot to close an existing grammar in Ripon, most local parents voted to keep it
My apologies for being rude but you are exasperating.
As I made clear before, and you have ignored that I have never once defended the inequality of the ballot so please don't call me a hypocrite on something I have never said and would never defend.
You have never answered the related question which is introducing Grammars does not give parents more choice as you claim but takes it away from them if, as in the majority, their child fails the 11 plus.
I assume that you now accept that the poll you linked to shows that 61% (excluding don't knows) are not in favour of Grammar Schools.
As the tweet says the current Conservative Party has adopted every policy of the erstwhile National Front except one. The NF were opposed to corruption while the Tories embrace it with enthusiasm. Braverman even echoes the same narrative on Nazis and betrayal.
If Labour think these plans are so appalling and the numbers so misleading, it is incumbent on them to release THEIR plan to stop the boats. And also the estimate of how many would come under their plan.
In spite of what SKS says in practise labour favour very liberal borders. Not quite open borders but not far off.
Mind you so did new labour and Cameron's Tories but they put nothing in place to support the additional people due to their dishonesty over the matter and not wanting to rock the property boat I'd guess
If Labour are throwing their toys out of the pram over this, they can give us an alternative. Not just guff about "safe and humane routes". Give us details and numbers.
100m due to arrive
Sunak can say he stopped 99m at GE2024
SKS will say he would have stopped 99.5m if he had been in power
Sunak will say Labour would have let in 100m
SKS will say no we wouldnt we have a plan/mission/pledge
And on and on and on
BULLLSSSHHHHIIIITTTT
What is bullshit is you claiming anyone has said 100m will arrive.
What does "there are 100m ... they are coming here"" mean
A police officer pushed his partner out of a moving car, repeatedly beat her around the head and face and called her “a stupid c***”, a hearing was told.
The officer punched her in the stomach, tried to throw her into a bath of bleach, pulled her across the floor by her hair and even threw semen at her in the shower. The officer faced allegations that he was violent, abusive and used coercive and controlling behaviour against ex-partners who were also police officers.
However the officer, who has since resigned from Sussex police, has been granted anonymity, in part to “protect his welfare”.
If Labour think these plans are so appalling and the numbers so misleading, it is incumbent on them to release THEIR plan to stop the boats. And also the estimate of how many would come under their plan.
In spite of what SKS says in practise labour favour very liberal borders. Not quite open borders but not far off.
Mind you so did new labour and Cameron's Tories but they put nothing in place to support the additional people due to their dishonesty over the matter and not wanting to rock the property boat I'd guess
If Labour are throwing their toys out of the pram over this, they can give us an alternative. Not just guff about "safe and humane routes". Give us details and numbers.
100m due to arrive
Sunak can say he stopped 99m at GE2024
SKS will say he would have stopped 99.5m if he had been in power
Sunak will say Labour would have let in 100m
SKS will say no we wouldnt we have a plan/mission/pledge
And on and on and on
BULLLSSSHHHHIIIITTTT
It started with Blair saying he expected 10,000 per year from the A8 countries, when they joined the EU.
The result is that no-one now believes anything a politician says about immigration.
Sunak is sunk, if the boats don’t actually stop coming.
As the tweet says the current Conservative Party has adopted every policy of the erstwhile National Front except one. The NF were opposed to corruption while the Tories embrace it with enthusiasm. Braverman even echoes the same narrative on Nazis and betrayal.
Sunak calls Starmer another 'leftie lawyer' who voted against deportations of illegal immigrants at PMQs
Two cheeks, same arse.
Oh and Sunak has repeated Braverman's billions of asylum seeker lies.
He has just said at the dispatch box that 100 million is the UN estimate
And billions isn't a lie either as I think it was the IPCC that forecast about 2 billion displaced due to climate change by 2050
The relevant point about the numbers is that the total number of boat people wanting to come into the country exceeds the total number of boat people - zero - that the majority of the electorate wishes to see come into the country. The rest is noise.
Nor can this be solved solely by international agreements to try to defeat people trafficking, pleading with the French to deploy more police to the Channel coast, or the much-discussed safe and legal routes for migration - however desirable all of these measures, especially the latter, are. Unless the number of people that the electorate wishes to admit through the safe and legal routes is as large as the total number who want to come in - which it won't be - then those refused will simply travel and get in the boats anyway.
The Government's core argument - that the boat people problem will only stop when it is made clear to migrants that their journey is guaranteed to end in failure - is, therefore, correct. We've known that it was correct all along, really. The Australian precedent proves it. The Government's problem in getting to that destination is, of course, that its situation is more complicated. Australia had to deal with small numbers of large boats not large numbers of small ones, and it didn't have to cope with the constant threat of injunctions from Strasbourg, either. The latter is the more pressing problem.
If I had to guess where this was all headed, it will be with the Government failing to stop the boats again - partly through unwillingness to pay for proper enforcement, partly through its new legislation being neutralised by the ECHR - and pressure being placed on the Tory leadership to withdraw from both the ECHR and the UN Refugee Convention. They probably won't put that in the manifesto, but it wouldn't happen anyway because they'll lose the next election. After that Labour will do nothing effective about the issue - both because the next Government will be as powerless as the last, AND it doesn't want to anyway - so it'll just continue to get worse.
It's an ideal campaign theme for an Orban-type populist, set against the backdrop of the broader disintegration of society caused by a surfeit of old people, a deficit of taxpayers, and the rotting away of an economy too rooted in property speculation to do anything productive.
Good post.
The key issues lurking in the background are that a (the vast?) majority of asylum claims are granted; and that the backlog of asylum claims is huge in terms of months waiting.
So despite what the government would like the narrative to be we are actually dealing with legitimate asylum claims and an inefficient processing system.
And as for @Pagan2's legitimate point about middle class Hampstead lefties being to blame, it is not that they are to blame as much as they are and have been naive to think that the government would fail both to stop immigration (eg the accession countries); and to create a health, education, etc service that would accommodate the increase in population.
Although I would like to see stats and the research papers first before I agree that immigrants are to blame for not being able to see a GP as quickly as 10 years ago.
If Labour think these plans are so appalling and the numbers so misleading, it is incumbent on them to release THEIR plan to stop the boats. And also the estimate of how many would come under their plan.
In spite of what SKS says in practise labour favour very liberal borders. Not quite open borders but not far off.
Mind you so did new labour and Cameron's Tories but they put nothing in place to support the additional people due to their dishonesty over the matter and not wanting to rock the property boat I'd guess
If Labour are throwing their toys out of the pram over this, they can give us an alternative. Not just guff about "safe and humane routes". Give us details and numbers.
100m due to arrive
Sunak can say he stopped 99m at GE2024
SKS will say he would have stopped 99.5m if he had been in power
Sunak will say Labour would have let in 100m
SKS will say no we wouldnt we have a plan/mission/pledge
And on and on and on
BULLLSSSHHHHIIIITTTT
What is bullshit is you claiming anyone has said 100m will arrive.
What does "there are 100m ... they are coming here"" mean
This
Given she seems happy taking things completely out of context, can I cricise her shocking grammar with "boats is"?
If Labour think these plans are so appalling and the numbers so misleading, it is incumbent on them to release THEIR plan to stop the boats. And also the estimate of how many would come under their plan.
In spite of what SKS says in practise labour favour very liberal borders. Not quite open borders but not far off.
Mind you so did new labour and Cameron's Tories but they put nothing in place to support the additional people due to their dishonesty over the matter and not wanting to rock the property boat I'd guess
If Labour are throwing their toys out of the pram over this, they can give us an alternative. Not just guff about "safe and humane routes". Give us details and numbers.
100m due to arrive
Sunak can say he stopped 99m at GE2024
SKS will say he would have stopped 99.5m if he had been in power
Sunak will say Labour would have let in 100m
SKS will say no we wouldnt we have a plan/mission/pledge
And on and on and on
BULLLSSSHHHHIIIITTTT
What is bullshit is you claiming anyone has said 100m will arrive.
What does "there are 100m ... they are coming here"" mean
This
Wing?
Also GMB this morning
Wing is wrong and yet in another sense is Right (wing)
A police officer pushed his partner out of a moving car, repeatedly beat her around the head and face and called her “a stupid c***”, a hearing was told.
The officer punched her in the stomach, tried to throw her into a bath of bleach, pulled her across the floor by her hair and even threw semen at her in the shower. The officer faced allegations that he was violent, abusive and used coercive and controlling behaviour against ex-partners who were also police officers.
However the officer, who has since resigned from Sussex police, has been granted anonymity, in part to “protect his welfare”.
Sorry off topic but just to respond to @hyufd after I left the thread last night:
You say Grammar schools give parents more choice. They don't. If your child fails the 11 plus they get less choice.
On the 'leftie' nonsense you haven't responded to the fact that I am not a 'leftie' and that successive Conservative governments have done nothing to remove comprehensives and that Tory controlled councils like Surrey implemented and supported them. When I identified David Johnston as a Tory MP who writes against Grammars you call him a leftie. I mean one of your own MPs. You also referred to him as a Heathite. Was Heath's government leftie then? What about Thatcher's government who didn't undo comprehensives? Or Surrey Country Council? All lefties?
Are everyone lefties other than yourself? This is very confusing if most Tories are lefties, especially as many of your own views are indistinguishable from far left authoritarianism.
If you are a working class parent though the evidence Bristol University foundation however was that your child would get better GCSE results than at the local comprehensive.
Heath's government did nothing to stop local authorities turning grammars into comprehensives which had begun when Wilson's government pushed to end selective education(the trend only slowed when Thatcher was PM and slightly reversed with more pupils attending grammars when Major was PM). Hence most of the few remaining areas with grammars are in Tory controlled councils.
You can't even ballot to open new grammars now, only ballot to close them. True parental choice would at least allow that
Not sure whose post you are referring to, but you haven't addressed the points I made, but that is normal for you as you never do.
Are all these Tories I refer to lefties eg Heath's govt, Surrey County Council? Did you really mean to call your own current MPs lefties who support Comprehensive schools? They were your actual words re David Johnson. You have declared every Tory on this site as not being a real Tory at some time or other. You are now doing the same to previous and current govts and Tory controlled councils. Who is left?
Oh I absolutely have.
Tories who want to abolish grammars like David Johnson are a tiny minority of the party and no more really than members of your party, the LDs, who backed Brexit. They are irrelevant, indeed Sunak and Truss both backed grammars in the leadership campaign last year.
I notice you also refuse to allow parents to ballot to open new grammars, just to close them. Not much liberalism and parental choice there from you then!
Re your last paragraph I did no such thing. I have never commented on this point. You are putting words into my mouth. But on that same line how is there more parental choice for parents of children who fail the 11 plus. They have less choice. You are taking choice away from the majority of parents with the Grammars system as you have removed schools from them. You didn't deal with that point.
So lets get this clear then:
All Tory MPs who back Comprehensives are not true Tories. Have you let them know?
Surrey County Council and all Tory County Councils who implemented Comprehensives are not true Tories either
Heath's Government from what you say definitely wasn't Tory then.
Thatcher's govt who did nothing to reverse Comprehensives in her long time as PM couldn't have been Tory either then as she had plenty of time to do something about it
Nobody who posts to this site is a Tory. I note you excommunicated @MarqueeMark and @Sean_F recently.
You say Sunak and Truss back Grammars. How? They are just words. They (well we won't know re Truss) will do zippo to support Grammars. They say this just to keep the loons like you onside.
You can keep posting the link to the Bristol report, but it is has been conclusively accepted by all except a few Tory nutters and UKIP who live in the 1950s that Grammars are bad for the educating the nations children.
Your views on Royalty, Grammars, Church, the nation, etc put you with the group of 90 year old Tory Colonels. You have become an old man 50 years before your time.
30% of voters want more grammars (ie higher than the Conservative voteshare in most current polls except Deltapoll). A further 20% of voters want to retain existing grammars but not build anymore.
Only 26% of voters like you want to stop existing grammars selecting by ability and turn them into comprehensives
Not answering any of the points again, but quoting a 5 year old poll, which confirms that 46% were against new grammar schools and only 30% in favour and that is the best you can do.
So it confirms 30% want more grammar schools which is more than the 26% who like you want to abolish the existing grammar schools
You do know how to misrepresent stuff spectacularly don't you:
a) Read the poll 46% don't want anymore Grammar Schools only 30% do. Excluding the don't knows that is 61% who don't want more Grammar Schools. Do you really think those who want to ban more but don't want to close existing ones are in favour of Grammar schools? If you do you are being exceedingly thick. Why do you think they don't want anymore? How can someone who is in favour of Grammar schools answer a question by then saying they don't want anymore. They can't. Your interpretation is ludicrous. I mean how do you not understand this?
b) The poll is 5 years old for goodness sake. I guess I should be glad it is in this century. Could you not find one that suits your bias that is more recent.
c) The wording of the poll is very poor because each question is ambiguous before it gets to the grammar school bit eg 'encourage more schools to select by academic ability'. It only then makes it clear that it is talking about Grammar schools. I have no issue with schools selecting by academic ability once in the school. I'm very much in favour of setting.
So thanks for that poll. I think you have proved conclusively you are talking bollocks.
a) So 30% want more grammars but only 26% want to close existing grammars. The latter can petition to ballot to close grammars but the former can't petition to open new grammars. How is that fair?
b) Find me another poll that shows a significant difference?
c) Unlike you I don't blame the poll question for a result I dislike
Oh I am more than happy with the result. 61% against grammar schools I think vindicates me.
Re a) are you a complete moron. Do you think the people who don't want more Grammar schools, but don't want to close existing ones are in favour of grammar schools?
Why do you think they don't want more if they are favour of them?
How can you be so stupid?
So 61% are against new Grammar schools. It is as clear as daylight to anyone with half a brain
(I suspect, but we won't know without asking them, that the group that is anti Grammar schools but do not want to close existing ones are just trying to avoid the havoc caused in doing so, but that is my guess)
No. I am not a complete moron, I am just not a hypocrite like you who professes to be a liberal while denying parents the opportunity to petition to ballot to open new grammar schools while allowing parents to petition to ballot to close existing grammars as you prefer the latter position.
The one time there was a successful petition to hold a ballot to close an existing grammar in Ripon, most local parents voted to keep it
My apologies for being rude but you are exasperating.
As I made clear before, and you have ignored that I have never once defended the inequality of the ballot so please don't call me a hypocrite on something I have never said and would never defend.
You have never answered the related question which is introducing Grammars does not give parents more choice as you claim but takes it away from them if, as in the majority, their child fails the 11 plus.
I assume that you now accept that the poll you linked to shows that 61% (excluding don't knows) are not in favour of Grammar Schools.
So on the basis of your second paragraph let us both agree we would support allowing petitions for ballots to open new grammar schools as well as to close existing grammars as now. Let local parents decide if they want selective state schools or not and leave it at that
As the tweet says the current Conservative Party has adopted every policy of the erstwhile National Front except one. The NF were opposed to corruption while the Tories embrace it with enthusiasm. Braverman even echoes the same narrative on Nazis and betrayal.
A police officer pushed his partner out of a moving car, repeatedly beat her around the head and face and called her “a stupid c***”, a hearing was told.
The officer punched her in the stomach, tried to throw her into a bath of bleach, pulled her across the floor by her hair and even threw semen at her in the shower. The officer faced allegations that he was violent, abusive and used coercive and controlling behaviour against ex-partners who were also police officers.
However the officer, who has since resigned from Sussex police, has been granted anonymity, in part to “protect his welfare”.
A police officer pushed his partner out of a moving car, repeatedly beat her around the head and face and called her “a stupid c***”, a hearing was told.
The officer punched her in the stomach, tried to throw her into a bath of bleach, pulled her across the floor by her hair and even threw semen at her in the shower. The officer faced allegations that he was violent, abusive and used coercive and controlling behaviour against ex-partners who were also police officers.
However the officer, who has since resigned from Sussex police, has been granted anonymity, in part to “protect his welfare”.
As the tweet says the current Conservative Party has adopted every policy of the erstwhile National Front except one. The NF were opposed to corruption while the Tories embrace it with enthusiasm. Braverman even echoes the same narrative on Nazis and betrayal.
Had a chat with a barrister with impeccably right wing credentials and no fan of illegal border crossings.
Says yesterday's legislation is simply the worst piece of drafted legislation he has ever seen.
Like it was focus grouped and then drafted.
He feels sorry for the GLD teams that will have to defend this shit in court.
There's a retroactive clause in the bill that must have been written by Lionel Hutz.
It isn't serious law. Braverman sends a letter to Tory MPs saying she doesn't know if the bill is legal but there is "a greater than 50% chance" it isn't.
Then we get Dishi in front of a Stop The Boats lectern. Speaking in his Jackanory voice. Quite literally telling stories to political toddlers.
They know the plan - laughable to even use that word - doesn't work practically. They know it doesn't work legally. But they also know their remaining voters don't care, they just want action. Though I don't think "blame the courts" works as an excuse any longer.
The third plan in three years and legislation so obviously designed for dividing lines rather than results is too obviously transparent to fool most voters. And making Braverman the face of it just compounds the problem. She is massively unpopular.
I really can’t see it ending well for Sunak. The people he is targeting are those most likely to buy the Farage/Reform betrayal narrative that will inevitably explode into the right-wing press this summer when the boats keep on coming.
Cooper was right yesterday: people want results, not performative gestures that won’t work.
In a serious question:
How *would* anyone stop the boats?
It doesn't seem to me, short of major military operations on the beaches of Northern France, which ain't happening, or arranging odd accidents for all the traffickers - and even that would presumably pause rather than eliminate the problem - that there's much to be done about it.
That doesn't mean we can't still point and laugh at the stupidity of this idea, but are there are any concrete suggestions? If so, let's hear them.
You can manage immigration with process and controls. Which is a 50% solution when this government doesn't bother and is at 0%.
The other 50% is hard because it comes with consequences that no-one is prepared to admit to, and which few people are likely to want.
As the tweet says the current Conservative Party has adopted every policy of the erstwhile National Front except one. The NF were opposed to corruption while the Tories embrace it with enthusiasm. Braverman even echoes the same narrative on Nazis and betrayal.
When has this Conservative government ever pursued repatriation of legal immigrants as the NF advocated?
I haven't noticed this government advocating bringing back capital punishment either
See my last post.
The vast majority of asylum seekers are found to be legitimate and therefore granted asylum. These people are or would be legal immigrants. The government wants to "send them back".
Is anyone offering odds on the third party at the next General Election?
If they were, I would probably want 6- or 7-1 on the libdems to surpass the SNP. There's a decent chance, for sure, but despite the SNP's travails, I'd be very surprised to see them drop below 26-32 seats. Simply, there's a bit nationalist vote in Scotland, and one repository (sorry!) for it at a General Election.
And, while I do see the libdems taking seats at the next election, getting above 18-22 is a tough ask. Once you get beyond target six or seven for the libdems, then the majorities they need to overturn start getting quite sizeable. Now, could they benefit - as in 1997 - from sizeable tactical voting? Sure. But they need an awful lot of it once you get to target seat number 20 (Wells), majority 10,000.
As the tweet says the current Conservative Party has adopted every policy of the erstwhile National Front except one. The NF were opposed to corruption while the Tories embrace it with enthusiasm. Braverman even echoes the same narrative on Nazis and betrayal.
When has this Conservative government ever pursued repatriation of legal immigrants as the NF advocated?
I haven't noticed this government advocating bringing back capital punishment either
It also has not tried rooting out corruption and restoring honest government. No-one should deny that this government has the opposite policy to the NF on that one.
Comments
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1633403809664737282
On small-boats. I've yet to find a Tory MP who thinks it will actually work. Or who believes even Braverman thinks it will work. One senior Tory said "she knows it won't work. Her plan is to eventually resign, and claim No.10/officials undermined her strategy".
@CarolineLucas
Suella Braverman may have broken the Ministerial Code. Again.
Blaming civil servants for blocking her immoral & unworkable small boats plan is a direct attack on their integrity & impartiality. I'm asking PM to investigate - and Home Sec must apologise.
https://twitter.com/CarolineLucas/status/1633448073425743875
McCain won New Hampshire in 2000 too and lost the nomination to George W Bush, it does not always pick the nominee
Also
In August 2015, the independent investors to finance and deliver the scheme were confirmed. Bazalgette Tunnel Limited, a new special-purpose company appointed to take the project forward, received its licence from Ofwat as a new regulated utilities business, separate from Thames Water.[75][76] The special-purpose company is backed by pension funds and other long-term investors represented by Allianz, Amber Infrastructure Group, Dalmore Capital and DIF.[75]
The funding scheme used was later called the Regulated Asset Base (RAB) model, and be used in the nuclear industry.[77] If the cost overruns by more than 30%, the government would have to provide additional equity finance
Bidding war of blaming asylum seekers nobody able to support the benefits of Migration or FOM
How can anyone on the left support either of these two
Interested how people like Roger and Pete feel about the race to the bottom.
SKS literally said "if he wants to stop the boats he should steal our plan to stop the boats"
FFS
a) Read the poll 46% don't want anymore Grammar Schools only 30% do. Excluding the don't knows that is 61% who don't want more Grammar Schools. Do you really think those who want to ban more but don't want to close existing ones are in favour of Grammar schools? If you do you are being exceedingly thick. Why do you think they don't want anymore? How can someone who is in favour of Grammar schools answer a question by then saying they don't want anymore. They can't. Your interpretation is ludicrous. I mean how do you not understand this?
b) The poll is 5 years old for goodness sake. I guess I should be glad it is in this century. Could you not find one that suits your bias that is more recent.
c) The wording of the poll is very poor because each question is ambiguous before it gets to the grammar school bit eg 'encourage more schools to select by academic ability'. It only then makes it clear that it is talking about Grammar schools. I have no issue with schools selecting by academic ability once in the school. I'm very much in favour of setting.
So thanks for that poll. I think you have proved conclusively you are talking bollocks.
Now it is solid Democrat in terms of its Congressional representation and hasn't voted for the GOP candidate for President since Bush in 2000
It's that approach which has caused such frustration amongst those who are not racist but think we need to reduce numbers. Thats not me, I don't care, but a majority do.
b) Find me another poll that shows a significant difference?
c) Unlike you I don't blame the poll question for a result I dislike
Nor can this be solved solely by international agreements to try to defeat people trafficking, pleading with the French to deploy more police to the Channel coast, or the much-discussed safe and legal routes for migration - however desirable all of these measures, especially the latter, are. Unless the number of people that the electorate wishes to admit through the safe and legal routes is as large as the total number who want to come in - which it won't be - then those refused will simply travel and get in the boats anyway.
The Government's core argument - that the boat people problem will only stop when it is made clear to migrants that their journey is guaranteed to end in failure - is, therefore, correct. We've known that it was correct all along, really. The Australian precedent proves it. The Government's problem in getting to that destination is, of course, that its situation is more complicated. Australia had to deal with small numbers of large boats not large numbers of small ones, and it didn't have to cope with the constant threat of injunctions from Strasbourg, either. The latter is the more pressing problem.
If I had to guess where this was all headed, it will be with the Government failing to stop the boats again - partly through unwillingness to pay for proper enforcement, partly through its new legislation being neutralised by the ECHR - and pressure being placed on the Tory leadership to withdraw from both the ECHR and the UN Refugee Convention. They probably won't put that in the manifesto, but it wouldn't happen anyway because they'll lose the next election. After that Labour will do nothing effective about the issue - both because the next Government will be as powerless as the last, AND it doesn't want to anyway - so it'll just continue to get worse.
It's an ideal campaign theme for an Orban-type populist, set against the backdrop of the broader disintegration of society caused by a surfeit of old people, a deficit of taxpayers, and the rotting away of an economy too rooted in property speculation to do anything productive.
The fact that New Hampshire is clearly going Trump shows he will be the nominee, unless dead or legally banned.
Would be even better if I received a tax break for every girlfriend.
He is not stupid.
Mind you so did new labour and Cameron's Tories but they put nothing in place to support the additional people due to their dishonesty over the matter and not wanting to rock the property boat I'd guess
Thinking further, part of it likely comes down to the splitting out of Justice, which changes the Home Sec role a bit. I've less issue with the recent Justice Secretaries - even Raab - although justice is undeniably a mess (more a lack of funding than particular policies, I think).
As someone else noted, Blunkett was not averse to a bit of tubthumping rhetoric, either.
No wait..
They made over 700 gains in 2019, defending that lot I will be astonished if they even manage to break even this year.
Generally speaking, schools with a lot of kids from an immigrant background get better results than those with kids from a WWC background, that's the main reason London schools out perform. I'm very happy that my kids attend a diverse school, not least as they are themselves not white and I know they will be spared most of the racist crap my wife had to put up with attending overwhelmingly white schools in the 80s/90s.
Buchanan won the New Hampshire GOP primary in 1996, McCain won it in 2000. None won the nomination
I take it you are in favour?
How are you going to do it?
Re a) are you a complete moron. Do you think the people who don't want more Grammar schools, but don't want to close existing ones are in favour of grammar schools?
Why do you think they don't want more if they are favour of them?
How can you be so stupid?
So 61% are against new Grammar schools. It is as clear as daylight to anyone with half a brain
(I suspect, but we won't know without asking them, that the group that is anti Grammar schools but do not want to close existing ones are just trying to avoid the havoc caused in doing so, but that is my guess)
Sunak can say he stopped 99m at GE2024
SKS will say he would have stopped 99.5m if he had been in power
Sunak will say Labour would have let in 100m
SKS will say no we wouldnt we have a plan/mission/pledge
And on and on and on
BULLLSSSHHHHIIIITTTT
I quite agree that that was not the worst of the offences described.
Edit: from the description of the offences, if guilty, he needs to spend several years in jail. I’m think 8 years, for some reason.
The one time there was a successful petition to hold a ballot to close an existing grammar in Ripon, most local parents voted to keep it
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/mar/11/grammarschools.secondaryschools
ETA: And, of course, the lack of a similar nickname for Patel, who was equally disliked by right thnking people the metropolitan liberal elite. The play there, as far as I can recall, being people saying her policies were far from pretty.
(Funny thing, hindsight - I'm almost a bit nostalgic for Patel, now)
ITS too many we want zero
Both Parties promise zero
Public say thats too many we want 1m sent home
Parties agree
Public says we want more sent home (100m)
Total joke the 2 main Parties
Albanians are being shipped to this country to work in horrible conditions for criminal gangs.
Find, fine and generally fuck up the employers who are enabling this trade.
🔵 Tories sent out mass email from Home Secretary yesterday blaming civil servants for small boats
🔵 The fundraising message included Suella Braverman’s signature
🔵 Following a backlash, No10 now says she didn’t write or approve email
Taxi for @GregHands
https://twitter.com/johnestevens/status/1633454352584024065
The solution is an integrated approach - more money to deal with the asylum backlog, a more accessible and responsive asylum process, closer co-operation with Europe (ho-hum) and yes disincentivising the concept of trying to enter the country illegally.
Unfortunately because we are so polarised and because of the lack of complexity and nuance speaking about any one of these things in depth immediately marks you out as either a lefty loony liberal or a raving nazi. I don’t have much faith in Starmer to reset this situation but I have more than the chancers in government.
At the end of 2021 around 89.3 million people were forcibly displaced across the world. Of these, 27.1 million were refugees, whilst 53.2 million were internally displaced within their country of origin.
The UK is home to approx. 1% of the 27.1 million refugees who were forcibly displaced across the world.
----------
We are also about 1% of the worlds population, so the numbers seem about fair. (Less space vs richer broadly balances out imo).
Having said that, the status quo can clearly be improved on. The hand wringing lefty liberals (I dont really know what hand wringing means and not particularly lefty but generally fairly liberal) should not have any fear of saying so or be seen to be on the side of protecting the status quo.
It is expensive, dangerous, good for organised crime, wastes court time, and very bad for refugees, particularly the most vulnerable.
An international quota system, with applications processed close to the conflicts and financial transfers from those countries taking fewer migrants to those taking the most seems a better system, and achievable by negotiation over a decade or two as the complaints made here are not unique to the UK.
On ITV she defended her controversial claim to MPs that “there are 100 million people around the world” who could qualify for asylum protection in the UK and “they are coming here”.
Sunak defended that 100m figure in PMQs saying "it was a UNHCR figure"
As I made clear before, and you have ignored that I have never once defended the inequality of the ballot so please don't call me a hypocrite on something I have never said and would never defend.
You have never answered the related question which is introducing Grammars does not give parents more choice as you claim but takes it away from them if, as in the majority, their child fails the 11 plus.
I assume that you now accept that the poll you linked to shows that 61% (excluding don't knows) are not in favour of Grammar Schools.
https://mobile.twitter.com/DemeryUK/status/1633221046408032256
The result is that no-one now believes anything a politician says about immigration.
Sunak is sunk, if the boats don’t actually stop coming.
I haven't noticed this government advocating bringing back capital punishment either
The key issues lurking in the background are that a (the vast?) majority of asylum claims are granted; and that the backlog of asylum claims is huge in terms of months waiting.
So despite what the government would like the narrative to be we are actually dealing with legitimate asylum claims and an inefficient processing system.
And as for @Pagan2's legitimate point about middle class Hampstead lefties being to blame, it is not that they are to blame as much as they are and have been naive to think that the government would fail both to stop immigration (eg the accession countries); and to create a health, education, etc service that would accommodate the increase in population.
Although I would like to see stats and the research papers first before I agree that immigrants are to blame for not being able to see a GP as quickly as 10 years ago.
Also GMB this morning
Wing is wrong and yet in another sense is Right (wing)
Eat some zinc and lots of vegetables.
I mean, sure, there's a meaning. But who uses 'alien' in that sense, other than Sting?
https://twitter.com/keiranpedley/status/1633115620001689601/photo/1
The other 50% is hard because it comes with consequences that no-one is prepared to admit to, and which few people are likely to want.
The vast majority of asylum seekers are found to be legitimate and therefore granted asylum. These people are or would be legal immigrants. The government wants to "send them back".
If they were, I would probably want 6- or 7-1 on the libdems to surpass the SNP. There's a decent chance, for sure, but despite the SNP's travails, I'd be very surprised to see them drop below 26-32 seats. Simply, there's a bit nationalist vote in Scotland, and one repository (sorry!) for it at a General Election.
And, while I do see the libdems taking seats at the next election, getting above 18-22 is a tough ask. Once you get beyond target six or seven for the libdems, then the majorities they need to overturn start getting quite sizeable. Now, could they benefit - as in 1997 - from sizeable tactical voting? Sure. But they need an awful lot of it once you get to target seat number 20 (Wells), majority 10,000.